The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L03-049 - TOWNSEND CHRIS - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTSOUND TRANSIT E MARGINAL WAY S 6z S 115 L03.049 City of Tukwila November 8, 2004 NOTICE OF DECISION Department of Community Development TO: Chris Townsend, Applicant for Sound Transit King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction Parties of Record This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L03 -049 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Applicant: Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail Associated Files: L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit L03 -058 Shoreline Variance L03 -060 Design Review E98 -0031 Environmental Review L03 -059 Special Permission — Parking Determination Comprehensive Plan Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light (MIC /L) and Manufacturing Industrial Designation/Zoning Center/Heavy (MIC/H) District: Type of Permit applied for: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Project Description: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Decision Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Sound Transit has proposed to construct and operate a regional light rail system. In the City of Tukwila, the segment (known as the Tukwila Freeway Route or TFR) will be approximately 4.9 miles long. The project includes several components that are subject to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit because they occur within the shoreline zone. These activities include construction of the light rail guideway bridge, placing of public art on the bridge, relocating a firelane near the bridge column, temporary construction staging, utility relocation, relocating a historic farmhouse, and relocating an osprey nest. Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 SEPA Determination: II. DECISION The Sound Transit SEPA responsible official has previously determined that the project creates a probable significant environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Sound Transit has submitted copies of the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the Tukwila Freeway Route Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Addendum, and the Initial Segment Environmental Assessment (hereafter called "Environmental Documents "). The City's SEPA responsible official has determined that the Environmental Documents are fully adequate and in compliance with SEPA and that, in accordance with WAC 197 -11 -600, they may be used unchanged for the City's decisions on the Unclassified Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, Design Review, and all other permits and approvals required by the City for Sound Transit's Link Light Rail TFR Project, as proposed by Sound Transit. Decision on Substantive Permit: The City Community Development Director has determined that the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit does comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved that application, based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report (and expressly incorporated by reference into this notice). The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS One administrative appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Decision IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at 206 -431- 3685 for further information. Page 2 z I" w 00 N J • = w • 0 co = d. z F .. 1- 0 z tu • W U u) O - o I- • 0 wW U. 1 W Z U = O H z • Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Dire 4 tor, Dep City t f Tukwila Parties of Record Jack Pace for Steve Lancaster) nt of Community Development Keith Neal Gordon Allen Greg & Vanessa Zaputil Eric Schweiger Michael P. Griffin Chris Arkills /Dwight Pe1zKC Council F. Wayne Stollatz Tuong van Tran Scott Luke Pauline Tamblyn SPEEA Mark Maio Stephenie Kramer OCD Office of Archaeology Melvin Easter Johnson Braund Design Group Jennifer Mackay SPEEA John Niles CETA technical director LeAnne Bremer Miller Nash LLP Roger Lorenzen Norma Larson Craig Ward City of SeaTac Jack Lattemann King County METRO Tony Carosino Anna Bernhardt Peter Coates Hal Cooper Mary Loiselle Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Decision Agencies with Jurisdiction Washington State Department of Transportation Seattle City Light Federal Transit Administration, Region 10 Puget Sound Regional Council US Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 3 .S4 iriOUNDTRANSIT 1,250 FEET 2,500 1111 WI Elevated Retained Cut-Fill 0 Station P Park-and-Ride, Deferred Figure 1 Vicinity Map Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila . AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, C' HEREBY DECLARE THAT: V Notice of. Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Name: '- i Ld ( Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice , C),! Li 1 Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Mailer's Signature: Planning Commission Agenda Pkt - -A2 Official Notice Person requesting mai 1 i ng : Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit — ` FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other ' (/ I �( C (�/ v Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this ,`{ day of MU' in the year 200 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:3 I PM 3( Project Name: '- i Ld ( , C),! Li 1 Project Number: L v ? iv `'' t- -Oi" DC 7 LO 3 `3 2-()3 - 0620 - 66) Mailer's Signature: 1(,o . " ?rL - -A2 - Person requesting mai 1 i ng : ).?/./ i 4 17 li b Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this ,`{ day of MU' in the year 200 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:3 I PM 3( 'U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ),FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ;OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY , DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ()DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE « () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWII.A LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST °SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ('PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ( ) POLICE () FINANCE ( ) PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK ,('UGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ()4 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE k CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM . FISHERIES PROGRAM ,(WILDLIFE PROGRAM () SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: WDMINISTRATIV E \FORMS \CHKLIST. DOC CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHOREUNE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. 'Q DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 414‘ • SEND CHKLIST W /DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES MEDIA () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. Q.4 DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY (.., SOUND TRANSIT DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION *•SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. , NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL (K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ()HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 () WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERIWATER DISTRICT ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CLTUKW1LA.WA.US.WWW Parties of Record Keith Neal Gordon Allen Greg & Vanessa Zaputil Eric Schweiger Michael P. Griffin Chris Arkills /Dwight Pelz F. Wayne Stollatz Tuong van Tran Scott Luke Pauline Tamblyn Mark Maio Stephenie Kramer Melvin Easter Jennifer Mackay John Niles LeAnne Bremer Roger Lorenzen Norma Larson Craig Ward Jack Lattemann Mary Loiselle Tony Carosino Hal Cooper Peter Coates Anna Bernhardt SPEEA 03 ,3 }w ism -ek KC Council OCD Office of Archaeology Johnson Braund Design Group SPEEA CETA technical director Miller Nash LLP City of SeaTac METRO Mail Stop KSC -TR -0422 6735 Beach Drive SW 11835 SE 165th Street 15171 52 Avenue S. #5 4712 S. 134 Street 5131 S 151 Street 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200 711 W. Casino Rd 4C5 4820 S 152 Street 10242 62 Av S 15205 52 Av S 5119 S. 151 Street 1063 S. Capitol Way #106 15200 52 Av S Suite 200 15205 52 Av S 4005 20th Ave West, Suite 111 P.O. Box 694 14038 Macadam Rd S 14223 55th Avenue South 4800 S. 188th Street 201 S. Jackson Street 12834 34 Ave S. 11245 E. Marginal Wy S 11715 NE 145th St. 6770 E. Marginal Wy S "G" 14241 59 Av S Seattle, WA Renton, WA Tukwila, WA Tukwila, WA Tukwila, WA Seattle, WA Everett, WA Tukwila, WA Seattle, WA Seattle, WA Tukwila, WA Olympia, WA Seattle, WA Seattle, WA 98136 98058 98188 98168 98188 98104 -3272 98204 98188 98178 -2303 98188 98188 98501 98188 98188 Seattle, WA 98199 Vancouver, W 98666 -0694 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98168 SeaTac, WA 98188 -8605 Seattle, WA 98104 -3856 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA Kirkland, WA Tukwila, WA Tukwila, WA 98168 98134 98108 98188 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Greg & Vanessa Zaputil 15171 52 Avenue S. #5 Tukwila, WA 98188 Chris Arkills/Dwight Pelz KC Council 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 -3272 Scott Luke 10242 62 Av S Seattle, WA 98178 -2303 Stephenie Kramer OCD Office of Archaeology 1063 S. Capitol Way #106 Olympia, WA 98501 John Niles CETA technical director 4005 20th Ave West, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98199 Norma Larson 14223 55th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Mary Loiselle 12834 34 Ave S. ,T'hikwila, WA 98168 Peter Coates 6770 E. Marginal Wy S "G" Tukwila, WA 98108 Keith Neal 6735 Beach Drive SW Seattle, WA 98136 Eric Schweiger 4712 S. 134 Street Tukwila, WA 98168 F. Wayne Stollatz 711 W. Casino Rd 4C5 Everett, WA 98204 Pauline Tamblyn SPEEA 15205 52 Av S Seattle, WA 98188 Melvin Easter Johnson Braund Design Group 15200 52 Av S Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98188 LeAnne Bremer Miller Nash LLP P.O. Box 694 Vancouver, WA 98666 -0694 Craig Ward City of SeaTac 4800 S. 188th Street SeaTac, WA 98188 -8605 Tony Carosino 11245 E. Marginal Wy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Anna Bernhardt 14241 59 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Gordon Allen 11835 SE 165th Street Renton, WA 98058 Michael P. Griffin 5131 S 151 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuong van Tran 4820 S 152 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Mark Maio 5119 S. 151 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Jennifer Mackay SPEEA 15205 52 Av S Seattle, WA 98188 Roger Lorenzen 14038 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Jack Lattemann METRO Mail Stop KSC -TR -0422 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3856 Hal Cooper 11715 NE 145th St. Kirkland, WA 98134 Federal Transit Administration Region 10 Jackson Federal Building 915 2nd Ave., Suite 3142 Seattle, WA 98174 -1002 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT File Number: L03 -049 Applied: 08/08/2003 Approved: 11/08/2004 Expiration: 11/08/2006 A permit is hereby granted to: CHRIS TOWNSEND to: SHORELINE PERMIT FOR LIGHT RAIL RIVER CROSSING AT EAST MARGINAL WAY S. JUST SOUTH OF S. 115TH STREET. Upon the following property: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township /Range: E. MARGINAL WAY S. JUST SOUTH OF S. 115 The following master program provisions are applicable to this development: KING COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PRG Development under this permit shall comply with the following conditions. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other Federal, State or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW). This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the permittee fails to comply with the project as approved and any conditions thereof. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT MAY NOT BEGIN AND IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (D.O.E.) AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173 -14 -090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c). Pursuant to RCW 90.58.180 the decision by the City of Tukwila to issue this Shoreline Substantial Development Permit may only be appealed to the Shoreline Hearing Board. Appeals must be filed with the Shorelines Hearing Board within 21 -days from the filing of this permit with D.O.E. as defined in RCW 90.58.140. For more detail information on appeals, refer to RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. aw e 2001 Date: doc: Shore1971 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 Steve Lancaster, Directo(pf Def artrn nt of Community Development Construction or substantial progress toward construction must begin within two (2) years from the effective date of the permit (the date the permit is filed with D.O.E.), per RCW 90.58.143(4). L03 -049 Printed: 11 -05 -2004 City of Tukwila (ISSUING AGENCY) . THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMITS: Shoreline Permit # L03- 049/L03 -58 APPLICANT: Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PERMIT # 2004 - NW 50082 DATE RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT: November 10,2004 / Complete:November 10, 2004 APPROVED X DENIED THIS CONDITIONAL USE_ / VARIANCE X PERMIT IS APPROVED X/ DENIED_ BY THE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 90.58 RCW and WAC 173 -27 -170. DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No additional conditions DATE t i / / 7 ,2004 Jeannie Sunimerhays, Sectio Supervisor 4FS:' �_. a ;•ro-d:r�r..•.!i.::r.:;.:e:si:._ _ >z.2.:i�: §.L '� s:'Gti�',.:r_,,u'�ilt: :,ni'i+:.t.i,:in�..li,_+ .GMM.`W(+4 YJStiNiix'CIiJL1U Northwest Regional Office • 3190 160th Avenue SE • Bellevue, Washington 98008 -5452 • (425) 649 -7000 November 19, 2004 Chris Townsend Sound Transit Link Light Rail Union Station 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 The Honorable Steven M. Mullet Mayor of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Townsend and Mayor Mullet: RE: City of Tukwila Permit # L03 -049 - Shoreline Substantial Development City of Tukwila Permit # L03 -058 - Shoreline Variance Sound Transit Link Light Rail — Applicant [easements along corridor] Ecology Shoreline Substantial Development / Variance Permit # 2004 -NW- 50082 -1 Received November 10, 2004 Purpose of letter: STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RECEIVED NOV 2 3 2004" DEVELOPMENT I certify that I mailed a copy of this document to the persons and addresses listed thereon, postage prepaid, in a receptacle for nited Sta es mail in Bellevue, Washington on ■ . 1 1 2004. This letter is to notify you that the Department of Ecology has reviewed the City of Tukwila's decision on your application to construct the Tukwila Freeway Route Project (TFR Project), a 4.9 -mile long section of the Central Link Light Rail in the City of Tukwila and the Urban Shoreline designation of the Duwamish River. Eighty -seven percent (87 %) will be elevated and seventy percent (70 %) will be in the Washington Department of Transportation right -of -way. Along this trackway five (5) storm water detention ponds, three (3) traction power substations, street improvements, and a 50 ft. high bridge over the Duwamish River are to be constructed. A Shoreline Variance is necessary because the height limitation is 35 ft. in this Urban Shoreline designation. A train station with a transit center, two park -and -ride lots, and street frontage improvements are included in this proposal. The Department of Ecology must review any Shoreline Variance permit issued by a local government before the project is started. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires the department do such a review in order to determine whether the local variance should be approved, denied, or approved with additional conditions (WAC 127 -17 -200). Chris: Townsend The Honorable Steven M. Mullet November 19, 2004 Page 2 Our decision: We agree with the City of Tukwila that, if you comply with their conditions, your project is consistent with their shoreline master program (SMP) and the criteria in law for granting a variance (WAC 173 -27 -170). The permit, as conditioned, is hereby approved. This approval means that you have met the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (Ch. 90.58 of the Revised Code of Washington). Other federal, state, or local approvals may also be required. What should I do next? You must wait at least twenty —one (21) days from the date of this letter before you start the work authorized by this permit. This waiting period is to allow anyone disagreeing with any aspect of your permit to appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board. If anyone does appeal your permit, you must wait until the appeal is over before you start work. The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. To be sure the Shoreline Hearings Board has not received an appeal, we advise you to call them at (360) 459 -6327 before you begin work. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Sandra Lange at 425- 649 -4260 or slan461@ecy.wa.gov. Sincerely, Jeannie Summerhays Section Supervisor Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Enclosure JS:SL:rc cc: Steve Lancaster, City of Tukwila Minnie Dhaliwal, City of Tukwila DATE 11 -3-04. # PAGES SENT (INCLUDING COVER) . 7 TO Minnie Dahliwal PHONE AGENCY1. COMPANY. City of Tukwila FAX 206.431.3665 FROM Chris Townsend DEPT/ DIV Legal/Environ. PHONE (206) 398 -5135 FAX (206) 398 - 5222 SENT BY..Alison H.W. PHONE . (206) 689 -3384 11/03/2004 11:13 FAX 206 398 5222 SOUND TRANSIT t SOUNDTRANSIT Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Union Station 401 S. Jackson St Seattle, WA 981042826 IF there is a problem with this transmission, please call the sender. MESSAGE Memo. dated 11/2/2004. Placement of Osprey Structure within 200. foot shoreline zone ❑ URGENT ❑ FOR YOUR REVIEW ❑ REPLYAS.A.P. ❑ PLEASE COMMENT ❑ NO REPLY NEEDED. ljooi FAX 11/03/2004 11:13 FAX 206 398 5222 SOUND TRANSIT 117 SOUNDTRANSIT November. 2, 2004 21 002 MEMO 2 :F-z TO: Chris. Townsend, Senior Environmental Planner .cc g FROM:. Katie Lichtenstein, Project Coordinator v 0 SUBJECT: Placement of osprey structure within 200 foot shoreline zone J to z H CO w w In order to. provide clearance for the light rail line, it will be necessary to raise the height of Seattle City 2 Light Transmission lines located adjacent to the corridor. on East Marginal. As a result an existing osprey a nest near. S. 112 and East Marginal Way' will be. removed.. Osprey are. protected under the Migratory. to D Bird Treaty'Act, and upon consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) = w Sound Transit proposed installing replacement platform in the vicinity. of the current nest to avoid z = disturbing the nesting osprey during construction. The most suitable replacement site identified through E-. 0 coordination with WDFW was determined to be Cecil Moses Memorial Park, a King County -owned park w located approximately. 0.25 west of the existing nest site in Tukwila, WA. j o U � Cecil Moses Memorial Park was chosen for the replacement pole. and platform to. suit ecological needs of o the osprey. and because enhancing habitat via the placement of an osprey structure. in the park is w w compatible and complementary to. the park's designated use. I used recommendations from WDFW, v King County. Parks and other resources to write specifications for the dimensions and location of the u- 0 osprey structure (Attachment A). Clear. recommendations from WDFW, United States Geologic. Survey ti.i z (USGS) and other credible sources included placing the platform approximately 60 feet above grade;. o i installing the. pole in or near water where the osprey. hunt for fish, their primary food source; and 0 '— installing a perch above the platform (Attachment B).. Z Activity within the 200. foot shoreline zone. at Cecil Moses Park is required primarily to satisfy the osprey's biological need to live very near. the. Duwamish River, the osprey. is water -dependent, and thus its nesting structure must be conducive to fishing or the osprey. will likely not inhabit the structure and would likely choose another utility tower or power pole, thus increasing the chance of subsequent . disturbance from urban activities such as construction. At the Cecil Moses Memorial Park site, the osprey will not be subject to. major construction projects or other human disturbances. Nor will the osprey. impede use of the. park. King County has issued a Special Use Permit explicitly authorizing the use of the property to install and maintain the structure, thus making the determination that an osprey structure is appropriate use for the property as it expands wildlife habitat in the shoreline. and provides a public educational experience that is not detrimental to the public.. The pole will be sited behind a wooden fence that discourages human disturbance of stream -side habitat features in the park, and avoids conflict with the Green Duwamish trail which is the only. portion of the park that extends outside of the shoreline zone (Attachment C). For all of these reasons, Sound Transit, WDFW, and King County determined the best location to place the osprey structure was inside of the shoreline zone. Upon contemplating the landscape context of the park, it is evident that man -made structures exist in the shoreline zone adjacent to the proposed replacement site such as transmission lines, power poles, and light towers and thus the placement of a 60' pole is not unique. The osprey structure will not affect views 11/03/2004 11:13 FAX 206 398 5222 1111 SOUNDThANSIT KJL: Memo I:31 CT osprey.doc SOUND TRANSIT I2003 MEMO to or from the shoreline zone because it will be placed near existing trees and vegetation, No residences exist at or near Cecil Moses Memorial park and views to or from residential areas will not be affected.. The materials used to construct the replacement pole and platform will be non - contaminating to soils or groundwater within the shoreline zone. and materials chosen are compatible with aesthetic guidelines set forth by King County, Parks. Disturbance to. existing vegetation during installation of the osprey structure will be minimized, and plantings disturbed during installation or maintenance of the osprey structure will be replaced with plantings approved by King County Parks. Overall, the placement of the osprey structure will provide benefit to the urban and natural environment by. providing opportunity for a native bird species to nest in its optimal habitat with minimal human disturbance. :�vl}.iGw:(}a:Niv.`w'lu4'v�viwY • ..SL':. tit'. u' Fiy': l- Mn.:'e.4s'�%�Jt +�vf1 +�A::�:i N�JL "�dfla'IKiF+1:Arib+iu4L':f�L�N 4f'r1Q[:.0 2:t30 „i 11/03/2004 11:14 FAX 206 398 5222 10/07/2004 13:25 IFAX fcccmaint N 'I •:y •' 1" •1rTi' 'i:• • 0004 iuccio.com John a 001/001 i M Eh1T • SOUND TRANSIT • /•"- 1.. 1.: n••.r•..l• a . _ .. t "• • : '-' thi 11 6C b/ T • 'v . Lr• • • .. u.. 1 ..: s 111 .,.. ... s ". ''a`:.:W::.W:j = i.v : — •_'' y • • '1 % Il�ii•1.i% .. 1,1 .1.•. • • 1191.p .LI. r•, tti Ii Il: , s ii:, 11R 11 i:: as = .mow,. ": ' 1: �' :::Ir' —_t_ f - iii ' •�!!•rlf . li��l "L1'•L _�• . ! � '11 r ''!'•11 111 " ln • 1 .1...... I -- • •=1' •' .1^• i ii w ••i^^• . :i 'll •27 !11.1' :•ilii� ' ••II :rr_.n_i t.sl Ili ".:11":::11 ••! .. .:. :I,:• •••:•:• • • • , 1 • :r . • Frank Coluccio Const C757 Work Plan for Osprey Nest at Cecil Moses Park in Tukwila 1,Pole- New approx 80' long untreated doug fir, paint embedment portion with coal tar epoxy. 2, Nest - Construct Platform with clear structural cedar elements, use gals wood screws and/or bolts to assemble. 3. Support braces for platform- steel angle primed/paint brown, fastened to pole and platform with galvanized lag bolts and bolts/nutalwashers 4, Perch- Clear struct cedar horizontal member, post and brace of steel angle, • prima/paint 5. Embedment- 24" diam drilled hole, depth will depend on ground conditions that we discover at time of drilling. If soft ground conditions, will embed pole about 18'. If bard ground/rock will embed pole about 12'. Backfill with lean concrete 2000psi • ' 11/03/2004 11:14 FAX 206 398 5222 SOUND TRANSIT 21 005 Osprey . i -`AG ti MC NT Page 1 of 1 MUMS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States Natural History and Habitat Use Osprey -- Pandion haliaetus RANGE: Breeds from northwestern Alaska and northern Yukon to central Labrador and Newfoundland south locally to Baja California, central Arizona, southern Texas, the Gulf Coast, and southern Florida. Winters from central California, southern Texas, the Gulf Coast and Florida south to South America. STATUS: Locally common to uncommon; population declining due to destruction of habitat, pesticides, human disturbance, and reduction of food resources. HABITAT: Nearly cosmopolitan distribution, occurring on every continent except Antarctica, Occupies a wide range of habitats in association with water, primarily near lakes, rivers, and along coastal waters with adequate supplies of fish. SPECIAL HABITAT REQUIREMENTS: Elevated nest sites near water with rich fish resources. NEST: Nests in loose colonies or singly, and uses a wide variety of structures to support large stick nests, which may be 60 feet or more above ground. Prefers a snag in or near water, with a broken top or side limbs able to support the nest. Prefers tall snags that provide good visibility and security. Also nests on pilings, utility poles, duck blinds, buildings, steel towers for transmission lines, windmills, channel markers, fences, a wide variety of living, partially dead, or dead trees, wooden platforms in marshes, on cliffs, and sometimes on the ground. Nest site may be used by the same pair year after year. FOOD: Feeds almost exclusively on fish; flies 50 to 100 feet above (preferably shallow) water, then hovers and plunges into the water to catch fish. Also eats frogs, snakes, ducks, crows, night - herons, and small mammals. REFERENCES: DeGraff et al. 1980, Heintzelman 1979, Sprunt 1955, Zarn 1974a. Previous Section -- Family Accipitridae Return to Family List Return to Contents Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, http: / /www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ resource /1998 /forest/species/pandhali,htm 11/2/2004 NAErw esLixa0on1.mzd hr f�9U4 1. i�:'�r�.•':i'�i'f. ii., - •. L.. L.' • N : >: - • x41 r Cecil Moses Memorial Park 200' Shoreline Buffer - - Green River Trail — �-- I Tukwila Freeway Route Parcels 1 1 0 300 SouNDTRANsrr Feet SOUND TRANsrr 2001 No gtnIaI ge d arty ImpieQ IndudFiearumcy, comylmenws a Imes rar use. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Tn 0 w 11/03/2004 11:16 FAX 206 398 5222 sr N A 200' Shoreline Buffer SOLOJAIAMOT SOUNOTRINEST 2003 Green-Duwamish River ismi=immim Data Source: ST inItfel Segment Tukwila, WA King County Streets & Parcels No allatarilco of on, IrrEplUd. lneludinp wecuracy. clarnilietentee, a fleroblel fat um. —i—i Link alignment 200 shoreline buffer River Legend ri4tatatiorr, . SOUND TRANSIT 2007 z et W 2 — J 00 (/) W W — I 1— W u j 0 u-< • cl z • o Z I- Ui uj • (;) • u) 0 cu- W u j I i z- L - 0 Z ILI to C.) o 1- z C:. Z W W 0 00 (/) W f WO Q _ L < N = C5 • W Z I- 0 ZI- W • W U D O S. O 1- W W _ HI- -O •• Z W U - P _ O ~ Z r ® e1 r iff 'Mob < • 11- Z ILl Ce 00 (J) 0 w w LL F- U) w 0 U_ < I a F- 1-1 HO z F _ Z H UJ w 2 D D — 0 I— W w I uJ r - - ®w 0 I rt i Z ~ W CL J U O 0 U W J H N w 0 Q r U p 2 W Z = I- O Z F- w O • (22 O H W 2 tL O •• Z W U U- - O ~ Z raw vows a MIMI ra. vim !dm ani z F Z CC 2 � W❑ __IU U O U❑ U W J = F - W O _ U ❑ 2 ▪ W Z F- I- O Z W • W U O - ❑ I- W W H z = O 1- z Project: Associated Files: Comprehensive Plan/ City of Tukwila October 27, 2004 File Number: L03 -049 - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Applicant: Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit L03 -058 Shoreline Variance L03 -060 Design Review E98 -0031 Environmental Review L03 -059 Special Permission Parking Determination 1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Sound Transit has proposed to construct and operate a regional light rail system. In the City of Tukwila, the segment (known as the Tukwila Freeway Route or TFR) will be approximately 4.9 miles long. The project includes several components that are subject to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit because they occur within the shoreline zone. These activities include construction of the light rail guideway bridge, placing of public art on the bridge, relocating a firelane near the bridge column, temporary construction staging, utility relocation, relocating a historic farmhouse, and relocating an osprey nest. Notification: Notice of Application mailed to surrounding properties, agencies with jurisdiction and parties of record on November 13, 2003. Notice of Application was posted at various sites along the alignment on November 12, 2003. Public information meeting was held on December 10, 2003. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 I. Zoning Designation: Manufacturing hndustrial Center /Light (MIC /L) and Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy (MIC /H) SEPA: The Sound Transit SEPA responsible official has previously 3— cc 2 determined that the project creates a probable significant environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Sound Transit has submitted copies of the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the Tukwila Freeway Route Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Addendum, and the Initial Segment Environmental Assessment. • O w 2 Q u_ =a The City's SEPA responsible official has determined that the Z Environmental Documents are fully adequate and in compliance F- 0 with SEPA and that, in accordance with WAC 197 -11 -600, they z may be used unchanged for the City's decisions on the Shoreline o Substantial Development permit, as proposed by Sound Transit. 0 co o F- Staff: Minnie Dhaliwal x 0 O .. w O Project Description Sound Transit has proposed to construct and operate a regional light rail system known as the Central Link Light Rail Project. In the City of Tukwila, the segment (known as the Tukwila Freeway Route or TFR) will be approximately 4.9 miles long. The TFR segment originates at Martin Luther King Jr. Way South and heads west on the south side of Boeing Access Road, and then south, paralleling East Marginal Way South, SR 599, I -5, and SR 518, terminating near the junction of S. 154 Street and Tukwila International Boulevard (SR99). The project includes several components that are subject to the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit because they occur within the shoreline zone. These activities include construction of the light rail guideway bridge, placing of public art on the bridge, relocating a firelane near the bridge column, temporary construction staging, utility relocation, relocating a historic farmhouse, and relocating an osprey nest. The proposed Green - Duwamish River Bridge will be constructed as a 26.5 -foot wide elevated structure, parallel to and downstream of the East Marginal Way South Bridge, within a 32 -foot wide permanent right -of -way. At this location, the river is approximately 200 feet wide. The long span structure crossing the river will be 350 -feet long and will be supported by double cast -in- place columns on each riverbank. On the north bank, the columns are 50 feet landward of the 2 J U . O 0 NO J • _ F- z ordinary high water mark (OHWM). On the south bank, the columns are approximately 80 feet landward of the OHWM. On the north bank there are two residential properties, which are surrounded by parking and light industrial land use. The Green - Duwamish Regional Trail parallels the river on the south bank. Land uses in shoreline zone on the south bank consist of light industry and parking areas. In connection with bridge construction, overhead utilities along East Marginal Way South will be placed underground in the shoreline zone. In addition, the existing Carosino Farmhouse, may be moved from its present location approximately 260 feet to the west to increase the setback from the light rail. Also, construction staging activities will occur at a site on South 115 Street, which is currently used for staging and storage and is partly within the shoreline zone and 400 feet east of the proposed light rail. The existing fire lane on the south side of the proposed bridge will be relocated approximately 50 feet farther south due to conflicts with the proposed bridge column. Further, to provide clearance for the Light Rail line, the Seattle City Light Transmission lines located adjacent to the corridor will be raised. As a result of this action, an existing active osprey nest located on the top of a transmission pole just south of S. 112` Street will be relocated within Cecil Moses Memorial Park. The nest platform will be approximately 75 feet tall and two potential locations within the park have been identified and approved by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. As part of the overall Light Rail Project, an archaeological study was done by Sound Transit to assess if adequate provisions were in place for the protection or otherwise systematic treatment of paleontological and other archaeological resources within the impact zones. Also, Sound Transit has stated that the contract documents for construction will include a special provision that requires the contractor to comply with the requirements of Chapter 27.53 RCW- Archaeological Sites and Resources and to immediately notify Sound Transit if any artifacts, skeletal remains or other archaeological resources are unearthed during excavation or otherwise discovered on the site. The provision also states that the contractor will immediately suspend any construction activity that would be in violation of Chapter 27.53 RCW and the suspension of work will remain in effect until permission to proceed has been obtained by Sound Transit from the State Historic Preservation Officer. II. Policies of the Shoreline Management Act /Shoreline Master Program The site is located in an area that was annexed by from King County in 1989. As no new shoreline master program has been adopted for this area, the project is subject to King County Shoreline Master Program and regulations. Tukwila is the agency responsible for administering King County shoreline regulations as they pertain to this site. 3 z w 6 00 • o co u- J = w 2 g _ (i) = w z1.- 1- 0 w ~ w U0 0- 0 1- W z w z U = 0 z III. Shoreline Regulations Following are the relevant review criteria as contained in the King County Shoreline Regulations as applied by the City of Tukwila: King County Code (KCC) Section 25.16.030 General Requirements: A. Non -water related development and residential development shall not be permitted waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Response: The proposed bridge and appurtenant facilities are dependent upon a location abutting water and are therefore considered water - related uses. The proposed bridge is consistent with this criterion. On September 22, 2003, a shoreline height variance request was approved by the Tukwila City Council for the proposed bridge. No activity associated with the fire lane relocation, temporary construction staging, movement of the farmstead, or placement of the osprey platform will occur waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark. B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying zones are more restrictive, no structure shall exceed a height of a thirty -five feet above average grade level. This requirement may be modified if the view of a substantial number of residences will not be obstructed, if permitted by the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is agricultural, water related or water dependent. Response: The bridge height over OHWM is 48 feet, which exceeds the 35 -foot height limit. The zoning designations for the proposed bridge crossings are MIC /H north of the river and MIC /L south of the river. The zoning height requirements for these areas are 125 feet and 45 feet, respectively, which are less restrictive than 35 -foot height limit. A shoreline height variance request was approved by the Tukwila City Council for the proposed bridge on September 22, 2004. The light rail overhead power lines and support structures were considered appurtenances and therefore were exempt from height regulations. The farmhouse does not exceed the 35 -foot height limitation. Typical osprey nest platforms are between 50 and 100 feet tall and will therefore exceed the 35 -foot height restriction. The current design guidelines for the nest platform call for it to be between 50 and 75 feet above grade, including a 42 -inch perch above the nest platform. The park where the nest platform will be relocated is in MIC /H zoning. The 4 Shoreline Master Program allows for modification of this provision subject to the following three conditions: (1) If the structure does not obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences: The osprey nest platform would not obstruct views because it has a narrow profile and it will be placed near existing trees and vegetation. No residences exist at or near Cecil Moses Memorial Park and views to or from residential areas will not be affected. (2) If permitted by the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning: The osprey nest is proposed to be relocated in Cecil Moses Memorial Park. The osprey nest platform has been approved by King County Parks Department to be located in Cecil Moses Memorial Park. The Tukwila zoning code allows Parks in MIC/H zone and the osprey nest is associated with the Park use. (3) If the proposed development is agricultural, water related or water dependent: Osprey nests naturally occur within and near shorelines. The recommendations from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife include placing the platform approximately 60 feet above grade; installing the pole in or near water where osprey hunt for fish, their primary food source; and installing a perch above the platform. The osprey is water - dependent and thus its nesting structure must be conducive to fishing. Therefore, constructing an osprey nest platform in the shoreline zone would be considered a water - related use. C. AU development shall be required to provide adequate surface water retention and sedimentation facilities during the construction period. Response: The sediment and erosion control measures will be installed and maintained before and during work in the shoreline zone. The proposed project will meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements for retention and sedimentation facilities during the construction period. D. Development shall maintain the first fifty feet of property abutting a natural environment as required open space. Response: This criterion is not applicable, as the King County shoreline environment designation adjacent to this site is "Urban Environment ". E. Parking facilities except parking facilities associated with detached single - family and agricultural development shall conform to the following minimum conditions: E (1) Parking areas serving a water - related or a non- water - related use must be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves. E (2) Any outdoor parking area perimeter, excluding entrances and exits, must be maintained as a planting area with a minimum width of five feet. 5 z ~ w 6 00 0 W w • 0 2 = z � F- 0 Z F- w w U � O D- O F- w • w tL O .. z w co o � z E (3) One live tree with a minimum height of four feet shall be required for each thirty linear feet of planting area. E (4) One live shrub of one - gallon container size or larger for each sixty linear inches of planting area shall be required. z w E (5) Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may be required at 2 the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen parking areas or when o large parking areas are proposed. N 0 J = Response: No permanent parking is proposed within the shoreline area. Temporary o parking may occur within the construction staging area. The proposed construction w staging area is currently undeveloped land that is being used for storage and staging, so no change in land use is proposed. u F. Collection facilities to control and separate contaminants shall be required Z x where storm -water runoff from impervious surfaces would degrade or add to the p" pollution of recipient waters or adjacent properties. w I-- uj 2 Response: No permanent parking is proposed in the shoreline area. The proposed project - o cn will meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements. All work will be conducted in accordance with the project's Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan = v. (SWPPP) and the construction phase National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System LL (NPDES) Permit. ili Z co G. T he regulations of this chapter have been categorized in a number of sections; 0 I— regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, all development must comply with all applicable regulations. Response: In addition to meeting the general shoreline requirements, the project was evaluated to ensure that it was consistent with the King County Code (KCC) Section 25.16.160 Utilities and KCC Section 25.16.190 Excavation, Grading and Filling requirements. The discussion related to these sections is included later in this staff report. H. Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County trail system; or 2. Part of the site is presently being used and has historically been used for public access. a. Along Shorelines of the state on Lake Sammamish, no building shall be placed on lands below thirty -two and one -half feet mean sea level. 6 Response: The Duwamish /Green River Trail is located on the south bank of the river. A pier for the bridge structure would be placed near the trail (within 45 feet) and a short segment of the trail will be closed temporarily during construction. Disturbed areas in the vicinity of the trail would be restored and re- seeded following construction. The proposed bridge will not permanently affect the trail in any way. Clearance under the existing East Marginal Way South Bridge will not be changed by the attachment of utility conduits to the underside of the bridge. Consistency with King County Code (KCC) Section 25.16.160 Utilities: Utility facilities may be permitted in the urban environment subject to the general requirements section (Section 25.16.030) of this chapter, provided: A. Utility and transmission facilities shall: 1. Avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas; 2. Avoid disturbance of wildlife spawning, nesting and rearing areas; 3. Overhead utility facilities shall not be permitted in public parks, monuments, scenic recreation or historic areas. Response: In connection with bridge construction, overhead utilities along East Marginal Way South will be placed underground in the shoreline zone. Utilities will be placed in a trench on the road shoulder. On the north bank, the trench will be 50 to 60 feet west of E. Marginal Way South. The utility trench will be 2 feet wide and 5 feet deep north of the river, and 2 feet wide and 7 feet deep south of the river. The utility conduits will be brought to the ground surface at the existing E. Marginal Way S. Bridge and attached under the existing bridge sidewalk. Underground panel vaults, served by a manhole, will be installed on each riverbank. The vaults will be constructed approximately 125 feet landward of the OHWM on the south riverbank and 38 feet landward of the OHWM on the north bank. Also, to provide clearance for the Light Rail line, it will be necessary to raise the height of the Seattle City Light Transmission lines located adjacent to the corridor. As a result of this action, an existing active osprey nest located on the top of a transmission pole located just south of S. 112 Street, will be decommissioned and relocated. To mitigate for this impact, an alternate nest platform structure will be constructed approximately .25 mile to the west within Cecil Moses Memorial Park. The proposed utilities will avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas. No new utilities are proposed that will disturb wildlife spawning, nesting and rearing areas. The impact to the osprey nest associated with the raising of the transmission lines will be mitigated by providing an alternate nest platform structure. No overhead utility facilities in the shoreline area are proposed in public parks, monuments, scenic recreation or historic areas. 7 B. Utility distribution and transmission facilities shall be designed so as to: 1. Minimize visual impact; 2. Harmonize with or enhance the surroundings; c4 2 3. Not create a need for shoreline protection; 4. Utilize to the greatest extent possible natural screening. 8 w= Response: The proposal is to underground utilities in the shoreline area in order to build N the Light Rail Bridge. The under grounding of the existing overhead utilities will improve w the visual impact. The visual impact of the bridge will be improved by a series of curved g" pipe rail extensions that are proposed on the guideway railing as a public art project. u.. co These pipe extensions will have a small cluster of blue LED lights at the ends. The lights = a will come on as the train approaches and remain on for a few minutes after the train z crosses the river. O. z w The bridge will not require any in- stream structures or work below the OHWM. No 2 o P changes are proposed to the existing shoreline protection. The existing trees between the w residential areas that are located east of E. Marginal Way S. on the south side of the river will likely block the view of the new bridge from the residential area. ~ v tL O C. The construction and maintenance of utility facilities shall be done in such a way iii z so as to: v 1. Maximize the preservation of natural beauty and the conservation of p F - resources; z 2. Minimize scarring of the landscape; 3. Minimize siltation and erosion; 4. Protect trees, shrubs, grasses, natural features and topsoil from drainage; 5. Avoid disruption of critical aquatic and wildlife stages. Response: The existing overhead utilities will be under grounded to build the Light Rail Bridge. Areas that will be temporarily disturbed for construction will be restored to pre - project conditions. Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be used to prevent sediment and pollutants from reaching the river. All work will be conducted in accordance with the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the construction phase National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Additionally a 500 -foot long by 20 -foot wide riparian corridor on the south bank of the Green Duwamish River will be planted with native trees and shrubs. The impact to the existing Osprey nest will be mitigated by relocating it in Cecil Moses Memorial Park. No other disruption of critical aquatic and wildlife stages is expected of this project. 8 D. Rehabilitation of areas disturbed by the construction and /or maintenance of utility facilities shall: 1. Be accomplished as rapidly as possible to minimize soil erosion and to maintain plant and wildlife habitats; 2. Utilize plantings compatible with native vegetation. Response: Areas that will be temporarily disturbed for construction will be restored to pre - project conditions. Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be used to prevent sediment and pollutants from reaching the river. Additionally a 500 -foot long by 20 -foot wide riparian corridor on the south bank of the Green Duwamish River will be planted with native trees and shrubs. E. Solid waste transfer stations shall not be permitted within the shorelines of the state. Response: Not applicable. Consistency with King County Code (KCC) Section 25.16.190 Excavation, Dredging and Filling: Excavation, dredging, and filling may be permitted in the urban environment, only as part of an approved overall development plan not as an independent activity provided: A. Any fill or excavation regardless of size, shall be subject to the provisions of King County Code 16.82.100; Response: Activities that disturb the shoreline zone will be provided with sediment and erosion control measures that meet King County standards. Sediment and erosion control plans will be implemented in accord with a stormwater pollution prevention plan approved by the Department of Ecology. No permanent cut or fill slopes are proposed in the shoreline zone. All excavations associated with the pilings to support the light rail, for the Carosino Farmhouse foundation, fire road relocation, for utility trenches and the placement of the osprey platform will be carried out according to conditions required by KCC 16.82.100.B. B. Landfill may be permitted below the ordinary high water mark only when necessary for the operation of a water dependent or water related use, or when necessary to mitigate conditions which endanger public safety; Response: No landfilling below the ordinary high water mark is proposed as part of this project. 9 C. Landfill or excavations shall be permitted only when technical information demonstrates water circulation, littoral drift, aquatic life and water quality will not be substantially impaired; Response: Construction of the light rail bridge and the fire lane involves minimal fill in the shoreline zone and will not impair water circulation, littoral drift, aquatic life or water quality. The project does not involve any in -water work and will not have any measurable effects on aquatic life or water circulation patterns in the river. This section of the river shoreline is influenced by tidal action, but the banks are steep and armored in most places so there is minimal movement or deposition of littoral debris in this area. Furthermore, all of the earthwork will occur at least 30 feet landward of the OHWM, so no measurable effects on littoral drift are expected. Appropriate measures will be implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Permanent impacts in the shoreline zone will consist of 2,160 ft of fill for two 30 x 36 foot column foundations, of which 1,961 ft occur within the 100 -foot river buffer. Temporary impacts will consist of removing vegetation to construct temporary access roads and stabilized pads for heavy equipment and excavation to provide underground improvements, construct the pier foundations, and place utilities underground. Areas that will be temporarily disturbed for construction access will be restored to pre- project conditions. To offset clearing impacts in the shoreline zone, a 500 -foot long by 20 -foot wide riparian corridor on the south bank of the Green Duwamish River will be planted with native trees and shrubs. Sound Transit will maintain and monitor the planted areas for five years. D. Landfill or disposal of dredged material shall be prohibited within the floodway; Response: The project does not involve landfill or disposal of dredged material in the floodway. E. Wetlands such as marshes, swamps, and bogs shall not be disturbed or altered through excavation, filling, dredging, or disposal of dredged material unless the manager determines that either: 1. The wetland does not serve any of the valuable functions of wetlands identified in K.C.C. 20.12.080 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 33 CFR 320.4(b), including but not limited to wildlife habitat and natural drainage functions, or 2. The proposed development would preserve or enhance the wildlife habitat, natural drainage, and /or other valuable functions of wetlands as discussed in K.C.C. 20.12.080 or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 33 CFR 320.4 (b) and would be consistent with the purposes of this Title; 10 Response: No wetlands such as marshes, swamps, or bogs will be disturbed as a result of the bridge construction, fire lane relocation, placement of utilities underground, Carosino farmhouse relocation, or for osprey nest platform construction. z '~ w F. Class I beaches shall not be covered by landfill except for approved beach feeding Q: programs; J 0 W o CO W J = Response: F- Not applicable since there are no Class I beach at the crossing location. u_ G. Excavations on beaches shall include precautions to prevent the migration of fine w O grain sediments, disturbed by the excavation, onto adjacent beach areas and 5 excavations on beaches shall be backfilled promptly using material of similar composition and similar or more coarse grain size; = d F— _ z'— Response: Not applicable as the project does not involve beach excavation. H p w I. H. No refuse disposal sites, solid waste disposal sites or sanitary dills or putrescible 2 U ON w W Excavation or dredging below the ordinary high water mark shall be permitted Z only when necessary for the operation of a water dependent or water related use, U or when necessary to mitigate conditions which endanger public safety or fisheries p resources; provided, that this paragraph shall not be construed to permit the z mining or quarrying of any substance below the ordinary high water mark; or non - putrescrible material shall be permitted within the shorelines of the state; Response: Not applicable. Response: There is no excavation or dredging below OHWM associated with the project. J. Disposal of dredged material shall be done only in approved deep water disposal sites or approved contain upland disposal sites; Response: The project does not involve disposal of dredged material. • K. Stockpiling of dredged material in or under water is prohibited; Response: The project does not involve stockpiling of dredged material in the shoreline zone. L. Maintenance dredging not requiring a shoreline permit(s) shall conform tot he requirements of this Section; Response: The project does not involve maintenance dredging. 11 z , Response: The project does not involve dredging. z w re 2 N. The County may impose reasonable conditions on dredging or disposal operations v v O including but not limited to working seasons and provisions of buffer strips, cn O Lu including retention or replacement of existing vegetation, dikes and settling basins J to protect the public safety and shore users' lawful interests from unnecessary co o adverse impact; w Response: The project does not involve dredging or disposal operations. g_ O. In order to insure that operations involving dredged material disposal and = a maintenance dredging are consistent with this program as required by RCW Z 90.58.140(1), no dredging may commence on shorelines without the responsible person having first obtained either a substantial development permit or a w statement of exemption; provided that no statement of exemption or shoreline 2 permit is required for emergency dredging needed to protect property from 8 cn imminent damage by the elements; 01— LII =U Response: The project does not involve dredging or disposal operations. � b' P. Operation and maintenance of any existing system of ditches, canals or drains, or . construction of irrigation reservoirs, for agricultural purposes are exempt from the 17- �-- shoreline permit requirement. z Response: Not applicable. M. Dredging shall be timed so that it does not interfere with aquatic life; IV. Comprehensive Plan Shoreline Policies The site is located within the Manufacturing/Industrial Center along the Green/Duwamish River. The Tukwila Comprehensive Plan establishes the following priorities in this shoreline environment: • Redevelopment of under - utilized areas and development of intensive commercial and industrial activities; • Enhancement and restoration of access to the river; and • Protection and restoration of natural environment features and riverbank characteristics, where compatible with development. The proposed project that is subject to the Shoreline Substantial Development permit is part of the overall Central Link Light Rail Project, which will help in the redevelopment of the region. The south bank of the Duwamish River in the vicinity of the proposed bridge is proposed to be planted with native trees and shrubs. There will be no permanent impacts to the existing public trail near the proposed bridge. 12 V. Comments In response to the notice of application, various comments were received. The staff report for the Unclassified Use permit, Shoreline Variance and Design Review included listing of all comments. No shoreline issues were raised in the comments. VI. Recommendations Approval of the application. 13 _ .t. moo; w = J LL. W OOO J LL Q' • • 2 C� I- _; Z_1-• I- 04 •Z D W W ' I_ U tL 0; w 0 = ; 0 1- Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION () 1 /, o , ut. to .HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Name: ( E \ 4 r /t/ Determination of Non - Significance. .;. Project Number: L- G y.Qc 9 Notice of Public Meeting Person requesting mailing: 1 I,(T6 ( 01141, 1,v 11A Mitigated Determination of Non -. Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice • Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shorel.ine�Mgmt Permit _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds P O Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other ` (j t4ilb - Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 . day of UC. tin :the:. P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: ( E \ 4 r /t/ Project Number: L- G y.Qc 9 Mailer's Signature: jf1Ji vvk n , [ 'U C Person requesting mailing: 1 I,(T6 ( 01141, 1,v 11A Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 . day of UC. tin :the:. P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter w From: City of Tukwila To: Department of Ecology Q: Department of Community Development - 8 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 co 0 Seattle, WA 98188 w = • Date of Transmittal: 10/08/04 Date of Receipt: w 0 2 Type of Permit: Shoreline Variance and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Q u. Local Government Decision: Approval I I = Applicant Information: Applicant's Representative: z Sound Transit Link Light Rail Chris Townsend z o Lu Union Station W 2 o 401 S. Jackson Street v Seattle, WA 98104 o N oI-- =w Is the applicant the property owner? No, will have easements in place prior to construction. E— a_ z ' Location of the property: Located directly west of the East Marginal Way South crossing over it the Duwamish River, river mile 7. The relocated osprey nest in the Cecil Moses Memorial Park U P ~ Water Body Name: Green/Duwamish River Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes Environment Designation: Urban Description of Project: The elevated guideway for the Link Light Rail project is proposed to cross over the Duwamish River with a long span structure. Columns will be constructed landward of the top of bank on both the north and south sides of the river. Wetland mitigation will be provided on the south bank. Other activities that are subject to Shoreline Substantial Development permit include placing of public art on the bridge, relocating a firelane near the bridge column, temporary construction staging, utility relocation, relocating a historic farmhouse, and relocating an osprey nest. The Shoreline Height Variance was to approve an increase in height from 35 feet to 50 feet above the Ordinary High Water Mark for the bridge over the River. Notice of Application Date: 10/6/2003 Final Decision Date: 11/08/2004 By: Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila Phone Number: (206) 433 -3685 z Request: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development TO: Rod Kempkes, Applicant for Sound Transit King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction Parties of Record NOTICE OF DECISION This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L03 -058 Shoreline Height Variance Applicant: Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail Associated Files: L03 -049 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L03 -059 Special Permission — Parking Determination L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit L03 -060 Design Review Steven M Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director September 22, 2004 Comprehensive Plan Designation /Zoning The trackway will pass through LI, MIC/H, MIC /L, LDR, C/LI, 0, RCM, MDR, District: and RC zoning. The South 154' Street Station and the north park- and -ride lot are zoned RC. Allow an increase in height from 35 feet to 50 feet above the ordinary high water mark for the TFR bridge over the Duwamish River Project Description: Sound Transit has filed land use applications for construction of the Tukwila Freeway Route Project (TFR Project), the Tukwila portion of the Central Link Light Rail Project (see attached neap). The TFR Project will include 4.9 miles of trackway, 87% of which will be elevated, and 70% of which will be in Washington State Department of Transportation right -of -way. A station is proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard with a transit center, two park and ride lots (north and south of Southcenter Boulevard), and street frontage improvements in both Tukwila and SeaTac. Along the trackway five detention ponds, three traction power substations, street improvements and a bridge over the Duwamish River directly west of the East Marginal Way South bridge will be built. Shoreline Variance Decision Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 - 3665 The TFR Project includes placing certain project facilities, such as the transit trackway columns, in Tukwila right -of -way (portions of East Marginal Way S., 52' Ave. S. and Southcenter Blvd.). To mitigate the impacts of introducing these facilities into City right -of -way, the Sound Transit proposal includes a number of safety features (curbs, sidewalks, lighting) as well as utility undergrounding and stormwater control along these roadways. A new signalized street intersection will be built where the two park- and -ride lot driveways intersect across Southcenter Blvd. (approximately 420 feet east of Q • International Blvd). H W 2 II. DECISION 6 c=i 0 SEPA Determination: w cn w J The Sound Transit SEPA responsible official has previously determined that the project creates a probable significant environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental Impact w O Statement. Sound Transit has submitted copies of the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final g Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the Tukwila Freeway Route Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Addendum, and the Initial Segment Environmental Assessment (hereafter 0 called "Environmental Documents "). H w Z'— The City's SEPA responsible official has determined that the Environmental Documents are fully z O adequate and in compliance with SEPA and that, in accordance with WAC 197 -11 -600, they may be used 111 w unchanged for the City's decisions on the Unclassified Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, Design Review, and all other permits and approvals required by the City for Sound Transit's Link Light Rail TFR Project, UO cn as proposed by Sound Transit. o w ti O The City Council has determined, following an open record hearing, that the applications for an tii Unclassified Use Permit, Shoreline Height Variance and Design Review approval comply with applicable --, _. City and state code requirements and has approved those applications and proposed code modifications z F_ based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report (and expressly incorporated by reference into this notice). Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. I III. 'SCOUR APPEAL RIGHTS Decision on Substantive Permit: One administrative appeal on the shoreline variance to the Shorelines Hearings Board of the Decision is permitted. Any person appealing to the Shorelines Hearings Board may raise certain SEPA issues as part of the appeal to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Appellants should consult the rules and procedures of the Shorelines Hearings Board for details. Shoreline Variance Decision .4 IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING The requirements and procedures for appeals to the Shorelines Hearings Board are set forth in RCW 90.58 and WAC 461.08. V. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Page. 2 Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Nora Gierloff, who may be contacted at 206 - 433 -7141 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Mayor Steven Mullet City of Tukwila Parties of Record w, n, Keith Neal Gordon Allen Greg & Vanessa Zaputil Eric Schweiger Michael P. Griffin Chris Arkills/Dwight PeIzKC Council F. Wayne Stollatz Tuong van Tran Scott Luke Pauline Tamblyn SPEEA Mark Maio Stephenie Kramer OCD Office of Archaeology Melvin Easter Johnson Braund Design Group Jennifer Mackay SPEEA John Niles CETA technical director LeAnne Bremer Miller Nash LLP Roger Lorenzen Norma Larson Craig Ward City of SeaTac Jack Lattemann King County METRO Tony Carosino Anna Bernhardt Peter Coates Hal Cooper Mary Loiselle Shoreline Variance Decision Agencies with Jurisdiction Washington State Department of Transportation Seattle City Light Federal Transit Administration, Region 10 Puget Sound Regional Council US Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Page 3 Erg OUNDTRANSIT 0 0 1,250 2,500 FEET 1 1 11 11 Elevated Retained Cut-Fill • Station Park-and-Ride, Deferred Figure 1 Vicinity Map Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route flr i l- Z 6 -J O 0 CO CI • UJ W I a j 0 2 cn (21 Lu z o z 1- w w 0 O C - 2 0 E- W u w z L I 0 1 - O 1- z Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila . AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, � !C HEREBY DECLARE THAT: J Notice of Public Hearing ,---- l ( rQi� Jf " Determination of Non - Significance Project Number: LU ;--o5 Notice of Public Meeting Mailer's Signature: '1; J ,: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing: Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Time Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other RO Q (.zSi bvj Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this ,,07 day of year 20 P:GINAWYNETrA/FORMS/AFFI DAVIT-MAI L 08/29/003:31 PM fix,.•:g _R. = Z n the Project Name: , .A.,e1�j ,---- l ( rQi� Jf " Project Number: LU ;--o5 L14 - 7,041 1 LA) . 59 L- 1./131 G--0 --0Q. Mailer's Signature: '1; J ,: l L ,54.4K Ncr\ � � ; y Person requesting mailing: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this ,,07 day of year 20 P:GINAWYNETrA/FORMS/AFFI DAVIT-MAI L 08/29/003:31 PM fix,.•:g _R. = Z n the ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY () QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE () POLICE () FINANCE r () PLANNING () BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE $MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P:WDMINISTRATIV E \FORMS \CHKLIST.DOC CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. WEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES MEDIA () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DEPT OF H.U.O. () NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ( ) HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL () K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES () FOSTER LIBRARY () K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ()HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT () OLYMPIC PIPELINE () VAL -WE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT #20 () WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWER/WATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION 'SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW Z Z C 6 JU O 0 u c 3 CO W W 1- � W W O 2 ? d = W _ Z I- O Z 1- W uj U� O Y CI 1- W a l I- W Z U= 0 Z ®09LS iasei • Keith Neal 6735 Beach Drive SW Seattle, WA 98136 Eric Schweiger 4712 S. 134 Street Tukwila, WA 98168 F. Wayne Stollatz 711 W. Casino Rd 4C5 Everett, WA 98204 Pauline Tamblyn SPEEA • 15205 52 Av S Seattle, WA 98188 Melvin Easter Johnson Braund Design Group 15200 52 Av S Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98188 LeAnne Bremer Miller Nash LLP P.O. Box 694 Vancouver, WA 98666 -0694 Craig Ward City of SeaTac 4800 S. 188th Street SeaTac, WA 98188 -8605 Tony Carosino 11245 E. Marginal Wy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Anna Bernhardt 14241 59 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Mary Loiselle 12834 34 Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 m09IS Jo) as fl Gordon Allen 11835 SE 165th Street Renton, WA 98058 Michael P. Griffin 5131 S 151 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuong van Tran 4820 S 152 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Mark Maio 5119 S. 151 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Jennifer Mackay SPEEA 15205 52 Av S Seattle, WA 98188 Roger Lorenzen 14038 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Jack Lattemann METRO Mail Stop KSC -TR -0422 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3856 Hal Cooper 11715 NE 145th St. Kirkland, WA 98134 Norma Larson 14223 55th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Peter Coates 67 E. Marginal Wy S "G" Tukwila, WA 98108 ®A2l3Ava Greg & Vanessa Zaputil 15171 52 Avenue S. #5 Tukwila, WA 98188 s�age� ssaippv Chris Arkills/Dwight Pelz KC Council 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 -3272 Scott Luke 10242 62 Av S Seattle, WA 98178 -2303 Stephenie Kramer OCD Office of Archaeology 1063 S. Capitol Way #106 Olympia, WA 98501 John Niles CETA technical director 4005 20th Ave West, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98199 Rod Kempkes Sound Transit 401 So. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104 -2826 wis3aa45 paai q oowS EPT. OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROGRAM MGR. PO BOX 330310 SEATTLE, WA 98133 -9710 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 5TH AVE #3300 SEATTLE, WA 98104 -5031 FEDERAL HIGHW DMIN. 711 S CAPIT AY SUITE 501 OLYMPI , . A 98501 P. S. REGIONAL COUNCIL 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 US CORP OF ENGINEERS 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98124 -2255 WA FISHERIES/WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK, WA 98012 . US E.P.A 1200 6 AVE SEATTLE, WA 98101 r ikon-5"i° 13L-• a,s a Ai. 214 Sn o- 4A-1,2 Va el 13 - /002_ Project File Numbers: Associated Files: City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TO: Rod Kempkes, Applicant for Sound Transit King County Assessor, Accounting Division Washington State Department of Ecology Agencies with Jurisdiction Parties of Record NOTICE OF DECISION This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approval. I. PROJECT INFORMATION L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit L03 -058 Shoreline Height Variance L03 -060 Design Review Applicant: Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail L03 -049 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L03 -059 Special Permission — Parking Determination September 21, 2004 Comprehensive Plan Designation /Zoning The trackway will pass through LI, MIC /H, MIC /L, LDR, C /LI, 0, RCM, MDR, District: and RC zoning. The South 154` Street Station and the north park- and -ride lot are zoned RC. Project Description Sound Transit has filed land use applications for construction of the Tukwila Freeway Route Project (TFR Project), the Tukwila portion of the Central Link Light Rail Project (see attached map). The TFR Project will include 4.9 miles of trackway, 87% of which will be elevated, and 70% of which will be in Washington State Department of Transportation right -of -way. A station is proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard with a transit center, two park and ride Tots (north and south of Southcenter Boulevard), and street frontage improvements in both Tukwila and SeaTac. Along the trackway five detention ponds, three traction power substations, street improvements and a bridge over the Duwamish River directly west of the East Marginal Way South bridge will be built. The TFR Project includes placing certain project facilities, such as the transit trackway columns, in Tukwila right -of -way (portions of East Marginal Way S., 52" Ave. S. and Southcenter Blvd.). To mitigate the impacts of introducing these facilities into City right -of -way, the Sound Transit proposal includes a number of safety features (curbs, sidewalks, lighting) as well as utility undergrounding and Notice of Decision by the Tukwila City Council 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 - 3665 1 stormwater control along these roadways. A new signalized street intersection will be built where the two park- and -ride lot driveways intersect across Southcenter Blvd. (approximately 420 feet east of International Blvd). Additional Findings In addition to the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan goals, objectives and policies recited in the Staff report, the following goals and policies are also relevant to this Unclassified Use Permit proposal: Residential Neighborhoods Goals and Policies co O Lu Lu Goal 7.2 Noise Abatement — Residential neighborhoods protected from undue noise impacts, in order to W ensure for all residents the continued use, enjoyment and value of their homes, public facilities and w 0 recreation, and the outdoors. 2 u. = a Discourage noise levels which are incompatible with current or planned land uses, and discourage Z the introduction of new land uses into areas where existing noise levels are incompatible with 1— O such land uses. w Discourage noise levels incompatible with residential neighborhoods. 0 O O H The "Final Design Noise Analysis" (Staff Report Attachment G15) prepared by Michael Minor and w w Associates (July 2004) and submitted by Sound Transit provides projected future noise and vibration • 0 levels using 90 percent design drawings. The impact analysis and proposed mitigation included in this p analysis relate to existing development, and indicates, "New development and redevelopment along the Z c o alignment are not mitigated by the project" (page 1). U O ~ The "Final Design Noise Analysis" proposes two alternative means of mitigating identified noise impacts: Z noise barriers and residential sound insulation. Testimony provided by Sound Transit at the public hearing indicated their assessment of costs and benefits was a significant factor in determining which alternative mitigation strategy to propose. Prevent community and environmental degradation by limiting noise levels. The "Final Design Noise Analysis" identifies 25 buildings that will be impacted by light rail noise. Proposed mitigation for 16 of these is through construction of noise barriers. Proposed mitigation for the remaining 9 structures is through a "residential sound insulation program" (RSIP). Two of these 9 residential structures lie within areas zoned for heavy industrial use, while the remaining 7 lie within areas zoned for low - density residential use. The "Final Design Noise Analysis" refers to these 7 structures as receivers R8, R9A, R9B, R10, R11, R12 and R13. The proposed residential noise insulation program will not mitigate light rail noise impacts received in affected residential yards, nor will it mitigate impacts upon planned residential development. The Final Design Noise Analysis documents that in addition to the noise impacts the TFR project will create vibration impacts on 4 residential properties. The predicted noise and vibration levels at the specified receivers are based on field measurements of similar light rail vehicles in use in the Portland Tri -Met system. However local soil conditions as well as maintenance practices can affect the actual noise and vibration levels of the TFR project in operation. A monitoring program would provide Notice of Decision by the Tukwila City Council 2 z w J U 0 assurance that Sound Transit's obligation to mitigate noise and vibration impacts on Tukwila residents has been met. Monitoring over a 3 -year period would document conditions through the first rail maintenance cycle. Unless they are properly screened detention ponds can have a significant negative visual impact on their surrounding areas. This is of most concern in residential areas where lots and buildings tend to be smaller and there are higher expectations of visual quality than in industrial areas. Staff report Attachment G. 12 shows the locations of the 5 detention ponds Sound Transit has proposed in Tukwila. • Ponds 1 and 2 are located in industrial zones and set back from public streets. • Pond 3 between Macadam Road and I -5, north of 144` is zoned LDR and is set back 25 feet from the edge of pavement on Macadam. A combination of existing trees and new understory shrubs is planned for screening. Sound Transit has proposed 1 gallon size trees at 15' spacing and 1 gallon shrubs at 5' spacing. While the visual impact of the detention pond will be immediate, it will take several years for that size plantings at that spacing to provide significant screening. Larger trees and shrubs would provide quicker, more complete screening from the road and nearby residences. • Pond 4 at 146 Street and I -5 is zoned Office, is 80 feet from the nearest residence and surrounded by a wetland on two sides. • Pond 5 at 151 Street and 52 Avenue is zoned Office and is set back 45 feet from the 151 Street R -O -W. No existing trees will be retained in this setback area, instead Douglas fir and Western Hemlocks with associated understory plantings are proposed for screening. The pond will have some visibility from the streets and the second story of the residence directly to the south until these plantings grow significantly. Larger trees and shrubs would provide quicker, more complete screening at this location as well. Sound Transit is in the process of developing a system -wide Systems Security Plan (SSP) through a Security Task Force that includes representatives from the Tukwila Police Department. The final SSP will require the concurrence of the Tukwila Police Chief. Initial procedures and staffing levels will be based on a Threat and Vulnerability Study. Day to day security on the Link Light Rail line and at the 154 Street Station will be provided by a private company under contract to Sound Transit. Sound Transit will also contract with Metro to provide Police services so that Metro should provide the first response to calls for service at the Station. Long term security of the light rail system will require periodic evaluation of security levels by all parties and adjustment of the SSP to address changing conditions. SEPA Determination Notice of Decision by the Tukwila City Council � mlvraK�..�rnrs II. DECISION rw The Sound Transit SEPA responsible official has previously determined that the project creates a probable significant environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Sound Transit has submitted copies of the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the Tukwila Freeway Route Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Addendum, and the Initial Segment Environmental Assessment (hereafter called "Environmental Documents "). The City's SEPA responsible official has determined that the Environmental Documents are fully adequate and in compliance with SEPA and that, in accordance with WAC 197 -11 -600, they may be used unchanged for the City's decisions on the Unclassified Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, Design Review, and all other permits and approvals required by the City for Sound Transit's Link Light Rail TFR Project, as proposed by Sound Transit. 3 Decision on Substantive Permits Notice of Decision by the Tukwila City Council v 0 The City Council has determined, following an open record hearing, that the applications for an Unclassified Use Permit, Shoreline Height Variance and Design Review approval comply with applicable City and state code requirements and has approved those applications and proposed code modifications, subject to the following conditions, based on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff report (and expressly incorporated by reference into this notice) and this Notice of Decision. z Z Ce w Specific Zoning Code modifications approved pursuant to TMC 18.66.030: v p to 1. The TFR Project shall not be subject to Zoning Code setbacks or height limitations. These w regulations were drafted to regulate typical commercial and residential development and were not �_- intended to apply to transportation improvements such as light rail or freeways. u- w O 2. Parcels which cannot comply with Zoning Code landscape standards due to the TFR Project g vegetation clear zone requirements shall not be considered non - conforming to landscape standards. u w a . 3. Perimeter landscape requirements at the station and north parking lot sites may be modified in order _ to maximize the efficiency of the sites as long as the total required square footage of landscaping is z ~- provided. Z O w L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit Conditions: U 1. Within four months of groundbreaking at the South 154' Street Station site, Sound Transit shall o t- construct either a temporary or permanent noise wall along the eastern edge of the lot. w w � O 2. If Sound Transit chooses to use the north parking lot as a tetnporary construction staging area, z Sound Transit shall construct a temporary noise wall along the northern and eastern edges of the lot w as approved by the City. t V — , O 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the South 154` Street Station or north parking lot, Z Sound Transit shall demonstrate that the lighting plan will meet Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) guidelines as approved by the City. 4. Sound Transit has proposed to retain areas of existing landscaping to provide screening of detention ponds and buffering of residences as shown on Attachment C. In the event that these existing trees and plants do not survive the construction of the TFR project, Sound Transit shall replace them according to the schedule at TMC 18.54.130(3) prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the South 154 Street Station. 5. The size of the landscape screening materials that Sound Transit has proposed to plant along the west and north sides of detention pond 3 and between detention pond 5 and 151 Avenue South shall be increased. At least half of the shrubs shall be increased from 1 to 3 gallon containers and at least half of the trees shall be increased from 1 to 5 gallon containers. 6. Sound Transit shall design and construct noise walls on the elevated trackway to mitigate light rail noise impacts on residentially zoned property where projected noise levels exceed the FTA noise criteria as identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis dated July 2004. At receiver 8 the currently planned wall shall be extended and a continuous noise wall shall be constructed between receivers 9 A, 9 B, 10, 11, 12, and 13 as identified in Appendix E of the noise report. 4 7. Sound Transit shall develop a 3 -year noise and vibration monitoring program for the TFR Project to be approved by the City. The 3 -year period shall start from the start of revenue service. Monitoring shall be conducted at representative locations where impacts and mitigation have been identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis dated July 2004. If measured levels show that noise or vibration attributable to the TFR project exceed FTA criteria as identified in the Final Design Noise Analysis Sound Transit shall provide appropriate reasonable mitigation acceptable to the City. 8. The Systems Security Plan (SSP) referenced in the August 11, 2004 concurrence letter (staff report Attachment G. 5) shall be subject to the approval of the Tukwila Police Chief and include a requirement for all parties to the Plan to periodically evaluate the security at the Station and along the trackway. If a security problem is found the SSP shall include a process for Sound Transit to remedy the problem with the concurrence of the Tukwila Police Chief. L03 -058 Shoreline Variance Staff recommends approval of a shoreline height variance to allow an increase in height from 35 feet to 50 feet above the ordinary high water mark for the TFR bridge over the Duwamish River. L03 -060 Design Review Staff recommends approval of the station building, landscape design, site layout, and furnishings as reflected in the attachments to this report. The South 154` Street Station signage is not covered by this permit and will require separate applications and approvals. Three minor modifications are anticipated to the Station site: - A slight realignment of the driveway; Addition of a City Light substation at the northeast corner, and - Changes to the lighting plan to meet IENSA standards. These and other minor changes should be subject to administrative approval by the appropriate Tukwila department director. The Decision on this Application is a Type 5 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS No administrative appeal of the City Council Decision is permitted. Any party wishing to challenge the City Council Decision must file an appeal in King County Superior Court pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. An appeal challenging an EIS may be included in such an appeal. If no appeal of the City Council decision is properly filed in Superior Court within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. IV. INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Nora Gierloff, who may be contacted at 206 - 433 -7141 for further information. Notice of Decision by the Tukwila City Council 5 Mayor Steven Mullet City of Tukwila Parties of Record Keith Neal Gordon Allen Greg & Vanessa Zaputil Eric Schweiger Michael P. Griffin Chris Arkills /Dwight Pelz KC Council F. Wayne Stollatz Tuong van Tran Scott Luke Pauline Tamblyn SPEEA Mark Maio Stephenie Kramer OCD Office of Archaeology Melvin Easter Johnson Braund Design Group Jennifer Mackay SPEEA John Niles CETA technical director LeAnne Bremer Miller Nash LLP Roger Lorenzen Norma Larson Craig Ward City of SeaTac Jack Lattemann King County METRO Tony Carosino Anna Bernhardt Peter Coates Hal Cooper Mary Loiselle Notice of Decision by the Tukwila City Council Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Agencies with Jurisdiction Washington State Department of Transportation Seattle City Light Federal Transit Administration, Region 10 Puget Sound Regional Council US Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 6 Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route S 144th St L ' • Joseph roller Memorial P311 0 i; !otter Coll link! SJUNDTR4NSR MAP KEY . m At grade trackway (ground level) Elevated trackway Station with Park & Ride "", Deferred Station with �.J P & Rid 0 Snuthtenter Mall INwa hr 5.03 Attachment A Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, 1 / ` �� 6r0C-r---. HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: - W4-LA Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance - ; �, Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt . C`/ Mailer's Signature: ,^ L + Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice 4 , ; Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice. of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other 5 � N �ila Li � .5+ Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 3- -- day of • in the year 20 D'4 P :GIN AWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT-MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM Project Name: - W4-LA I rG,21 4 Project Number: 1-0 -- D - ; �, 3 -,z) ( t ' v LO • q L . C`/ Mailer's Signature: ,^ L + ti ,4 i 4 , ; Person requesting mailing: N)In_ik .5+ Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 3- -- day of • in the year 20 D'4 P :GIN AWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT-MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROGRAM MGR. P 0 BOX 330310 SEATTLE, WA 98133 -9710 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 700 5TH AVE #3300 SEATTLE, WA 98104 -5031 FEDERAL HIGHW 711 S CAPIT OLYMPI P. S. REGIONAL COUNCIL 1011 WESTERN AVE #500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 US CORP OF ENGINEERS 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98124 -2255 WA FISHERIES/WILDLIFE 16018 MILL CREEK BLVD MILL CREEK, WA 98012 US E.P.A 1200 6 AVE SEATTLE, WA 98101 DMIN. AY SUITE 501 A 98501 ra-r\ I O �: ivy lob , "-f-J s ,,;k_, s� �k� A ' ► _7'1 - / 00.E ®U71. Keith Neal 6735 Beach Drive SW Seattle, WA 98136 Eric Schweiger 4712 S. 134 Street Tukwila, WA 98168 F. Wayne Stollatz 711 W. Casino Rd 4C5 Everett, WA 98204 Pauline Tamblyn SPEEA 15205 52 Av S Seattle, WA 98188 Melvin Easter , Johnson Braund Design Group 15200 52 Av S Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98188 LeAnne Bremer Miller Nash LLP P.O. Box 694 Vancouver, WA 98666 -0694 Craig Ward City of SeaTac 4800 S. 188th Street SeaTac, WA 98188 -8605 Tony Carosino 11245 E. Marginal Wy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Anna Bernhardt 1424159AvS Tukwila, WA 98188 Mary Loiselle 12834 34 Ave S. Tukwila, WA 98168 ®O9LS JoJ a ;eidwal asn Gordon Allen 11835 SE 165th Street Renton, WA 98058 Michael P. Griffin 5131 S 151 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Tuong van Tran 4820 S 152 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Mark Maio 5119 S. 151 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 Jennifer Mackay SPEEA 15205 52 Av S Seattle, WA 98188 Roger Lorenzen 14038 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Jack Lattemann METRO Mail Stop KSC -TR -0422 201 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 -3856 Hal Cooper 11715 NE 145th St. Kirkland, WA 98134 Peter Coates 6770 E. Marginal Wy S "G" Tukwila, WA 98108 Norma Larson 14223 55th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 bldge a,dJPPV Greg & Vanessa Zaputil 15171 52 Avenue S. #5 Tukwila, WA 98188 Chris Arkills/Dwight Pelz KC Council 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 -3272 Scott Luke 10242 62 Av S Seattle, WA 98178 -2303 Stephenie Kramer OCD Office of Archaeology 1063 S. Capitol Way #106 Olympia, WA 98501 John Niles CETA technical director 4005 20th Ave West, Suite 111 Seattle, WA 98199 ®At13AV Q� J; • :: '''.:tdii:L;ytC 14,4 =? tifY: Sw" d .} u. -.444 o4,miisir'.r •,1,1 : wi s1aa4S paaj wows HEARING DATE: STAFF CONTACTS: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUESTS: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Prepared August 20, 2004 September 7, 2004 Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Jack Pace, DCD Deputy Director Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor • Notice of Application mailed to approximately 15,000 surrounding properties, agencies with jurisdiction and parties of record November 13, 2003 • Notice of Application posted at 15 sites along the alignment November 12, 2003 • Public Information Meeting held December 10, 2003 • Notice of Public Hearing mailed to approximately 15,000 surrounding properties, agencies with jurisdiction, and parties of record August 18, 2004 • Notice of Public Hearing posted at 15 sites along the alignment August 23, 2004 • Notice of Public Hearing published on August 20 and 27, 2004 • Second Public Information Meeting held September 1, 2004 L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit L03 -058 Shoreline Variance L03 -060 Design Review E98 -0031 Environmental Review L03 -049 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L03 -059 Special Permission Parking Determination Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail Section 1 - An unclassified use permit is required to establish a mass transit facility through the City of Tukwila. Section 2 - A shoreline variance is required because the light rail trackway over the Green River at the East Marginal Way crossing will 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor .dx■ , Staff Report to the City Counc Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shor. :e Variance, Design Review be 49.6 feet over ordinary high water, exceeding the 35 foot height limit. Section 3 - Design review approval is required for development of the South 154 Street Station in the Regional Commercial Zone. Z _I- LOCATION: Tukwila Freeway Route (TFR), see alignment map - Attachment A COMPREHENSIVE o o PLAN DESIGNATION/ U w ZONING DISTRICTS: The trackway will pass through LI, MIC/H, MIC/L, LDR, C/LI, 0, u.1 RCM, MDR, and RC zoning. The South 154 Street Station and the ! u- north park -and -ride lot are zoned RC. w o SEPA COMPLIANCE: The Sound Transit SEPA responsible official has previously determined that the project creates a probable significant = environmental impact and required preparation of an Environmental ~ i Impact Statement. Sound Transit has submitted copies of the Z Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Environmental Impact w o Statement (FEIS), the Tukwila Freeway Route Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Addendum, and the ci co Initial Segment Environmental Assessment, see Attachment B o (hereafter called "Environmental Documents "). = v The City's SEPA responsible official has determined that the o Environmental Documents are fully adequate and in compliance v with SEPA and that, in accordance with WAC 197 -11 -600, they may be used unchanged for the City's decisions on the Unclassified Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, Design Review, and all other permits and approvals required by the City for Sound Transit's Link Light Rail TFR Project, as proposed by Sound Transit. RECOMMENDATIONS: L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1 Within four months of groundbreaking at the South 154 Street Station site, Sound Transit shall construct either a temporary or permanent noise wall along the eastern edge of the lot. 2. If Sound Transit chooses to use the north parking lot as a temporary construction staging area, Sound Transit shall construct a temporary noise wall along the northern and eastern edges of the lot as approved by the City. 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the South 154 Street Station or north parking lot, Sound Transit shall demonstrate that the lighting plan will meet Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) guidelines as approved by the City. Page 2 • Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreluie Variance, Design Review 4. Sound Transit has proposed to retain areas of existing landscaping to provide screening of detention ponds and buffering of residences as shown on Attachment C. In the event that these existing trees and plants do not survive the construction of the TFR project, Sound Transit shall replace them according to the schedule at TMC 18.54.130(3) rior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the South 154` Street 6 j Station. - U 00 Staff recommends approval of the following specific code ° modifications pursuant to TMC 18.66.030: w 1. The TFR Project shall not be subject to Zoning Code setbacks or N 0 w height limitations. These regulations were drafted to regulate 2 typical commercial and residential development and were not a intended to apply to transportation improvements such as light rail or freeways. = w 2. Parcels which cannot comply with Zoning Code landscape z standards due to the TFR Project vegetation clear zone w O requirements shall not be considered non - conforming to o landscape standards. U N 0 3. Perimeter landscape requirements at the station and north parking lot sites may be modified in order to maximize the = v efficiency of the sites as long as the total required square footage L 03 of landscaping is provided. w U= 0 L03 -058 Shoreline Variance Staff recommends approval of a shoreline height variance to allow an increase in height from 35 feet co 50 feet above the ordinary high water mark for the TFR bridge over the Duwamish River. L03 -060 Design Review Staff recommends approval of the station building, landscape design, site layout, and furnishings as reflected in the attachments to this report. The South 154 Street Station signage is not covered by this permit and will require separate applications and approvals. Three minor modifications are anticipated to the Station site: - A slight realignment of the driveway; - Addition of a City Light substation at the northeast corner, and - Changes to the lighting plan to meet IENSA standards. These and other minor changes should be subject to administrative approval by the appropriate Tukwila department director. Page 3 z Staff Report to the City Counci. Tukwila Freeway Route WP, Shore,..ie Variance, Design Review ATTACHMENTS: A. Map of Tukwila Freeway Route Other attachments are available at the Department of Community Development B. Summary of Environmental .Documents, complete E98 -0031 Environmental Review File available at DCD B. 1. Executive Summary from Tukwila Freeway Route Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement B. 2. August 2004 Addendum to FS.1ES C. Selected pages from Site Restoration series from C755 90% Submittal (complete set is available at DCD) D. Selected. T.F.R Project Plans E. Public Comments and Responses E. 1. 10/17/03 Jack Lattemann, KC Metro with attached diagram E. 2. 11/5/03 Greg & Vanessa Zaputil with attached: a..11/5/03 letter to Sound Transit E. 3. 11/12/03 Greg &. Vanessa Zaputil with attached: a. 11/12/03 letter to Sound Transit b. Alignment Diagram E. 4. 11/21/04 Greg & Vanessa Zaputil with attached: a. 11/21/03 letter to Sound Transit E. 5. 12/1/03 Art Lewellan, Portland resident with attached papers: a. Rail Can Work but this One Can't • b. Letter to Congressman Wu • c. Hurrah for the Lake Union Streetcar E. 6. 12/10/03 Stephenie Kramer, Washington State Office of Community Development . E. 7. 12/12/03 Michael Griffin. Tukwila citizen E. 8. 12/18/03 Tukwila response to Mr. Griffin E. 9. 12/12/03 Melvin Easter, Johnson Braun(' Design Group .E. 10. 12/18/03 Tukwila Response to Mr. Easter E.. 11. 12/12/03 Mark Maio, Tukwila citizen E: 12..12/12/03 Tukwila response to Mr. M.aio E. 13. 12/12/03 Eric Schweiger, A &E Machinery with attached diagrams E. 14. 12/15/03 Greg & Vanessa Zaputil with attached: a. 3/15/00 Fax from Sound Transit b. 6 /6/03 Letter from Greg & Vanessa Zaputil c.. 7/17/03 Letter from. Sound Transit d. 9/29/03 Letter from Greg & Vanessa Zaputil e. 10/16/03 Letter from Sound. Transit f. 10/23/03 Fax from Greg &,Vanessa Zaputil g. .10/30/03 Letter from Sound Transit h. 1.1/5/03 Letter from Greg & Vanessa Zaputil i. 11/10/03 Letter from Sound Transit j. 11/11/03 Fax from Greg & Vanessa Zaputil k. 11/12/03 Letter from Greg & Vanessa Zaputil with diagram 1. 2/17/03 Sound Transit Interoffice Memo Page 4 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shorelt.._ Variance, Design Review m. 11/21./03 Letter from Greg & Vanessa Zaputil n. 12/3/03 Letter from Sound 'I "ransit E. 1.5.12/18/03 Tukwila response to Greg & Vanessa Zaputil E. 16. 12/15/03 Jennifer Mackay, SPEEA E. 17. 1.2/18/03 Tukwila response to Ms. Mackay E. 18. .12/1 9/03 LeAnne Bremer, Miller Nash LLP E..1 1/1 6/04 Greg & Vanessa Zaputil with attached: a. 1/16/04 Letter to Sound Transit E. 20. 2/2/04 Greg & Vanessa Zaputil with attached: a. 2/2/04 Letter to Sound Transit • E. 21. 2/10/04 Roger Lorenzen, Tukwila citizen E. 22. 2/10/04 Tukwila email response to Mr. Lorenzen E. 23. 2/12/04 Letter from Sound Transit E. 24. 2/19/04 Norma Carson, Tukwila citizen. E. 25. 2/24/04 Melvin taster, Johnson Braund E. 26. 3/1/04 Greg & Vanessa Zaputil xvith attached: a. 3/1/0)4 Letter to Sound Transit b. 2/04 Alignment Diagram c. 2/20/04 Outline d. 2/20/04 Statement from Zaputil • e. Unclassified Use Permit Review Criteria 11 8/19/02 Tukwila to Sound Transit email g. 12/27/02 Internal Sound Transit email h. 2/4/03 Internal Sound Transit email i. 2/1.4/03 Sound Transit Interoffice Memo j. 2/17/03 Portion of Sound Transit Interoffice Memo E. 27. 3/15/04 Letter from Sound Transit E. 28. 3/25/04 Norma Larson, Tukwila citizen E. 29. 4/1.4/04. City of SeaTac Comments E. 30.. 5/28/04 City of SeaTac Comments E. 31. 6 /15/04 Tukwila Response to SeaTac E. 32. 7/13/04 Melvin Easter, Johnson Braund E. 33. 8/3/04 Charles Bofferd.ing. SPEEA with attached: • a. 6/7/04 JGL Noise and Vibration Study .E. 34. Tukwila Response to Mr. Botferdi.ng a. BRC Peer Review of Noise and Vibration Study F. Sound Transit Community Outreach Activities G. Unclassified Use Permit Materials G. 1. L03 -057 Unclassified Use Permit File (available at DC.C)) G. 2. Sound Transit's Response to UUP Criteria G. 3. Summary of Required Mitigation Measures from the Federal Transit Administration Record of Decision G. 4. Parking Determination Notice of Decision G. 5. Police Concurrence Letter G. 6. Fire Apparatus Concurrence Letter z w re 2 O 0 co J E- u_ w O u. ? • a �_ z � t— O w ~ o, w • w H- I : ► '- - O .z CL/ .O 1 '" z Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review G. 7. Description of construction methods from Construction Impact Study (full. study is available at DCD) a 8. Photo Simulations G. 9. Summary of Parametrix Sensitive Areas Ordinance Study 0..10. Peer Review of Parametrix Study by Landau Associates • G.1.1 Port of Seattle Concurrence Letter. G..12. Map of Detention Pond Locations G.13. Cross Sections of Macadam and 151' Ponds C•1.4.• Sound Transit's NPDES Permit for Construction Activities G..15. Conclusion and Mitigation Summary from Michael Minor's Final Design Noise Analysis (f il:l stud is available at DCD) 0.16. Traffic Impact Analysis G.17 Construction Community Outreach Plan 1=I: Shoreline Variance Materials • I-I..1. L03 -058 Shoreline Variance File (available at DCI.)) H. 2. Sound Transit's Response to Shoreline Variance Criteria H. 3. Cross Section of Shoreline at Rail Crossing H. 4. Shoreline Mitigation Plan from Parametrix SAO Report 1. Design Review Materials for Station and Parking Lots I. 1. L03-060 Design Review File (available at DCD) I. 2. Sound Transit's Response to Design Review Criteria l:. 3. Transit Plaza Furniture 1. 4. South 154 Street Station Materials Board (to be presented at hearing) :I. S. LIST Peer Review of Station. Parking Lot Lighting I. 6: System. Wide Sign Types J.. TFR Alignment Model (to be presented at hearing) Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreli,,e Variance, Design Review VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION TRANSIT TRACKWAY FINDINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sound Transit has filed land use applications for construction of the Tukwila Freeway Route Project (TFR Project), the Tukwila portion of the Central Link Light Rail Project. See Attachment A for alignment map. The TFR Project is described in detail in the engineering project plans (see Attachment B) and will include 4.9 miles of trackway, 87% of which will be elevated, and 70% of which will be in Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) r -o -w. A station is proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard with a transit center, two park and ride lots, and frontage improvements in both Tukwila and SeaTac. Five detention ponds, three traction power substations, street improvements and a bridge over the Duwamish River directly west of the East Marginal Way South bridge will be built along the trackway. The original permit submittal for the TFR Project has been modified as Tukwila Staff reviewed the applications and suggested refinements and mitigation options over the past 11 months. Sound Transit had proposed to use five "straddle bents," essentially two columns with a beam across the top, to support the trackway where it crossed East Marginal Way S., 52 Avenue S., and Southcenter Boulevard. Tukwila has proposed, and Sound Transit has accepted, a unified solution that allows for single columns integrated with sidewalks, curbing, utility undergrounding, street lighting, and storm drainage. The City has also recommended and Sound Transit has incorporated improvements to the station and park and ride design including changes to automobile circulation, emergency access, pedestrian access, landscaping, lighting and provision of restrooms. The new intersection on Southcenter Boulevard between the station site and north parking lot is undergoing final engineering and the driveway configuration may change slightly. The TFR Project includes placing certain project facilities, such as the transit trackway columns, in Tukwila r -o -w. To satisfy the "continuing control" requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as set forth in federal regulations, Sound Transit has proposed that Tukwila grant Sound Transit the non - exclusive use of City r -o -w by means of a transit way agreement similar to the tran3it way agreement Sound Transit entered into with the City of Seattle. City Staff has reviewed the Seattle transit way agreement and Sound Transit's proposal and agrees that this approach is appropriate. The public hearing on the proposed agreement is scheduled to occur at the same City Council meeting as the public hearing on the land use permits. Existing Development. The TFR Project trackway will generally follow existing streets and freeways, though sections will cross industrial, commercial, and residential private property. Page 7 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review Vegetation. A survey of every significant tree along the trackway and in construction staging areas has been completed along the length of the route, see A ttachment C. During construction Sound Transit proposes to remove most existing trees within a 50 foot vegetation clear zone centered on the trackway and clear areas needed for construction access and equipment. Certain "landmark" trees are scheduled to be preserved. Sound Transit will revegetate the disturbed areas along the trackway based on the nature of the area. Martin Luther King Jr. Way will have planting pits with street trees, shrubs, and groundcover. A landscaped median is proposed along Southcenter Boulevard. A mitigation plan with proposed planting schemes has been prepared for sensitive areas such as wetlands, watercourses, and their buffers. Other areas will have a combination of hydroseeding, groundcover, shrubs, and trees. Access - There will be no public access to the trackway structure. Much of the trackway will be elevated and the at -grade portions will have protective fencing. There will be no at grade street crossings within the City of Tukwila. SOUTH 154 STREET STATION AND PARK - AND -RIDE LOTS Existing Development. The station site is currently developed as the Ajax Airport Parking lot. A second parking lot is proposed to the north on the Public Storage mini warehouse site. See Attachment D for a map of the station area. Surrounding Land Use. The station site is adjacent to SR 518 to the south, International Boulevard to the west, the Arco AM -PM gas station and Public Storage sites to the north across Southcenter Boulevard and the West Colonial Village apartments to the east. The City of SeaTac's boundary runs along the eastern r -o -w line for International Boulevard. The Ambassador Gardens apartments are on the east of the Public Storage site, and the Avalon Apartments and McDonald's restaurant are to the north. Both the Ajax and Public Storage lots are designated Regional Commercial under Tukwila's Zoning Code. The area directly to the north of the site and bordering the east side of International Blvd. is also designated Regional Commercial. To the east and northeast of the site, property is zoned High Density Residential. This area contains both single - family detached and multi - family residential development. Properties to the west and northwest and bordering the west side of International Blvd. are within the City of SeaTac, and are zoned "Community Business" under SeaTac's zoning code. The combined SeaTac /Tukwila business listrict north and northwest of the site contains a mix of land uses including convenience retail, restaurant and entertainment uses, office space, storage units, and a bank. Page 8 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review Topography. The station site sits below International Boulevard and slopes down to the southeast. The final site grading will level out the parking lot and add retaining walls along much of the lot perimeter as well as between some of the north -south parking aisles. The Public Storage site is four to six feet lower than the AM -PM site to the west and significantly higher than the McDonald's lot to the north. There is not a significant grade difference with the apartments to the east or Southcenter Boulevard to the south, except for an area that may be a drainage swale in the r -o -w. Vegetation. There is very little vegetation on the Ajax or Public Storage sites. Due to the extensive grading that is planned all existing plants will be removed. Access: - Vehicular access to the station site will be from a new signalized intersection on Southcenter Boulevard. This intersection will line up with the driveway into the north parking lot. The north lot will also have a right in/right out driveway onto International Boulevard. From the station site only pedestrian access will be provided to International Boulevard. SCOPE OF REVIEW The Central Link Light Rail system is a regional transportation facility that has the status of an essential public facility (EPF). Thus, as a segment of the overall regional transportation system, the TFR Project is an EPF. Because cities are not regional decision - making bodies under the Growth Management Act, they may not unilaterally make decisions regarding system location or design of regional EPFs, even for that portion of a regional EPF located within a particular city's boundaries. A city's role is limited to attempting to influence such decisions by providing information to the regional body, commenting on the alternatives under consideration, or expressing local preferences in their comprehensive plans. However, after the regional decision is made, the city then has a duty to accommodate the EPF, and may impose reasonable permit and mitigation conditions in the exercise of its land use powers. RCW 36.70A.200 Siting of essential public facilities -- Limitation on liability. (1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include a process for identiffing and siting essential public facilities. Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140 state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020. (5) No local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities. Page 9 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shore,,.te Variance, Design Review PUBLIC COMMENTS In response to the Notice of Application for the land use permits, Staff received comments on the proposal from four businesses, six . nembers of the public, and three agencies with jurisdiction, see Attachment E. These commenters have been added to the list of parties of record and have received notice mailings as well as responses to their specific questions. The comments are summarized below: • Four different citizens and businesses expressed their opposition to the location of the TFR Project at the curve from I -5 to SR 518. Sound Transit's early conceptual design drawings had indicated that the alignment would be located further to the east and along the edge of the I -5 r -o -w until crossing over the Bricklayer's Association parcel and heading west on Southcenter Boulevard. During Sound Transit's final design process, which began in November 2002, Sound Transit finalized the alignment to be located as shown in the Unclassified Use Permit application package. As proposed, the alignment will proceed down 52 Avenue before joining Southcenter Boulevard at approximately the same location. Under State law, as discussed above, Tukwila cannot unilaterally determine the location of a regional EPF and require that Sound Transit revise the alignment as requested. • Representatives from the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), located at 15205 52nd Avenue South, expressed concern about the noise and vibration impacts of the light rail on their employees. Staff sent them a copy of the peer review that Tukwila conducted on Sound Transit's noise and vibration mitigation plan. SPEEA had its own noise and vibration study conducted based on measurements from a similar condition along the Los Angeles light rail system, see Attachment E. 33. a. This study found high frequency noise impacts that could be mitigated by replacing the windows on the building. The SPEEA report also seeks vibration impact mitigation through design change or post - construction monitoring. Sound Transit's noise and vibration consultant, Michael Minor & Associates, reviewed the study and concluded that SPEEA's report "does not provide information indicating that the SPEEA building would have noise or vibration impacts under the appropriate FTA criteria and mitigation is not required." The City also had the SPEEA study peer reviewed and found that no additional noise or vibration mitigation measures are warranted for the SPEEA building according to FTA directives, see Attachment E34. a. • Representatives from Johnson Braund Design Group, located on 52 Avenue, have asked the City to ensure that safe access along the public sidewalk will be maintained between their parking lot and main entrance during construction. Staff met with them and reviewed the Construction Impact Study that states that pedestrian access will be maintained through the temporary closure. • The owner of A &E Machine requested a revision tn the adjacent detention pond to preserve a parking area. Staff confirmed that Sound Transit has incorporated this change into the design. Page 10 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review • Three other residents submitted comments about detention ponds, noise and sensitive area restoration. City Staff provided them with additional information as requested. • A concerned Portland resident expressed support for a light rail route that serves Southcenter (Westfield Shoppingtown) Mall, a modified Lake Union streetcar and bus z rapid transit. 4 w • King County Metro reviewed the station site layout and requested minor changes to ce g facilitate bus circulation. Sound Transit has made the requested changes and also asked 6 v for Metro's review on subsequent site revisions. 0 o co • The State Office of Archaelogy and Historic Preservation requested a copy of Sound w z Transit's geoarchaeological assessment but made no further comments. co u_ 0 • The City of SeaTac has submitted comments on each of Sound Transit's major submittals and Tukwila has attempted to coordinate review on areas of mutual concern. Other g issues will be addressed in separate agreements betweer. Sound Transit and SeaTac. c a Sound Transit also conducted its own public outreach program that included seven open _ houses, extensive mailings, a speakers bureau and outreach to civic groups, news media z and face to face meetings in the community as described in Attachment F. w o REPORT ORGANIZATION w U � O � • I- ww u. 0 z This staff report has been divided into three sections. The first section covers the Unclassified Use Permit, the second covers the Shoreline Variance and the third covers the Design Review decision. Staff's conclusions and recommendations will follow each section. SECTION ONE — UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT DECISION CRITERIA — UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT Mass transit facilities require an Unclassified Use Permit issued by the City Council under Tukwila's Zoning Code. The criteria for this approval are listed at TMC 18.66.060 and are repeated below with Staff's response. For the applicant's response to the criteria see Attachment G.2. 18.66.060 Criteria The City Council shall be guided by the following criteria in granting an unclassified use permit: 1. Where appropriate and feasible, all facilities shall be undergrounded. Requiring that the TFR Project be built in a tunnel is beyond Tukwila's authority for this regional EPF project because it would render the project impracticable. When this provision was called into question by Sound Transit in the 1999 case before the Growth Management Hearings Board, Tukwila clarified that "the use of the term `facilities' was intended to apply only to utilities which will serve the unclassified use" rather than the trackway itself (CPSGMHB case 99 -3- 0003). Sound Transit has chosen to elevate the majority of the trackway in Tukwila to minimize wetland and watercourse impacts and reduce conflicts with the street network. Page 11 'mac, fi4* x+,, nrsc�rc. 5'ri;<R"."p".^'fu.�"+•,_ rrrcmn. MY?a saey- ;a c!m,ewvs.. *1 U= 0 z Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shore►,..e Variance, Design Review Sound Transit will be undergrounding utilities where construction of the trackway requires them to be moved. The areas where undergrounding is planned are along Martin Luther King Way, East Marginal Way, 52 " Avenue, 42" Avenue, International Boulevard and Southcenter Boulevard. 2. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. Any project of this scale will have impacts on adjoining properties. Sound Transit has prepared a Central Link Light Rail Environmental Impact Statement, Tukwila Freeway Route Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Segment Environmental Assessment and an Addendum to the Tukwila EIS to analyze the environmental effects of the light rail project in general and the TFR Project specifically. The Record of Decision issued by the FTA contains a summary of all mitigation measures for the project required by the federal government through the environmental review process. Sound Transit has also submitted various studies as part of the UUP application to document its compliance with City regulations. On July 1, 2004, the Director of the Tukwila Department of Community Development issued a Parking Determination for the South 154 Street Station pursuant to TMC 18.56.100. The appeal period has expired without appeal, and therefore the Parking Determination is now final. In making his decision, the Director reviewed information provided by Sound Transit such as a parking demand study, the FSEIS and Sound Transit's Memorandum Regarding Compliance with UUP Criteria dated October 23, 2003, as well as an independent review of parking demand conducted by the City. The Parking Determination takes into account the unique operational characteristics of the Link Light Rail project in setting a phased approach to the provision of parking spaces, see Attachment G.4. The Initial Segment of the light rail will provide service to eleven stations between Westlake Station in Downtown Seattle and South 154 Station with shuttle service to SeaTac International Airport. The Initial Segment will operate seven days per week, providing service approximately 20 hours per day, Monday through Saturday, from 5:00AM to 1:00 AM, and 18 hours on Sunday and holidays, from 6:00AM to midnight. Trains will leave every 6 to 15 minutes depending on time of day with most trains leaving every 10 minutes. The South 154 Street Station will function as the interim southern terminus for the Initial Segment until such time as the system is extended to South 200 Street'. The South 154 Station includes the only park and ride facility in the Initial Segment with approximately 5,000 daily boardings by year 2020. Given these factors, it is critical to the City to assure that adequate parking is provided to address peak and off - peak demands and that off site parking impacts are adequately mitigated. Satisfactory compliance with the conditions in the Parking Determination will fully address the ► It should be noted that the future extension of the light rail system beyond the 154 Street Station is not assured at this time. Page 12 :mss: : x.,;,�<.,:,.,....j.;.,�.,....:R .e�»•�o� Page 13 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review unique characteristics of the TFR Project and further demonstrate compliance with UUP Criteria TMC 18.66.060(2). Both the station site and the north parking area are directly adjacent to apartment complexes. The station site and possibly the north lot will be used as construction staging areas for the duration of the light rail construction, and therefore the noise impacts are likely to extend for several years. Construction noise is exempt from Tukwila's Noise Ordinance from 7:OOAM to 10:OOPM, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 10:OOPM on Saturday, Sunday and State - recognized holidays. Sound Transit has proposed a permanent noise wall along the eastern edge of the station site to protect the West Colonial Village apartments from the noise of the station operation. A noise wall is particularly important at this location due to the need for bus access to the light rail station. Sound Transit will construct the permanent noise wall as early as is practical, after construction work begins at the station. Due to the extensive grading required on the site; the noise wall is expected to be in place within four months after Sound Transit's contractor is given a Notice to Proceed with construction. No permanent noise wall has been proposed between the Ambassador Garden Apa- and the north parking lot because there is no operational noise impact that requires mitigation. The City and Sound Transit have resolved the security concerns expressed by the Tukwila Police Department as described in the Police Concurrence Letter included as Attachment G.S. Sound Transit has formed a multi- agency Security Task Force to develop a system -wide Systems Security Plan (SSP). A series of high resolution, color, pan/tilt/zoom video cameras will allow Sound Transit, King County Metro, and Tukwila Police Department staff to monitor the parking lots, station, and highly elevated section of the trackway from the station to I -5. Should criminal activity be seen, Sound Transit will alert the appropriate law enforcement agency to respond in accordance with the SSP. The Tukwila Police Department also reviewed the station site and north parking lot for compliance with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommendations. These are aimed at reducing the opportunities for criminal activity through careful site, building, and lighting design. Low lighting levels and highly contrasting areas of brightness and darkness make surveillance of parking areas by passers by, lot users, and cameras difficult. Tukwila arranged for the site lighting and camera plans to be peer reviewed and found that lighting levels were lower and ratios of average to minimum light levels were higher than recommended in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Guideline for Security Lighting for People, Property and Public Spaces. The Tukwila Fire and Police Departments have expressed concerns about sufficient access to the trackway in emergency situations. The City and Sound Transit discussed options to address these concerns (including the addition of several stair towers along the trackway) and jointly concluded that the procurement of an aerial fire apparatus and other equipment would enable the City to provide the most appropriate response. Sound Transit has agreed to provide this equipment as described in Attachment G.6. Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review 3. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the same standards for parking, landscaping, yards and other development regulations that are required in the district it will occupy. The trackway will pass through LI, MIC /H, MIC /L, LDR, C/LI, 0, RCM, MDR, and RC zoning as it goes from north to south. The station site and north parking lot are zoned RC. Certain development standards may be modified by the Council as part of its approval of an Unclassified Use Permit. 1 w 6 00 w = � LL tu g LQ = • a 1- w Z = t- 0 Z Lu U � O N 0 w W The station building extends across the south property line of the station site and into - o WSDOT SR518 r -o -w. Sound Transit will receive a permanent easement from WSDOT . Z for the area of its improvements. This location was chosen in order to maximize the parking on the station site and to align the trackway for its future extension into SeaTac p IT and toward the airport. z Landscaping. Tukwila's code requires three types of landscaping. Perimeter landscaping along parcel boundaries is required for all zones except LDR. Parking lot landscape islands are required in all multi - family and commercial zones, but not single family (LDR) or industrial (LI, HI, MIC/L or MIC/H) zones. Landscape or other types of screening are required for outdoor storage, ground level mechanical equipment, and cargo containers. Sound Transit has proposed to reduce its front yard landscaping along both sides of Southcenter Boulevard because the full ten feet of front yard landscaping plus frontal improvements including additional traffic lanes and a new sidewalk cannot be provided adjacent to the street without reducing the number of parking stalls, see Attachment D. On the station site for about half of the length five feet of landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk. For the rest of the frontage four feet is proposed next to the street and three behind the sidewalk. On the north parking lot seven feet of landscaping is proposed on site, though there will also be 12 - 16 feet of undeveloped r -o -w adjacent that will be landscaped consistent with landscaping for the project. A landscaped buffer in excess of code requirements is proposed along the south and west sides of the station site, however some of that is on WSDOT property rather than the TMC 18.66.030 Area and Dimensional Requireme ;Its A. The requirements for front, rear and side yards and open spaces and landscaping applicable to the underlying zone classification in which any such use is proposed to be located shall prevail, unless specific modifications are required in granting the unclassified use permit. B. The provisions applying to height and minimum lot area and width applicable to the underlying zone classification in which any such use is proposed to be located shall prevail unless specific modifications are required in granting the unclassified use permit: The project will require modifications to setbacks, landscaping, and height. Setbacks. The light rail trackway is unique because, due to its linear nature and engineering design constraints, it crosses over parcel boundaries and primarily occupies easements rather than single purpose r -o -w. It is not possible for the trackway to maintain the setbacks from property lines that are required of conventional structures, therefore Sound Transit has asked that they be modified. Page 14 o Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review station parcel. Adjacent to the West Colonial Village apartments along the east property line a 15' landscaped buffer including the noise wall is proposed, rather than the required 10' of landscaping. Perimeter landscape requirements will be met or exceeded along the other edges of the north parking lot. z The square footage requirements for interior parking lot landscaping will be exceeded at = ~ the station site and north parking lot. Sound Transit has proposed to group some re w landscaping into several large islands rather than provide more islands of the minimum 6 = size. Two of the three traction power substations, on the station site and at East Marginal ij v o Way and 112 will be screened using a combination of solid walls and plantings. The co 0 third substation at S. 133` Street is less visible and will have a chain link fence and J 1 plantings. co u- w To provide screening or buffering of the light rail facilities that are adjacent to residential 2 uses and storm water detention ponds, Sound Transit proposes to retain in certain areas g existing trees and vegetation as shown on Attachment C. In the event that these existing co trees and vegetation do not survive construction activities, Sound Transit should replace Y W them consistent with the City code. Sound Transit also proposes to retain certain z = "landmark" trees as well as plant new trees, shrubs, at..d groundcover along much of the 1-- 0 TFR Project alignment. This is not directly linked to Tukwila's perimeter landscaping w w type or width requirements. It will serve to provide erosion control for disturbed areas, o o restore sensitive areas and their buffers, and in some cases provide screening. Due to o CO restrictions on the height of plantings under the trackway, some properties along East o Marginal Way and 52 Avenue will become non - conforming to front yard landscape 2 v uj type requirements unless the landscaping is modified for these locations. For example, f= the existing trees in the front yard of the Johnson Braund Building, 15200 52 " Avenue w z S., will be removed and replaced with low plantings to create the vegetation clear zone. o co Height. z ~ The South 154 Street Station will be approximately 85 feet tall and the maximum height allowed in this area is six stories (the station site is in a Building Height Exception Area that allows up to six story buildings). The trackway, and therefore the station platform, must be this high in order to provide clearance over International Boulevard for future plans to extend to the airport and the proposed South 200` Street Station. While the station is an unusual building type, its height is similar to a typical six story building and would not have impacts beyond those anticipated by the allowed six story limit. The height of the trackway along the alignment has been determined by engineering constraints and ranges from at -grade to 75 feet. The maximum heights allowed in the zones it passes through range from 30 to 125 feet. The trackway is either lower than or very close to the Zoning Code height limit from Martin Luther King Jr. Way south to where leaves WSDOT r -o -w to make the westward turn to SR 518. From that point (approximately S. 150` Street if extended) to the station site the trackway exceeds the height limit along most of its length. Where the planned height of the trackway exceeds the height limit of the zone, Sound Transit has asked that the height limit be modified. Through the final design process, Sound Transit has maximized the amount of trackway that will be elevated in order to reduce the amount of retained fill structures that would ��!F!. _ � Rfi � ' � 71 �? � � '�• yr�..,.,,..w,,. -� .. �.�� -c�L Page 15 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shorei...0 Variance, Design Review otherwise be necessary in wetlands, watercourses, and their buffers. This was done because the individual column "footprints" will be much smaller in these areas than the retained fill "footprint" that would essentially occupy the entire trackway width. This also allows for pre -cast concrete segmental construction where the trackway is pre -cast in 10 foot segments in an off -site casting facility, delivered to the site, and then erected span-by -span using overhead equipment, see Attachment G.7. 4. The proposed development shall be compatible genera., with the surrounding land uses. The TFR Project is either in primarily industrially zoned areas, or parallels SR599, I -5 and SR518. Industrial areas are intended to allow for the movement of freight and other intensive transportation uses. Almost 70 percent of the TFR Project is within WSDOT r- o-w. Areas near existing freeways are presumably less sensitive to noise and visual impacts of the rail system than other parts of the City. Areas where the trackway moves further from the freeway in non - industrial areas, such as the segment along 52 Avenue curving toward SR518, will experience greater impacts. The visual impact of the trackway will be similar to an elevated freeway, see photosimulations at Attachment G.8 for a comparison of some of the straddle bents to the current single column proposals. While landscaping is proposed along the alignment, it will not provide significant screening for the higher portions, given the time for the plants to grow, the height of the trackway, and the vegetation clear zone around the structure. 5. The proposed development shall to the maximum extent feasible be consistent with and promote the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and applicable adopted area plans. Following are the relevant policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan: General Transportation Corridor Policies 8.1.16 In the event that a light rail system is developed in either the Tukwila International Boulevard (formerly known as Pacific Highway), Martin Luther King, or Interurban corridor, such a system should be designed and constructed to achieve the following objectives: Such a system shall, if appropriate and feasible, include one or more rail stations located at key intersections in order to develop multi -modal transfer areas for buses, automobiles, pedestrians and /or rail. The TFR Project includes one rail station (the South 154 Street Station) located at the key intersections of Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila International Boulevard and SR 518. It provides multi -modal access and transfer to the light rail system for pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, and bus riders. A station at Boeing Access Road has been deferred to a future phase and a future potential station at South 133` Street was evaluated in the TFR Project FSEIS. Such a system shall be designed and located so as to minimize interference with pedestrian and vehicular traffic (including both automobile and truck traffic) along, crossing and turning on and off the transportation corridor. Page 16 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review At the northern boundary of the Tukwila city limits the light rail trackway becomes elevated and there are no at -grade crossings for the rest of the alignment. For the Tukwila International Boulevard corridor, City preference shall be given to locating rail lines and stations at -grade or below grade as necessary to minimize interference with Z Q existing traffic patterns. = Z :-- The trackway will only intersect TIB at the South 154 Street Station and will be rt 2 elevated. If built, a future extension will be elevated over TIB thereby providing no 6 v interference with existing traffic patterns due to the alignment. v cn O o - Design of a light rail system shall minimize the adverse effects of bulk, view blockage, and w = interference with light and air for neighboring properties and public areas. c The City has worked with Sound Transit to eliminate five straddle bent columns at East w O Marginal Way, 52 Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. This will help to reduce the bulk, 'view blockage and other impacts associated with elevated trackway in this area. u_ Straddle bents will still be used at Martin Luther King Jr. Way and along SR 599. = O I— w Design of a light rail system shall minimize the potential adverse impacts and maximize the z H benefits of a rail system on the redevelopment of Pacific Highway South or Interurban z O Avenue South in a manner consistent with any adopted plans and policies for those w w geographic areas. U The TFR Project should have an overall positive affect on the redevelopment of Pacific O N Highway South due to the major economic investments associated with the South 154th w w Street Station. In addition to the station itself, the appearance of the area will be v enhanced by improvements such as underground utilities, sidewalks, landscaping, and art. `!- p Additionally, traffic design measures will result in correcting the misaligned Southcenter ti.i Blvd. /S. 154 Street, including additional turn pockets for more effective traffic channelization and signal synchronization. The selected light rail route will avoid the z adverse effects upon business access associated with the previously proposed Tukwila International Boulevard route. The TFR Project does not intersect with Interurban Avenue. - Design of a light rail system shall minimize impacts on sensitive areas, including salmon spawning habitat areas. During the final design process, Sound Transit maximized the elevated portion of the trackway and refined the route to lessen impacts on sensitive areas. The Parametrix Sensitive Areas Study based on the existing Sensitive Area Ordinance quantifies the impacts of the trackway on wetlands and streams and provides a mitigation plan, see summary at Attachment G.9. Overall, Sound Transit's design refinements avoided 0.28 acres of wetland fill and reduced permanent stream impacts from 0.28 acres to 0.12 acres (avoiding impacts to 341 linear feet of Gilliam Creek North Tributary). Tukwila had the Parametrix Study peer reviewed and found, after modifications in response to the review comments, that the plan complied with all appropriate regulations and resulted in no net loss of wetland acreage or functions, see Attachment G.10. Page 17 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review Tukwila International Boulevard Corridor Policies. 8.2.1 Mitigate transportation impacts associated with regional travel by the use of extensive amenities, transit service, and appropriate siting and design of new uses, including the highway itself z The TFR Project will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and add street lighting along Southcenter Boulevard in the vicinity of the South 154 Street Station to 51 or 52nd 6 Avenue South. 8.2.4 Locate transit facilities, potentially including a rail station, within the SR 518 /Pacific U co 0 Highway vicinity in order to develop a multimodal trc. nsfer area for buses, automobiles, pedestrians, and rail. co = The Station will also serve as a major multi -modal facility with bus transfer, "kiss -and- w 0 0 ride ", airport shuttle service for light rail passengers, and park - and -ride facilities. 2 Pedestrian and bicycle access will be enhanced with improvements along Southcenter Boulevard between the station and 51 Avenue. CO a = 8.2.6 Underground existing and future overhead distribution lines, including transit operations F - _ utilities, in accordance with rates and tariffs applicable to the serving utility. Z I-- O Sound Transit will underground utilities where construction of the trackway requires w w relocation. The areas where undergrounding is planned to avoid conflicts with the D o trackway are along Martin Luther King Way, East Marginal Way, 52 " Avenue, 42 "d 0 cn Avenue, and Southcenter Boulevard. Sound Transit will also underground additional o utilities along Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard together with roadway z 0 widening, street lighting, and sidewalk improvements 1 u i z U Southcenter Boulevard Policies. z 8.4.8 In future improvements incorporate additional landscaping to transform the street into a true boulevard In response to concerns raised by Tukwila Staff regarding its original application, Sound Transit has proposed to construct a landscaped median, sidewalks, street lighting and bicycle lanes as part of the reconstruction of Southcenter Boulevard from east of the South 154 Street Station to 51 Avenue South, see Attachment D. Public Transportation, Transit, Rideshare, and Personal Rapid Transit Policies. 13.4.14 The development of any light rail or commuter rail system shall meet the following objectives: Any commuter or light rail system serving Tukwila, Seattle, South King County and/or Sea - Tac Airport should be located in a manner which promotes the coordinated short -term and long -term use of alternative transportation systems, such as carpools, buses, commuter rail, and light rail. The South 154 Street Station will provide an intermodal hub to allow transfers between light rail, bus, paratransit, shuttle, automobile, and pedestrian traffic. Bus routes with high frequency are planned between the station and the Sounder commuter rail station at Longacres. Page 18 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review - Such systems shall be located so as to allow for future extensions to commuter and/or light rail service to East King County and Southeast King County. Future extensions are part of the Sound Move Long Range Plan and are not precluded by the Tukwila Freeway Route alignment. Sound Transit has designed the Tukwila Freeway Route to provide for the potential future extension of the system to the south (to SeaTac International Airport and beyond) and to the east. The Central Link FEIS w re identifies alternatives and the preferred alternative to the Airport. In addition, Sound Transit and the Port of Seattle executed an Agreement in Principle on January 15, 2003 0 that describes the intention to extend the system to the airport by 2011 (see Attachment cn 0 G.11). Such systems shall be located in a manner that serves the Tukwila Urban Center, so as to co u- encourage the development of that Center in the manner contemplated by this Plan and the w O Countywide Planning Policies. g When Sound Transit challenged this policy before the Growth Management Hearings g p Y Board (Case No.99 -3 -0003) Tukwila responded that: = a w r If the route alignment selected by Sound Transit cannot serve the Tukwila Urban 1. p Center by direct rail connection because the circumstances show that such a route w /- uj alignment would preclude or effectively preclude the light rail system, then the 2 "location objective" policy stated in § 13.4.14(3) couli still be met by station site c.� N design or location, such as locating or positioning the station to be compatible with °p '— nearby streets having direct access to the Tukwila Urban Center. Circumstances may w w even allow this policy objective to be reasonably addressed by station or rail E design /location that would simply accommodate future extensions of the light rail u- system to East King County and to the Tukwila Urban Center. iL Z U The Board concluded that although this policy utilizes the mandatory word "shall," the O '— policy does not obligate nor authorize the City to deny permits to light -rail route Z alignments that do not pass through the Tukwila Urban Center. Bus routes with high frequency are planned between the station and the Tukwila Urban center, with connections to the Westfield Shopping Town Southcenter and the Sounder commuter rail station at Long Acres. Additionally, Sound Transit has designed the Tukwila Freeway Route to provide for the potential future extension of the system to the to the east, through the Tukwila Urban Center. Policy 13.4.15: Require that parking facilities developed in conjunction with transit facilities be adequately sized and managed to prevent spillover parking onto private property. Parking requirements for the TFR Project are contained in the Parking Determination Notice of Decision issued by the DCD Director on July 1, 2004 under the provisions of TMC 18.56.100, see Attachment G.4. The parking requirements include the following provisions: • A requirement for no fewer than 600 parking spaces at opening of the Link Station; Page 19 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shorel,— Variance, Design Review • Measures to prevent persons whose destination is SeaTac International Airport from parking at the facility; • An on -site parking demand monitoring program; • A requirement to increase the amount of off - street parking available to Link patrons if demand warrants, up to 1,330 spaces; • A requirement to re- evaluate parking demand and provide additional parking ,F- as needed, in the event the Link light rail system is extended beyond the Initial w Segment; _10 • A requirement to monitor on- street parking in the vicinity of the station to 0 O determine whether "spillover" or "hide- and - ride" parking is adversely ai w impacting the area; and • A requirement to address significant "hide- and - ride" impacts, whether in w o Tukwila or the City of SeaTac, through appropriate measures that may include provision of additional off - street parking, residential parking permit programs, parking enforcement programs or other actions acceptable to the affected City. Roles and Responsibilities j p z ♦- 15.2.1 In reviewing proposals to site new or expanded essential public facilities within the City, W Tukwila shall consider accepting its regional share of facilities which provide essential services, provided other communities accept their share as well, provided the funding of regional facilities 0 sited in Tukwila relies on an equitable regional source of funding, and provided the siting of all 01— essential public facilities is based on sound land use planning principles and is developed = v through working relationships with affected neighborhoods, special purpose districts, ports and other agencies which serve the Tukwila community. L I O ..z Sound Transit has cooperated with Tukwila in developing the Tukwila Freeway Route as v an alternative to the original route along Tukwila International Boulevard. Sound p'- Transit's Board has emphasized its commitment to subarea equity in funding. Sound z Transit has held public meetings in Tukwila to provide information and discuss concerns with Tukwila citizens. 15.2.2 "Essential public services" are facilities which provide basic public services, provided in one of the following manners: directly by a government agency, by a private entity substantially funded or contracted for by a government agency, or provided by a private entity subject to public service obligations (i.e., private utility companies which have a franchise or other legal obligation to provide service within a defined service area). The TFR Project meets Tukwila's definition of an EPF. It is also recognized by the State of Washington as an essential public facility under RCW 47.06.140. 15.2.3 Applications for essential public facilities will be processed through the unclassified use permit process established in the City's development regulations. This process shall assure that such facilities are located where necessary and that they are conditioned as appropriate to mitigate their impacts on the community. Sound Transit has applied for an unclassified use permit for the TFR Project. Staff is recommending certain mitigating conditions in addition to those that are part of the proposed project. Page 20 Si 1 Mrf .y •.'s ,�•� Y Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review 15.2.4 Public capital facilities of a countywide or statewide nature shall be sited to support the countywide land use pattern, support economic activities, mitigate environmental impacts, provide amenities or incentives, and minimize public costs. Amenities or incentives shall be provided to neighborhoods /jurisdictions in which facilities are sited Through compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Documents, the TFR Project should appropriately mitigate all significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the TFR Project will contribute several millions of dollars in improvements, including sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping and art, bike paths, emergency service apparatus, and transit facilities with off - street bus layover space. 6. The proposed unclassified use shall, to the maximum extent feasible, mitigate all significant adverse environmental impacts on public and private properties. Full consideration shall be given to: (a) alternative locations and/or routes that reduce or eliminate adverse impacts; and (b) alternative designs that reduce or eliminate adverse impacts. Alternative station locations, transitway routes and other design options were evaluated by the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project EIS and the Tukwila Freeway Route Supplemental EIS, and given consideration by the Sound Transit Board. The current route has been adopted as the preferred Initial Segment and has the status of a regional EPF. Local jurisdictions in which EPFs are to be sited must accommodate those facilities, though they may impose reasonable conditions and mitigation measures that do not effectively preclude the facility by rendering it impracticable. Signficant adverse impacts have been identified through the appropriate Environmental Documents, and appropriate mitigation has been identified by the FTA Record of Decision and Tukwila Staff review. Examples of key mitigation measures are discussed below. Sound Transit performed an evaluation of the TFR Project against Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) to quantify the impacts of the light rail on wetlands and streams, see Attachment G.9 for a summary. Tukwila had this report and the proposed mitigation plans peer reviewed to ensure that the proposal complied with the appropriate local, state and federal regulations. The current proposal for mitigation and restoration meets these regulations and should result in no net loss of wetland acreage or function. Sound Transit has proposed two methods of handling stormwater runoff from the trackway, as follows: 1. When the alignment goes through vegetated areas (about 45% of the total length) the water will sheet flow off of the edge of the track through a dispersion device that will break the runoff into droplet form that will fall to the ground similar to the original rainfall. The dispersed runoff will not require detention because the flows are not concentrated. 2. When the alignment is at grade, or crosses over paved areas, including roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks, the runoff will be collected and sent to detention ponds. Five of these ponds are proposed, see Attachment G.12 for a map. The pond adjacent to Group Health and SR 599 is in MIC/L zoning and will not be visible off site. Page 21 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review The pond between 47 and 48 Avenue South is in C /LI zoning and the adjacent houses will be purchased and demolished. The pond between Macadam and I -5, north of 144 is zoned LDR and may be visible from the street. The pond at 146 Street and I -5 is zoned Office and will have limited visibility from adjacent residences. The pond at 151 Street and 52 Avenue is zoned Office and will have some visibility from the streets and adjacent development. Sound Transit has provided cross - sections showing the context of the landscaping, trackway and streets for the ponds at 144 and 151 see Attachment w2 G.13. 6 ° .J U Sound Transit has proposed the possibility of handling the storm drainage from the U o station site and north parking lot through regional detention, rather than an on -site w = system. This would provide some benefit to the public storm drainage system and lessen —' f the impact on Gilliam Creek while allowing for greater flexibility in designing a future w 0 parking structure if needed on one or both of the sites. This issue will be finalized during the development permit process consistent with adopted ordinances and standards. g An NPDES permit was issued for the discharge of stormwater associated with = a construction of the Initial Segment (including TFR Project) on December 30, 2002, see F— i Attachment G.14. z � Sound Transit has submitted a noise and vibration study analyzing the impact of the TFR w w Project operation along the alignment on adjacent homes and businesses using the FTA's criteria for noise and vibration. These criteria are generally more stringent than the p City's noise standards because they reduce the allowable noise increase in areas with ° high existing background noise and are most appropriate for transportation projects. In i v addition the impact of the activities at the South 154 Street Station on the neighboring u .. apartments was analyzed using the Tukwila Noise Ordinance. The City had the study z peer reviewed to check its conclusions and proposed mitigation and found that no o additional mitigation was warranted. See Attachment G.15 for the summary of impacts p l— and mitigation measures contained in Sound Transit's study. z For purposes of the Tukwila Noise Ordinance, a Sound Transit railcar is most analogous to a motor vehicle over 10,000 pounds. Each rail car may weigh up to 105,000 pounds. Under TMC 8.22.060, the maximum permissible level of sound is 86 dB(A) for speeds up to 45 mph and 90 dB(A) for higher speeds. Sound Transit has prepared a Construction Impact Study that discusses impacts and mitigation for traffic, noise, dust, utility service and road wear. They have identified possible construction staging areas and haul routes, however the contractor will develop a plan for construction and may choose to use different or additional sites. Each staging area and haul route will require City approval. The City has worked with Sound Transit to write certain restrictions into Sound Transit's construction contracts concerning haul routes, detours and construction access. Sound Transit performed a traffic impact analysis at seven intersections near the South 154 Station area as described in the South 154 Street Light Rail Station Traffic Impact Analysis, see Attachment G.16. The analysis recommends several mitigation measures and proposed improvements that would bring levels of service and potential delays to Page 22 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review acceptable levels. Staff reviewed the analysis, has met with Sound Transit, and concurs with the proposed mitigation measures. Before construction begins, possible haul routes will ')e videotaped to benchmark their condition. Upon completion of construction, all roadways, staging areas, and construction areas within the public r -o -w will be inspected. If their condition is worse than what could be anticipated from normal wear and tear and is not attributable to other causes, Sound Transit shall be required to restore the damaged roadways, staging areas, and construction areas to their original condition. Sound Transit will not be required to upgrade roadways beyond their current configuration in order to conform to the City's current standards. This commitment is contained in the proposed Development and Transit Way Agreement. As part of the Construction Impact Study, Sound Transit prepared a Construction Community Outreach Plan that identifies goals for maintaining resident and business access, providing advance notification of construction activities, maintaining clean work sites, providing special business signage for construction areas and helping to promote existing businesses affected by the construction, see Attachment G.17. Appropriate elements of the Construction Community Outreach Plan will be included in Sound Transit's construction contract to assure compliance by the selected contractor. 7. In the event that a proposed essential public facility of a countywide or statewide nature creates an unavoidable significant adverse environmental or economic impact on the community, compensatory mitigation shall be required. Compen:;atory mitigation shall include public amenities, incentives or other public benefits which offset otherwise unmitigated adverse impacts of the essential public facility. Where appropriate, compensatory mitigation shall be provided as close to the affected area as possible. The Tukwila FSEIS concluded that there is the potential for significant, unavoidable adverse environmental or economic impacts associated with residential and business acquisition and displacement, wetland fill, visual impacts to residences along SR 518, and construction related impacts. In addition to the impact mitigation required by the FTA and the City of Tukwila, community compensation will occur in the form of improved transit service, improved pedestrian facilities along Southcenter Boulevard and East Marginal Way, undergrounding of existing overhead utilities and economic development opportunities in the vicinity of the South 154 Street Station. 8. For uses in residential areas, applicants shall demonstrate that there is no reasonable nonresidential alternative site for the use. The area along the alignment from 47 Place South to S 146 is primarily single family residential, and from 51 Avenue South to the station site is primarily multi - family residential. The rest of the route is located in commercial and industrial areas, generally along the edge of freeway r -o -w. Tukwila suggested this alignment because the Freeway Route was considered less disruptive than the original route through the primarily commercial and multi - family Tukwila International Boulevard corridor. The alignment decision for this EPF has been finalized at a regional level and is not subject to local review. Page 23 vetrid Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review 9. For uses in residential areas, applicants shall demonstrate that the use provides some tangible benefit for the neighborhood. Once it is in operation, the TFR Project will provide both regional and local transportation benefits to the communities along the route. These regional benefits include increased access to regional employment opportunities, services, and businesses in the Rainier Valley, Beacon Hill, and downtown Seattle. Once downtown, riders will be able to make direct connections to other regional bus routes in the downtown transit tunnel. The frequency of service will also be improved with light rail which will operate every 6- minutes for much of the day with service provided 20 hours per day, seven days per week. The South 154 Street Station will include both rail and bus access, with King County Metro operating increased bus service from the park and ride facility adjacent to the station. The reconstruction of Southcenter Boulevard between International Boulevard and 52 "d Avenue South will include amenities such as underground utilities, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, raised medians, street lighting and landscaping. Similar but less extensive improvements to East Marginal Way South and 51 Avenue South will also be made. Benefits to residential areas will diminish with distance from those proposed improvements and amenities. No physical improvements are planned for the residential area west of I -5 between 47 Place South and S 146 Street. 10. Secure community transition facilities shall be meet the following additional criteria: This criterion is not applicable to the TFR Project. CONCLUSIONS - UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT The development conditions and mitigation measures set forth in this report constitute a complete statement of all development conditions, mitigation measures, and other requirements to be imposed by the City through the land use approval process for the TFR Project. These development conditions and mitigation measures represent the City's exercise of its authority with respect to the Comprehensive Plan, development regulations, the State Environmental Policy Act, the Growth Management Act, and the Planning Enabling Act. The following conclusions are numbered according to the UUP criteria: 1. The only feasible elements of the TFR Project to be undergrounded are the existing overhead utilities in the path of the trackway and along Southcenter Boulevard and International Boulevard. The UUP application confirms that these utilities will be undergrounded. 2. The mitigation measures summarized in the FTA Record of Decision represent the outcome of the federal environmental review process. While the TFR Project will have impacts on the property and improvements in its vicinity, the FTA finds that with the accomplishment of these mitigation commitments Sound Transit will have taken all Page 24 Page 25 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review reasonable, prudent and feasible means to avoid or minimize impacts from the preferred alternative. The residents of the apartments adjacent to the station site (and north parking lot if it is used as a construction staging area) will be subject to the noise and disturbance of the construction site for several years, much longer than a typical building project. Building temporary or permanent noise walls at the beginning of construction would help to buffer that impact. In order to ensure the safety of the public using the South 154` Street Station and north parking lot, Sound Transit must revise the lighting plan to meet the IESNA standards as approved by the City. Agreements between Sound Transit and the Tukwila Police and Fire Departments have been reached on emergency access and response issues. 3. The construction of the light rail trackway will require modifications to Tukwila's setbacks, landscaping, height, and parking dimensions and such modifications are allowed pursuant to TMC 18.66. Requiring the trackway to meet an assortment of different zoning standards along its length is impracticable. This is a unique project and modifying certain standards will not set a precedent for other projects not subject to the UUP process. Setbacks. Setbacks from property lines should not be imposed on the light rail trackway as they would serve no purpose for this unique type of project. The rear setback for the station building from WSDOT r -o -w should not be required as there are no nearby structures or occupants to be adversely affected. Landscaping. Some flexibility with regard to perimeter landscape requirements on the station site will allow Sound Transit to maximize the number of parking stalls provided, thereby reducing the potential for adverse parking impacts. The total square footage of landscaping and number of plants required by code will be exceeded on site. Height. The height of the station building is similar to that anticipated by the Building Height Exception Area and should be permitted. Imposing a variety of height limitations on the trackway structure based on the zones it passes through would not be practical and so those standards should be modified to allow the proposed trackway heights. The trackway only exceeds zoning height limits for approximately one quarter of the TFR. 4. The TFR Project is an intensive transportation facility and along most of its length is in close proximity to freeways and arterials. 5. To the maximum extent feasible, the TFR Project is consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. As an EPF there are legal parameters on the scope of Tukwila's review that do not apply to review of non - essential public facilities. Conditions imposed through the Parking Determination issued by the Director of Community Development on July 1, 2004 will effectively mitigate the adverse impacts associated with parking demand at the South 154 Street Station. Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shorelii.,: Variance, Design Review 6. The City of Tukwila originally proposed the TFR route as a compromise to avoid the significant environmental and community impacts associated with Sound Transit's original choice of a Tukwila International Boulevard route. No alternative design could completely eliminate adverse impacts on properties along the route. Sound Transit will be required to meet Tukwila Municipal Code requirements, with the exception of the items called out in this report if modified by the City Council. The noise and vibration mitigation measures that Sound Transit has incorporated into its proposal will bring the alignment into compliance with the FTA regulations. The TFR Project will satisfy the Tukwila Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22) for the operation of the Station site through construction of the permanent noise wall on the eastern edge of the property. The five proposed detention ponds are located in areas that with the proposed screening will have limited visibility to the general public and are considered appropriate means of handling stormwater runoff. Implementation of the traffic mitigation measures described in the-traffic impact analysis should be incorporated in the final design process subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 7. A summary of mitigation measures required by the federal government to address impacts identified in the Tukwila FSEIS are provided in the FTA Record of Decision. 8. The alignment decision has been made at a regional level by the Sound Transit Board of Directors. Under applicable state law, the alignment of a regional transportation project constituting an EPF may not be revised by a local development regulation such as this Unclassified Use Permit. 9. Neighborhoods within walking distance of the South 154 Street Station will benefit from the light rail by having an additional transportation option. They may also have negative impacts from spillover parking or the need to implement a residential parking zone. Residential areas along Southcenter Boulevard will benefit from the aesthetic improvement of underground utilities, construction of sidewalks and a landscaped median. They will also have the negative effects of the visual intrusion of the trackway, diminished privacy and noise. Areas further away from the station will not receive tangible benefits aside from the regional benefit of the light rail transportation option. RECOMMENDATION — UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT City Staff recommends approval of these applications •_ogether with a Development and Transit Way Agreement pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170. Like any other applicant, Sound Transit must comply with applicable building and construction regulations during the construction process as described in the development agreement. Many specific details of development and construction will be finalized at that stage. Accordingly, Staff recommends approval of the Unclassified Use Permit with the following conditions and code modifications: Conditions: 1. Within four months of groundbreaking at the South 154 Street Station site, Sound Transit shall construct either a temporary or permanent noise wall along the eastern edge of the lot. Page 26 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review 2. If Sound Transit chooses to use the north parking lot as a temporary construction staging area, Sound Transit shall construct a temporary noise wall along the northern and eastern edges of the lot as approved by the City. 3. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the South 154 Street Station or north parking lot, Sound Transit shall demonstrate that the lighting plan will meet IESNA guidelines as approved by the City. }- w 4. Sound Transit has proposed to retain areas of existing landscaping to provide 6 M screening of detention ponds and buffering of residences as shown on Attachment v 0 C. In the event that these existing trees and plants do not survive the construction N 0 0 of the TFR project, Sound Transit shall replace them according to the schedule at TMC 18.54.130(3) prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the South 154 N u - Street Station. U1 0 . ¢ Specific code modifications pursuant to TMC 18.66.030: = 1. The TFR Project shall not be subject to Zoning Code setbacks or height limitations. z These regulations were drafted to regulate typical commercial and residential z o. development and were not intended to apply to transportation improvements such as light rail or freeways. v 1 with Zoning Code landscape standards due to the - 2. Parcels which cannot comply g P oF- TFR Project vegetation clear zone requirements shall not be considered non- w conforming to landscape standards. t u 3. Perimeter landscape requirements at the station and north parking lot sites may be . z modified in order to maximize the efficiency of the sites as long as the total 0 co required square footage of landscaping is provided. p Page 27 ss13'I'd:14 S , ,Ir.3¢S kh&* a.J. w .uru.t4.iw» .t z Staff Report to the City Council SECTION TWO — SHORELINE VARIANCE Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shore!. Variance, Design Review DECISION CRITERIA — SHORELINE VARIANCE This project requires a shoreline variance because the height above average grade of the bridge over the Duwamish River is greater than 35 feet. In the following discussion the review criteria from WAC 173 -27 -170 are shown below in italics, followed by Staffs comments. For Sound Transit's response to the criteria see Attachment H.2. For a cross section through the bridge improvements see Attachment H.3. z z re 2 JU 00 co J I. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a u- thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate w 0 that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. g Q = RCW 90.58.020 It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of F _ the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is Z ~ designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for u O limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the j public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, v 0 the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while 0 protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. w = w U The Link Light Rail line would have to cross the Duwamish River at some point in order ti_ o to connect South Seattle with SeaTac Airport. Construction of this regional EPF is in the w z co public interest. I- The King County Shoreline Management Master Program, which covers Tukwila's shoreline downriver of the 42 Avenue bridge, limits the height of structures to 35 feet above average grade. The light rail trackway is planned to be elevated at this location along the west edge of the East Marginal Way South r -o -w. The proposed light rail bridge will be 49.6 feet above ordinary high water as it crosses the Duwamish River just to the west of the automobile bridge. This height allows for minimum clearances for auto access underneath the trackway to properties west of the trackway as well as continued use of the river trail. 2. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: This criterion does not apply to this application because the bridge will be waterward of the OHWM, however item 3 requires that criteria (b) — (f) be met. (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property; Relief from the 35 foot height limitation is the only standard that the bridge is unable to 33::i"tib1Y9 Page 28 z Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review meet. Locating the bridge at grade, rather than elevating it as proposed, would significantly interfere with access to the surrounding existing uses north and south of the Duwamish River. (b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The height of the bridge is due to the constraints of the bank contours, trackway alignment and need to separate the light rail from surface traffic. Lowering the trackway to grade, similar to the existing East Marginal Way South bridge would increase the impacts on the shoreline environment because abutments, rather than columns, would be required. (c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; The light rail trackway is an intensive transportation use similar to the nearby freeways and arterials. At 26.5 feet wide it will be narrower than a typical arterial. The zoning north of the Duwamish River is Manufacturing Industrial Center Heavy and south is Manufacturing Industrial Center Light. The shoreline designation is Urban. The long -span structure will be 350 feet long and will be supported by double cast -in- place columns on each riverbank. On the north bank the foundation supporting the columns will be 38 feet landward from the OHWM and on the south bank the foundation will be 46 feet landward. Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be required to prevent sediment and pollutants from reaching the river. As mitigation for the clearing and construction within the riparian zone of the river, Sound Transit has proposed to plant 10,000 square feet of river bank with a variety of native shrubs and grasses, see Attachment 11.4 for the proposed mitigation plan. Non - native species would be removed and controlled according to a monitoring plan. (d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; The height relief requested is due to engineering constraints, not in order to pursue an economic benefit. Therefore, no special privilege has accrued to Sound Transit. (e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and According to Sound Transit, given the depth of the structure needed to span the length of the river and the clearance constraints on either end, this is the minimum height possible for the bridge. (I) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Work within the 200 foot shoreline zone on either side of the river bank will be subject to a City of Tukwila Shoreline permit, Joint Aquatics Resource Permits Application, Nationwide Permits 14 and 33 from the US Army Corps of Engineers, a Coastal Zone Management consistency review by the Washington State Department of Ecology, and a Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. This level of public agency oversight will protect against detrimental effects to the shoreline. Page 29 M Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shorelii... Variance, Design Review 3. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; Sound Transit contends that it would not be possible to both meet the 35 foot height limit and meet its functional objectives of maintaining access to the adjacent properties and public access to the shoreline trail. (b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and See responses above. (c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. The Duwamish River is only considered navigable to the turning basin, which is downstream of the proposed bridge. The proposed bridge will be higher than the existing automobile bridge on East Marginal Way South. 4. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. No additional bridges are planned or expected in this area of the Duwamish River. Generally bridge designs are driven by engineering factors and this variance would not be expected to set a precedent for other bridges. 5. Variances front the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. The bridge is considered a water dependent use and therefore does not conflict with the use regulations. CONCLUSIONS — SHORELINE VARIANCE 1. The Link Light Rail is an EPF and is intended to serve the public interest by providing an additional transportation option. The proposed height of the bridge is 49.6 feet above ordinary high water while the King County Shoreline Management Master Program limits the height of structures to 35 feet. Staff recommends that the variance be granted for 50 feet, rather than 49.6 feet to allow for slight variations during construction. 2. The height of the bridge is based on the need to provide grade separation for the light rail cars and preserve access underneath the trackway for adjacent properties. This height is the minimum necessary to meet the engineering objectives for the crossing. Page 30 r Ira ''','0"41 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review The use of a long span structure will minimize disturbance to the riverbank. All City, State and Federal requirements and permit conditions will be met by the bridge design. Impacts on the shoreline due to construction, shading, and presence of the bridge structure will be mitigated by BMPs and riparian enhancement. No additional impact on the river will be created by the increased height. 3. The proposed bridge will be higher than the existing automobile bridge on East Marginal Way South and therefore will not have any effect on navigation of the river. 4. No additional bridges are planned across the river, and therefore this variance should not set a precedent for other developments. 5. The bridge does not require relief from the use regulations as it is a water dependant use. RECOMMENDATIONS — SHORELINE VARIANCE Staff recommends that the shoreline height variance be approved to allow an increase in height from 35 feet to 50 feet over the ordinary high water mark for the TFR bridge over the Duwamish River. Page 31 Staff Report to the City Council SECTION THREE - DESIGN REVIEW Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shorelit._ Variance, Design Review DECISION CRITERIA - DESIGN REVIEW The station building and associated parking lots are subject to design review approval under TMC 18.60.030 due to their location in the Regional Commercial zone and size. In the following discussion the architectural review criteria from the Tukwila International Boulevard Design Manual are shown below in italics, followed by Staff's comments. For Sound Transit's response to the criteria see Attachment I.2. 1. Site Design a. Site Design Concept 1. Organize site design elements to provide an orderly and easily understood arrangement of building, landscaping, and circulation elements that support the functions of the site. The South 154 Street Station can be approached from several directions. The layout of the station site will be clearly visible from the sidewalks and driveway, due to the elevation of International Boulevard and Southcenter Boulevard and the slope of the site, see Attachment D for the site plan. The building is prominent due to its height, the access points are clearly marked, the pedestrian paths are delineated by concrete paths, and the routes of movement for vehicles should be well signed. b. Relationship to Street Front 1. Organize site design elements to create a distinct street edge, and minimize parking between structures and street. 2. Orient at least one building entry to a major public street. Because this is a public facility that is tied to a rail alignment and adjacent to parking, it is more of a free - standing object than one that contributes to the street edge, as commercial development should do. Public buildings typically deserve to set apart from their surroundings rather than set into them, but the entrance will be highly visible from two major streets. c. Street Corners 1. Emphasize the importance of street corners through building location, the provision of pedestrian access, special site features and/or landscape features. There will be a special treatment at each of the four pedestrian entrances, including a plaza and other elements. At the corner of Southcenter Blvd. and International Blvd. there will be a plaza, sign and transit beacon. At the entrance from International Blvd. there will be a small plaza with a planting area in the center. At the pedestrian entrance from Southcenter Blvd. there will be both stairs and a ramp which wrap around a planting area, sign and 14' tall lighted transit marker. At the entrance adjacent to the driveway there will be a small pedestrian plaza and connection to the on -site sidewalks. Page 32 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review d. Continuity of Site with Adjacent Sites 1. Maintain visual and functional continuity between the proposed development and adjacent and neighboring properties through setbacks, building massing, circulation and landscaping, where appropriate. As stated above, this is a major, unique public building that presents a distinct and appropriate break with surrounding context. There is only one adjacent development to the station site, the West Colonial Village Apartments, and it is more appropriate to provide separation than continuity given the difference in use and potential for adverse noise and visual impacts. The north parking lot should be separated from the adjacent multi - family developments for safety reasons. However, proposed walkways, sidewalks, and vegetation will contribute to a functional continuity in the public realm. The new intersection on Southcenter Boulevard between the station site and north parking lot is undergoing final engineering and the driveway configuration may change slightly. This should not affect the number of parking spaces or amount of landscaping provided. e. Shared Facilities 1. Incorporate opportunities for joint development of sites where there is potential for common building walls, shared driveways, landscaping, or other shared facilities. This project does not lend itself to shared walls and driveways. However, there is the possibility in the future that the air - rights over the parking lots could be used for compatible development, as has occurred with similar rail stations in other parts of the country. f Site Design for Safety 1. Minimize conflicts between drivers and pedestrians through the siting of structures, location of circulation elements, landscape design, and placement of signs. 2. Design and site structures to maximize site surveillance opportunities from buildings and public streets. Marked pedestrian paths have been provided from the three pedestrian entrance points of the station site to the transit plaza. A pedestrian barrier consisting of a hedge and possibly a fence is proposed between International Boulevard and the sidewalk to discourage drivers from stopping and letting out passengers in the travel lane. A "kiss - and- ride" passenger dropoff is proposed on the station site adjacent to the transit plaza. The north parking lot has a concrete walkway through the site to the crosswalk at Southcenter Boulevard. The arrangement of planting and the grades allow for visibility into the sites. In addition, security cameras will be placed to allow for remote monitoring of the station and both parking lots. 3. Provide adequate lighting levels in all pedestrian areas, including building entries, along walkways, parking areas, and other public areas. The data provided in the plans indicate a thoroughly developed system of lighting for station platforms, parking areas, vehicular drives, and walkways. There are a variety of Page 33 x. -n..m r__,"iC;.�.e•++. r.�, +vmr.±drwrte m.n.m:a�... ,.,... . , __ _:CMm!.,s .__ Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline Variance, Design Review g. fixtures proposed from 12 foot tall poles along tho pedestrian pathways, 45' light standards in the parking lot, and custom lighting arms over the benches to ground level uplights around the art installation in the transit plaza. 4. Design landscaping so that long term growth will not interfere with site lighting and surveillance. The light standards will be separated from the landscape islands so that leaves will not obscure the lighting. S. Use durable, high quality materials in site furnishings and features for ease of maintenance. The proposed plaza furniture is all metal and consists of benches, perforated column wraps;' steel tube light supports, ash trays and railings, see Attachment I.3. Certain benches will have glass canopy covers supported by aluminum tubing. The plaza and walkways will be scored cast in place concrete. Siting and Screening of Service Areas 1. Minimize the visual and aural impacts of service areas such as loading docks, trash and recycling collection points, utility maintenance areas, etc., through site design, landscaping and screening. The project does not contain the usual areas for service, loading, and trash that are associated with commercial development. The service elements have been incorporated into the bases of the structural supports so that they are less obtrusive. h. Natural Features and Sensitive Areas 1. Preserve natural features such as existing topography, significant trees or wooded areas, wetlands and/or watercourses and incorporate then: into the overall site, where appropriate. The site does not have wetlands, watercourses or significant vegetation. This is an urban site that will be intensely developed as a transit facility. Topographic modifications will be reduced through a series of retaining walls. 2. Design and site structures on hillsides to minimize the visual and environmental impact of development in these locations. This site is not on a hillside. 3. Employ site design techniques that take advantage of and/or enhance visual focal points along the corridor, where feasible. The size, height, and scale of the proposed station will be a dramatic focal point for the International Boulevard corridor. Page 34 Staff Report to the City Counc,. Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Short-1'e Variance, Design Review i. Surface Stormwater Detention Facilities 1. Integrate water quality treatment techniques such as biofiltration males and ponds with overall site design, where possible and appropriate. The design includes below -grade vaults for detention of storm water. These may be eliminated and replaced with a regional detention program. No bioswales or stormwater ponds are proposed at the station site or north parking lot. j Pedestrian Circulation 1. Provide paved pedestrian walkways that connect all buildings and entries of buildings within a site. Sidewalks exist or will be constructed along the north and south sides of Southcenter Boulevard and the east side of International Boulevard. Walkways connect the entry points with the crosswalk and station plaza. These will allow for many choices in walking routes both within the site and connecting with points beyond. 2. Provide a paved pedestrian walkway front the public sidewalk(s) to the main entry of developments; where a development fronts two streets, access must be provided from both streets. . The north parking lot has a walkway to the crosswalk. The station site design includes three walkways — one from each of the pedestrian entrances to the transit plaza. 3. Provide pedestrian connections from the on -site pedestrian network to walkways on adjacent properties and to other off -site destinations, where feasible. In the site design, internal walkways lead to sidewalks that will allow for connections to off -site destinations. 4. Support pedestrian movement between properties and from private property to public rights - of -way by providing facilities that traverse natural or man -made barriers, where appropriate. Walkways are designed with a treatment that highlights where they cross vehicular movement routes. In addition, small plazas highlight locations where walkways traverse planted slopes, so that it clear where to cross these barriers. S. Provide direct pedestrian walkways front businesses in commercial areas to transit stops, and/or provide additional transit amenities, where appropriate and feasible. The proposal itself is a transit amenity and sidewalks within the area will be installed or upgraded. Page 35 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shore', Variance, Design Review k. Pedestrian Amenities 1. Incorporate pedestrian amenities in site design to increase the utility of the site and enhance the overall pedestrian environment in the corridor, where possible. The site design incorporates numerous pedestrian features, such as walkways, seating, lighting, special paving, and covered waiting areas. All of these are intended to create a place where people feel safe and comfortable on foot. L Vehicular Circulation 1. Minimize conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There are several points where walkways cross vehicular lanes. However these are treated with special paving to give emphasis to pedestrian movement, and in some cases the roadway will be raised to identify pedestrian pathways. 2. Minimize the amount of space devoted to vehicular circulation by limiting access driveways; ensuring that internal site circulation is efficient; and/or taking advantage of opportunities for shared driveways. There is only one driveway for the station site. There will be a grasscrete emergency vehicle access from SR518. The north parking lot har driveways onto both Southcenter Bl. and International Bi. m. Parking 1. Minimize the amount of space devoted to parking by taking advantage of shared parking and/or methods for reducing parking demand, where possible. The parking, in this case, is being built for use by transit riders. It would not be appropriate to have it be shared with other uses, at least during peak commuting periods of the day. 2. Building Design As a general observation, this is a one -of -kind public structure that serves as a rail transit station. As such it is difficult to compare it with other building types typically seen within the urban environment. It has an unusual form and, in this particular case, floats above the ground on structural supports. Moreover, it is part of a larger transportation system that depends upon visual clues to indicate its function. Therefore, typical concerns related to contextual issues and compatible scaling are inappropriate here. Nonetheless, many of the design review criteria can still be addressed. a. Architectural Concepts 1. Develop an architectural concept for structure(s) on the site that conveys a cohesive and consistent thematic or stylistic statement, and is responsive to the functional characteristics of the development. Page 36 Staff Report to the City Counc1. Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shor...,ne Variance, Design Review This is a visually bold and prominent structure, see Attachment D for elevations. It will be very visible from multiple directions. It reflects an attitude of movement (trains) and shelter (covering over platforms). It has glazing and structural elements that will be lighted at night. It will convey, symbolically, the idea of public transportation. It is not attempting to hide its purpose by concealing it within a wrapping that looks like some other use. It is direct and clear about its role within the region and the transportation network. 2. Ensure that development on sites with more than one structure employ similar or complementary architectural styles and/or are related in scale, form, color, and use of materials and/or detailing. There.is only one main structure proposed for the site. The traction power substation and electrical vault will be screened rather than designed to match the station building. b. Architectural Relationships 1. Provide for visual and functional continuity between the proposed development and adjacent and neighboring structures when these structures demonstrate an appropriate level of architectural quality. As indicated initially, this development is unusual in its function, size, and structural form. It is not appropriate to attempt to have it provide "visual and functional continuity" with adjacent and neighboring structures. In fact, it will depart quite dramatically and beneficially from neighboring development. It does, however, demonstrate a high quality in proportions, details, and materials. Therefore, it is likely to stimulate the intensification and redevelopment of nearby development. 2. Reduce the apparent scale of large commercial buildings located in the Neighborhood Commercial Center district and located adjacent to residential districts. The proposed structure is not located within the Neighborhood Commercial Center, but does abut a multi - family residential district. This is a large structure. While the details and parts will reduce its apparent bulk somewhat, it will continue to be a large structure. c. Building Elements, Details, and Materials 1. Provide distinctive building corners at street intersections through the use of special architectural elements and detailing, and pedestrian- oriented features where possible (see definition of pedestrian friendly facade). This structure is sufficiently large that, even though it is setback from the corner, it will mark the area as a contemporary landmark. Its visual strength is not so much found in "fine- grain" features and details but in its sweeping and strong forms. Page 37 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreline 'Variance, Design Review 2. Relate the design and scale of building elements and details to the building's overall form and massing. There will be numerous details of visual interest. Many will relate to the large -scale structural parts and connections associated with the bold and exposed structural system being used. There will be a continuity between the metal mesh enclosing the stairwells, the glass curtain wall system and the expressed structural elements. 3. Employ architectural details that are appropriate to the architectural character of the building. The detailing is found in the functional elements of the structure such as the glass rain canopies, window modules and security screening around the stairwells. There is no applied ornamentation, consistent with the building's modern style. 4. Utilize durable, high quality building materials that contribute to the overall appearance, ease of maintenance, and longevity of the building. The proposed materials are cast concrete, concrete block, stainless steel, painted steel and glass, the materials board will be available at the public hearing. Given that this is a building type that will receive heavy public use during all times of the day and night, it has been designed with heavy -duty, long - lasting, low- maintenance materials. S. Integrate the design and placement of exterior lighting with the architectural design and materials. The light rail trains will operate 18 to 20 hours per day so many transit riders will need to find and navigate the site in the dark. Tukwila has had the lighting plan for both the station site and north parking lot peer reviewed and determined that the average lighting levels will be lower than recommended in IENSA Guidelines, see Attachment I.S. A variety of lighting is proposed including building mounted wall lights on the station, pedestrian level lights above the benches on the plaza and lighting within the building that will illuminate the interiors for a "lantern" like effect. d. Pedestrian- Oriented Features 1. Provide pedestrian friendly facades (see Definitions) on the ground floor of all buildings that face public streets and entry facades that face parking areas. This structure does not have a traditional or conventional "facade." It is very evident where the entrance is located, due to a prominent escalator, but it essentially "floats" above the ground level on large columns. 2. Provide special treatment for large blank walls (see Definitions) that are visible from pedestrian walkways and parking areas. Page 38 Staff Report to the City Counci, Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shore.1ne Variance, Design Review There are no large, blank walls in the conventional sense, as the structure "floats" above grade. However, it does have large wall surfaces that will be glazed and well - detailed. The entry and transit plaza will incorporate weather protection. The plaza level will have seating, lighting, directional signage, and other pedestrian amenities. There will also be public art at the station site that was developed in consultation with the Tukwila Arts Commission. e. Mechanical Equipment 1. Locate and/or screen roof - mounted mechanical equipment to minimize visibility from public streets, building approaches, and adjacent properties Mechanical equipment will be placed in equipment rooms, avoiding the need for rooftop elements. Most of the station will be open to the air and will neither be heated nor cooled. 3. Landscape Design 3. Enhance building entries through the use of weather protection, landscaping, pedestrian amenities and/or distinctive architectural features. 2. Locate and/or screen utility meters and other ground level utility equipment to minimize visibility from the street. Such equipment will be contained within structures. At the southeast corner of the site, there will be a "Traction Power Substation" or TPSS. This is a small, building -like enclosure containing electrical equipment. It will be enclosed with a decorative wall and landscaped. A City Light substation will be located at the northeast corner of the station site. It will be approximately four feet tall and the landscaping in that area will be revised to provide screening. a. Landscape Design 1. Develop a landscape design concept that demonstrates a clear and appropriate aesthetic statement. The landscape design is organized both to highlight important site elements and to create an overall green and lush setting in the area surrounding the station structure, see Attachment D for the station site and north parking lot landscape plans. Landscape islands are placed to reinforce entrances and walkways. The design also provides a buffer along the east property lines where there is adjacent housing, and it creates a vegetated edge along the freeway. 2. Develop a landscape design concept that reinforces site design and fulfills the functional requirements of the development, including screening and buffering. Page 39 Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreh,ic Variance, Design Review 4. Signs a. Signage Concept 1. Provide signage that is integrated with the architectural concept in scale, detailing, use of color, materials, and placement. Signage needs for the station site and north parking lot are different from what is allowed for a commercial business in the Sign Code. In addition to the signs identifying the station name, a variety of regulatory, informational, and directional signs are needed. Sound Transit has proposed signage that is consistent with its system -wide design, see Attachment I.6 for sign designs. Directional and identification signs are dark with white lettering. Accent colors are teal, yellow, and medium blue. Signs range in size from 12 square feet for main site identification signs to 1.5 square feet for regulatory signs. Sound Transit has proposed two nine square foot ele "tronic signs at the plaza level to provide timely information about bus and train arrivals and other announcements. Page 40 Sound Transit has proposed to reduce its front yard landscaping along Southcenter Boulevard at both the South 154 Street Station and the north parking lot because the full 10 feet of front yard landscaping cannot be provided without reducing the number of parking stalls. Landscaping and a noise wall will be provided along the east property line of the station site, adjacent to the apartment complex. Landscaping and fencing will be provided on the east edge of the north parking lot adjacent to the Ambassador Gardens i ►= apartments. cc 6 The interior parking lot landscaping at the station site and north parking lot will exceed 6 code standards. The linear landscape islands will act to channel pedestrians toward the v 0 designated paths. w z J I.- CO LL 3. Ensure that the landscape design reinforces and complements plantings in the public right- w O of -way. 2 The street trees along Southcenter Boulevard will be green ash. Along International Boulevard the street trees will be scarlet oak. The north parking lot will use a similar = a plant palette. I- _ Z �. I- 0 z I- b. Planting Design j 1. Select plant materials that reinforce the landscape design concept, and are appropriate to n 0 their location in terms of hardiness, maintenance needs, and growth characteristics. 0 cA 2. Incorporate existing significant trees, wooded areas, and/or vegetation in the planting plan 0 (— where they contribute to overall landscape design. = w � The tree species proposed for the interior parking lot islands is crimson king maple. The z drive aisle will be lined with worplesdon sweetgum. A row of raywood ash will be adjacent to the transit plaza. The east -west pedestrian spine will be lined with armstrong 0 I- maples. Very little landscaping exists on the sites, and that landscaping will be removed z due to the extensive grade changes and the need to construct frontal improvements. Staff Report to the City Counc,_ Animated signs, defined as changing more frequently than every 24 hours, are prohibited under Tukwila's Sign Code. b. Sign Placement 1. Provide signage that is oriented to both pedestrians and motorists in design and placement. 2. Provide adequate directional signage on site and building identification numbers that are legible from the street(s). 3. Integrate freestanding signs with the landscaping. Two monument signs are proposed to identify the station, one on the pedestrian plaza at the northwest corner of the site and one at the station driveway. Under the Sign Code the station would be permitted a 150 square foot wall sign and a 100 square foot double faced freestanding sign. Instead, Sound Transit has proposed two 12 square foot monument signs but no station wall sign. In addition, a variety of informational and directional signs are proposed to direct pedestrian traffic; separate bus and car traffic; identify facilities such as elevators, wheelchair routes, and phones; warn that vehicles left overnight will be towed; identify the bus stops; and identify loading zones. Under Tukwila's Sign Code the station would be permitted up to four internal information signs without a permit (more with Planning Commission approval). The electronic signs would be mounted on the south side of the columns at the plaza level of the site. Additional signage is proposed throughout the interior of the station and along the platform, however, this would not be subject to regulation under the Sign Code. c. Sign Design 1. Consider both day- and night -time viewing in the design, placement, and lighting of signage. The parking lots and transit plaza will have an average lighting of 2.6 footcandles. Only the electronic signs will be illuminated; the others will rely on ambient lighting for visibility. 2. Provide durable, high quality materials and finishes for signage. All of the sign faces will be metal, except for the plastic electronic signs. They will either be mounted on metal posts or existing light standards, fences, building walls or columns. CONCLUSIONS - DESIGN REVIEW 1. Site Design. The site design exhibits a great deal of attention with respect to pedestrian movement and pedestrian amenities. The entries and access routes are clear and well- appointed. Final engineering of the intersection across Southcenter Boulevard between the two parking lots may result in a slight reconfiguration of the driveways. As this is a traffic engineering issue, the final design should be subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. This facility has been designed for the long term, with permanent materials and a thorough consideration of maintenance. Page 41 Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shore. ..e Variance, Design Review z W 00 J w • 0 u_Q _ • a w z = F- 0 z w �o U O N C F- ww E Z w U = O~ z Staff Report to the City Council Tukwila Freeway Route UUP, Shoreli,__ Variance, Design Review 2. Building Design. The structure is unusual but demonstrates a skill in balancing the large scale and bold structural system with a sense of detailing and proportions in the glazing and architectural z elements. The details are appropriate for the size and function of this transit facility. An elaborate and sophisticated lighting plan will provide both functional area lighting and '� ur dramatic accent lighting. The lighting plan peer review indicates that some modification of the plan is needed to meet acceptable lighting levels. Staff is recommending that this o p be approved before the issuance of the station building permit. The art installations at the • LIJ station plaza and within the building are the result of a collaborative process between Lir Sound Transit and Tukwila's Arts Commission. C u_ u 0 3. Landscape Design. g a The landscape design exhibits a visual and functional cohesiveness. It is organized both = a to highlight important site elements and to create an overall green and lush setting in the I- _ area surrounding the station structure. The landscape design reinforces the site and Z I- building design aspects and offers a setting that is green and visually appealing. Some z O modification of the landscaping at the northeast corner of the station site will be needed to accommodate the planned City Light substation. o • S O I- W W X� LL- Z UN O~ 4. Signs. The proposed signs are durable, consistent with each other and the design of the station building, and modestly sized. However, there is no avenue in the Sign Code to allow two freestanding signs on this site. Sound Transit will need to request Planning Commission approval for the additional internal information signs it has proposed at the station. RECOMMENDATIONS - DESIGN REVIEW Staff recommends approval of the station building, landscape design, site layout, and furnishings as reflected in the attachments to this report. The South 154 Street Station signage is not covered by this permit and will require separate applications and approvals. Three minor modifications are anticipated to the station site: - A slight realignment of the driveway; - Addition of a City Light substation at the northeast corner; and - Changes to the lighting plan to meet IENSA standards. These and other minor changes should be subject to administrative approval by the appropriate Tukwila department director. Page 42 z Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route hilltop Park r� S_128th ST 154th St ;Bout 154th Station ri.. S 1 St Crestview Park Joseph Foster Memorial Pork MAP KEY ItMMINI At grade trackway (ground level) Elevated trackway Station with Park & Ride ("A Deferred Station with ` Park & Ride Foster Golf Unks SouthHmter Mall Marta Par SOUNDTRANSI7 Attachment A SOUNDTRANSIT June 21, 2004 Ms. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 Revised: C755 Tukwila Freeway Route Shoreline Permit Dear Ms. Gierloff: Sound Transit has revised the Tukwila Freeway Route Shoreline Permit to address project changes and clarify work identified in the previous permit application. The revisions include placing of public art on the bridge crossing of the Duwamish River, relocating a fire lane near column A45, temporary construction staging area description in the text, and relocating an osprey nest. The revised 11 x 17 drawing ST -108 replaces the current ST -108 in Tab 9 and the full size ST -108 replaces the full sized drawing in the pocket in Tab 9. Drawing SA -108 depicting the staging area on S. 115 Street also belongs in Tab 9. The Technical Memorandum dated June 4, 2004 from Parametrix replaces the August 8, 2003 and February 26, 2004 transmittal memoranda and belongs in Tab 8 as does the revised Criteria For Projects Subject to King County Shoreline Regulations and the revised Attachment A Consistency with Variance Criteria which also replace the current documents. Please be sure to remove each of the old documents and replace them with the enclosed materials so that your binders are up to date. The map depicting the osprey nest relocation and the public art blue lights on the bridge are new components of the package and should be placed after the revised document Criteria For Projects Subject to King County Shoreline Regulations in Tab 8. If you have any questions regarding these changes, please contact me at 206.398.5135. S - ly, To 9L nd Senior Environmental Planner C. Lauren Swift, Sound Transit Rod Kempkes, Sound Transit Abigail Bonk, Sound Transit CT:lts Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Union Station 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104-2826 Reception (206) 398 -5000 Facsimile (206) 398 -5499 www.soundtransit.org ,IMIM wM,7 '� rK', 7.. ,,m ;v,"±r.rrms .`c"rn T,119V! MS , "- , ,•,i" REC EIVED JUN 21 ?004 D t VE LOPjy I EN T Chair John 7:adenhurg . Pierce County Executive. Vice Chairs. Greg Nickels Seattle Mayor Mark Olson Everett Counciluteatbcr Fred Butler /.claptab Deputy/ Council Preaidcnt.: :lack Crawford /Ceaatore Co/Mei/member David Enslow Sumner Cot Doug MacDonald ll'aabitigton State Dcpai•t,ne,,t . rf 1raa✓portatlon Secretary Connie Marshall Bellevue Mayor Richard McIver Seattle Councilateuiber Julia Patterson . . - Kinq Col Councilmeitber Kinq County Coaacil,ne,nber . Kevin. Phelps 7itcouta Councilnteatber Larry Phillips - . Chain King County Council • ,,Aaron Reardon Su nba tui., /.r. Clil u tty.Executive ... ` Ron Sims . King County Executive Jack Start Creek Cot Claudia Thomas Laken oiu) Deputy d /ayor Pete von Rcichhauer • flee Chair, Kit {q County Connei! • Chief Executive Officer Joni Earl Parametrix Date: To: ENGINEERING • PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM June 4, 2004 Chris Townsend, Senior Environmental Planner Sound Transit, Link Light Rail Union Station, 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle, Washington 98104 -2826 From: Margaret Clancy and Marti Louther Subject: Addendum to Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Project Name: Link Light Rail, Tukwila Freeway Route This memo and attached documents serve as an Addendum to Sound Transit's Shoreline Permit Application, Agency Permit L03 -049, submitted to the City of Tukwila on August 8, 2003, for a light rail bridge over the Green - Duwamish River. This memo replaces the August 8, 2003 and February 26, 2004 transmittal memoranda. The memo summarizes Sound Transit's revised application to the City of Tukwila for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to construct a light rail bridge across the Green - Duwamish River at river mile (RM) 7 and to place utilities underground in this location. The memo briefly describes the light rail project and the bridge location in the shoreline zone. Construction methods are outlined and impacts to sensitive areas are described. The memo summarizes mitigation measures to compensate for shoreline impacts. Greater detail regarding impacts and mitigation can be found in the Tukwila Freeway Route Link Light Rail Sensitive Area Study, Wetlands and Streams, hereafter, the Sensitive Areas Study (Sound Transit 2004 revision in preparation) and in the attached documents. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sound Transit proposes to construct and operate a regional light rail system known at the Central Link Light Rail Project. In the City of Tukwila, the segment (known as the Tukwila Freeway Route or TFR) will be approximately 4.9 miles long. The TFR segment originates at Martin Luther King Jr. Way S. (MLK Way) and heads west on the south side of Boeing Access Road, and then south, paralleling E. Marginal Way S., State Route (SR) 599, Interstate 5 (I -5), and SR 518, terminating near the junction of S. 154 Street and International Boulevard (SR 99) in Tukwila. Approximately 4.1 miles of the guideway will be elevated and approximately 0.8 mile will be constructed on retained cut - and -fill. A long -span structure will cross the Green - Duwamish River within the shoreline zone (Figures 1, 2 and 3). The proposed Green - Duwamish River Bridge occurs at approximately RM 7, parallel to and downstream of the E. Marginal Way S. Bridge. At this location, the river is approximately 200 feet wide and 6 feet deep. Due to steep banks, the 100 -year floodplain occurs within the shoreline zone approximately 6 to 12 feet beyond the OHWM. A salt -water wedge that follows tidal fluctuations influences the river in this location. River banks are steep and armored with riprap in some areas. Dominant vegetation consists of Himalayan blackberry, Scots broom, and reed canarygrass, with four large locusts (greater than 22 inches diameter at breast height) on the north bank. A small emergent wetland is present along the south bank of ,.tirl_ 1 ti'•'ki???Fiy 4 fipiiJinit '._. _ the river downstream of the light rail crossing. For a description of the wetland, Wetland 104, see the Sensitive Area Study (Sound Transit 2004). This wetland will not be impacted by the new bridge. On the north bank, land use in the shoreline zone consists of two residential properties; one is an historic farmhouse, the Carosino farm, with associated outbuildings and parking. The residential property is surrounded by parking and light industrial land use. The Green - Duwamish Regional Trail parallels the river on the south bank. Land uses in shoreline zone on the south bank consist of light industry and parking areas. PROPOSED STRUCTURES IN THE SHORELINE ZONE TECHNICAL MLN.iORANDUM (CONTINUED) In the 200 - foot -wide shoreline zone, the light rail will be constructed as a 26.5 -foot -wide elevated structure within a 32 -foot wide permanent right -of -way. The long -span structure crossing the Green - Duwamish River will be 350 -feet long and will be supported by double cast -in -place columns on each riverbank. On the north bank, the columns are approximately 50 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). On the south bank, the columns are approximately 80 feet landward of the OHWM. The foundation supporting the columns is 38 feet landward of the OHWM on the north bank and 46 feet landward of the OHWM on the south bank. Excavation for the column foundations will occur outside the 100 -year floodplain (Ken Bucholz, Hatch Mott MacDonald, personal communication 4- 5- 2003). The top of the bridge structure will be 48 feet above the OHWM (to the top of the handrail), and 31 feet above the average grade (land surface) (Figure 3). Approach ramps to the bridge will be similarly elevated. The elevated structure consists of a 26.5 -foot- wide single box beam that supports both the southbound and northbound tracks. It will be built of precast segmental beams that span up to 120 feet. There will be no embankments or abutments for the bridge or approaches in the floodplain at the Green - Duwamish River crossing (Ken Bucholz, Hatch Mott MacDonald, personal communication April 2003). The elevated structure will have a 3.2 -foot -high handrail on each side and an overhead catenary system (OCS) mounted between the northbound and southbound tracks. The OCS extends 25 feet above the surface of the tracks. In connection with bridge construction, overhead utilities along E. Marginal Way S. will be placed underground in the shoreline zone. In addition, the existing Carosino Farmhouse, on the north bank, will be relocated within the shoreline zone. The farmhouse will be moved from its present location approximately 260 feet to the west to increase the setback from the light rail. Construction staging activities will occur at a site on S. 115 Street, partly within the shoreline zone and 400 feet east of the proposed light rail. Staging will occur on a site that is currently a staging and storage area. Fire access to the rail line is required. Conflicts with a new column and an existing fire lane on the south side of the river necessitate relocating the existing fire lane. The replacement fire lane is proposed to be located approximately 50 feet farther south, on the south side of column A45. An existing 36 -inch diameter culvert outlet from the ditch to the Duwamish River will be extended approximately 70 feet to the south to match the fill. To provide clearance for the Light Rail line, it will be necessary to raise the height of the Seattle City Light Transmission lines located adjacent to the corridor. As a result of this action, an existing active osprey nest located on the top of a transmission pole approximately 0.10 mile west of E. Marginal Way and just south of S. 112 Street, will need to be decommissioned and relocated. To mitigate for this impact, an alternate nest platform structure will be constructed approximately 0.25 mile to the west within Cecil Moses Memorial Park. The nest platform will be approximately 75 feet tall. Two potential locations within the park (one at the north end and the other at the southwest corner) have been identified Sound Transit Link Light Rail, Tukwila Freeway Route Revised Draft Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application 2 June 2004 and approved of by Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as suitable nest platform locations. Sound Transit has been closely coordinating with King County Parks to locate the nest platform within the park. METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION Light Rail Bridge TECHNICAL MEN...#RANDUM (CONTINUED) The bridge will not require any in- stream structures or work below the OHWM. Construction materials may be brought to the site by barge; however, no anchoring will be allowed in the riverbed. A diaper or similar protective screen will be used when the bridge deck is installed to prevent debris from reaching the river. At the Green - Duwamish crossing, a 30 -by -36 -foot pier foundation with 20 below ground columns will be constructed on each bank (Figures 1 and 2). Approximately 1,100 cubic yards of material will be excavated at each column and 400 cubic yards will be excavated for re- routing a storm drain, for a total of 2,600 cubic yards. Because soils are not strong in this location, ground improvement is required. Ground improvement will occur in a 46- by -75 -foot area centered around each column foundation. Coarse gravel will be incorporated into the substrate to stiffen the ground, for a total depth of 70 feet. This work will be carried out using a vibrating probe. Once ground has been stiffened, 20 closed -end steel pilings will be driven into the ground using a track - mounted pile driver. Pilings will be cut off and a concrete pile cap will be poured. Then two cast -in- place concrete columns will be poured and bridge segments will be brought to the site and constructed using a cantilevered truss. Where drilling occurs for columns and groundwater is encountered, water will be collected, treated, and disposed of at an approved location. The bridge over the Green - Duwamish River will be built out from the columns on each bank. At the Green - Duwamish crossing, temporary construction access roads and equipment pads will be installed adjacent to the alignment to allow access to each pier foundation and create a level work surface. These temporary roads will be constructed with minimal grading and will consist of geotextile materials with gravel placed on top. Equipment such as a vibrating probe, drilling augurs, crawler cranes, or other heavy equipment will be used to perform the work. The limit of temporary construction roads and pads is shown in Figure 1 as "limit of construction." Construction activities associated with relocating the fire lane will include placing approximately 800 CY of fill material in an existing ditch and extending a 36 -inch culvert approximately 70 feet. Soil will be stabilized and the road will be paved. Decommissioning the existing fire lane will include removing the asphalt, re- grading, and seeding the area. Approximately five percent of this fill amount is located below the 100 -year flood elevation Erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be used to prevent sediment and pollutants from reaching the river. For a complete list of BMPs see Sound Transit's approved storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) (Sound Transit 2003) and national pollutant discharge elimination system permit (NPDES #WA- 003192 -5). Sound Transit Link Light Rail, Tukwila Freeway Route Revised Draft Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application 3 June 2004 TECHNICAL ME, JRANDUM (CONTINUED) Utility Undergrounding Utilities will be placed in a trench on the road shoulder from the intersection of E. Marginal Way S. and Interurban Ave. north to the river. On the north bank, the trench will be 50 to 60 feet west of E. Marginal Way S. The utility conduits will be brought to the ground surface at the existing E. Marginal Way S. Bridge and attached under the existing bridge sidewalk along the side of the bridge girder (Figure 4). Sound Transit requires completion of this work prior to the majority of the bridge construction so that overhead wires will not interfere with construction equipment for the light rail bridge. The utilities will be placed underground after ground improvements have been completed. The utility trench will be 2 feet wide and 5 feet deep north of the river, and 2 feet wide and 7 feet deep south of the river. The utility ducts will have 1 to 1.5 feet of cover. Spur lines on the north bank will connect to utility poles east and west of E. Marginal Way S. Underground panel vaults, served by a manhole, will be installed on each riverbank. The vaults will be constructed approximately 135 feet landward of the OHWM on the south riverbank and 38 feet landward of the OHWM on the north bank. The utilities will be attached to the west side of the E. Marginal Way S. Bridge. Sound Transit plans to suspend ten conduits under the bridge (eight, 5 -inch and two, 4 -inch ducts) just outboard of the outside girder. Sound Transit plans to install two- conduit -wide by five-conduit-high grid -type conduit hangers trapeze style from the bottom of the sidewalk slab (Figure 4). The hangers would be spaced approximately every 9.5 feet longitudinally for the length of the bridge. Expansion joints will be located as required to absorb the temperature- induced differential expansion of the ducts and the bridge structure. The vaults would receive the conduits and allow for pulling cables through the conduits. The bottom of the hanger will be at least 6 inches above the bottom of the bridge so clearance under the bridge will not be affected. Public Art A series of curved pipe rail extensions will be added to the railing on the guideway as a public art project (Figure 5). These pipe extensions will have a small cluster of blue LED lights at the ends. The guideway is visible from East Marginal Way, commercial businesses, the Carisino Farm and the Duwamish River. The lights will also be visible to riders on the train. The lights will come on as the train approaches and remain on for a few minutes after the train crosses the river. The lights will be active the hours that the trains are in operation. Construction of the public art project will coincide with other aspects of the bridge construction and will not require any special construction methodologies. Carosino Farmhouse Relocation Pursuant to the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Tukwila Freeway Route (November 2001), and the Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Sound Transit will relocate the Carosino farmhouse to increase its setback from E. Marginal Way to minimize impacts from the light rail structure. The attached site plan (Figure 1) indicates the proposed area in which the farmhouse will be relocated. Within this envelope, the building would be no closer to the river but may adjust slightly as the development of the historic preservation plan for the property progresses. In addition to increasing the distance of the farmhouse to the light rail line, the proposed location maintains the structure's orientation Sound Transit Link Light Rail, Tukwila Freeway Route Revised Draft Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application 4 , w."^ " =. -. -.r w -- ..,... June 2004 Temporary Staging Area TECHNICAL ME1, /RANDUM (CONTINUED) to the river, follows traditional placement of farm buildings with its relationship to the barn, and more closely resembles a historic farmstead's overall site layout pattern in terms of isolation from the road. The procedure for relocating the farmhouse consists of penetrating the foundation, inserting beams under the house, and jacking up the structure to insert a large platform on wheels. The structure is then towed to the new location and the process is reversed over a new perimeter foundation. Overhead utilities and water and sewer services will then need to be connected to the structure. At the original location of the farmhouse the old foundation would be removed and the site re- graded and seeded with grass. In moving the farmhouse, one or both of the smaller structures, the bunkhouse and shed, may be demolished as they are not structurally sound and are in the path of towing the farmhouse to the new location. Other buildings on the site, such as the shed adjacent to the barn and the newer modern metal storage building next to the property line may also be demolished depending on the findings in the pending historic preservation plan for the farmstead. Tight project constraints associated with constructing the light rail make it necessary to provide a contractor staging area off -site, but near the project (Figure 6). A property owned by the City of Tukwila, located on the north side of the Green - Duwamish River, will be used as a temporary contractor construction staging area. Only the lowest portion of the site will be used for staging because the central portion of the site is a steep hill. Construction activities associated with the temporary staging area include but are not limited to soil stockpiling, equipment storage, re- fueling, and contractor parking. Osprey Nest Platform Construction of the osprey nest will include removal of the nest and re- locating a new pole and nest platform approximately 0.25 mile west of the existing nest (Figure 7). Direct impacts to the osprey nest, including removal /re- locating the nest will be scheduled to avoid the breeding/nesting season from April 1 through October 1. In addition, movement of transmission lines within 250 feet of the osprey pole /platform will occur outside the breeding season. All work conducted to install the osprey nest platform will minimize disturbance to buildings, irrigation, or other infrastructure or systems already in place at the park. The work shall be conducted to minimize disturbance to plants and wildlife present at the site at the time of construction. Storm Water Management The light rail guideway surface and associated appurtenances are non - pollutant - generating surfaces (Sound Transit 2001), so water quality treatment is not required. Where peak flow rate control is required, Sound Transit will follow the 1998 King County Stormwater Design Manual. Based on King County and City of Tukwila regulations, the bridge is exempt from detention because storm water will enter an existing drainage system that discharges directly to the river. At the Green - Duwamish River Bridge, rainfall on the guideway will be conveyed along a curb, enter an inlet and downspout at the columns on each side of the river, and then be piped to existing conveyance systems along E. Marginal Way S., with subsequent discharge into the Green - Duwamish River (RoseWater Engineering Inc. 2003). Details are provided in a separate storm water design report prepared by RoseWater Engineering (RoseWater Engineering, Inc. 2003). Sound Transit Link Light Rail, Tukwila Freeway Route Revised Draft Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application 5 June 1004 CONSISTENCY WITH SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The Green - Duwamish River is a shoreline of statewide significance because it has a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more. The shoreline zone under the Shoreline Management Act includes the area extending 200 feet from the OHWM, plus the floodways and contiguous floodplain, areas landward 200 feet, and any associated wetlands. While the local jurisdiction is the City of Tukwila, the proposed Green - Duwamish crossing is governed by King County's shoreline regulations (King County Code [KCC] Title 25) because it was annexed after Tukwila had adopted its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 1974. The SMP designates the shoreline area as an Urban Environment. The City of Tukwila has zoned this area as Manufacturing Industrial Center/High (MIC/H) north of the river and Manufacturing Industrial Center/Low (MIC/L) south of the river. The proposed bridge is a water- dependent use, as the term is defined by King County Code (KCC 25.08.590). King County's SMP restricts height of structures in the shoreline zone to 35 feet above the average grade level or, if over water, 35 feet above the ordinary high water mark (KCC 25.08.240; 25.08.040). The top of the hand rail structure over land is approximately 31 feet above average grade level —well within the restrictive limits. However, the top of the structure over ordinary high water is 48 feet, which exceeds the allowable limit for the south half of the river. The relocated osprey nest will also exceed the height requirement. Therefore, a shoreline variance will be required for the bridge. In other respects, the proposed bridge meets criteria for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. These criteria are addressed in detail in the attached "consistency analysis" (Tab 8). SENSITIVE AREA IMPACTS IN THE SHORELINE ZONE TECHNICAL ME, iRANDUM (CONTINUED) Permanent impacts in the shoreline zone will consist of 2,160 ft of fill for two 30 -by -36 -foot column foundations, of which 1,961 ft occur within the 100 -foot river buffer. The bridge will shade 5,600 ft of the river. Temporary buffer impacts will consist of removing vegetation to construct temporary access roads and stabilized pads for heavy equipment and excavation to provide underground improvements, construct the pier foundations, and place utilities underground. Clearing for temporary access roads, stabilized equipment pads and staging will temporarily impact approximately 21,793 ft on the north bank of the river and approximately 21,298 ft on the south bank of the river. Relocating an existing active osprey nest will directly affect the osprey, a priority species in Washington. The nest relocation could also potentially affect the future success of the breeding pair. In the shoreline zone, three large locust trees, and ten ornamental trees will be removed from the north bank, and four trees will be removed from the south bank for construction. A negligible amount of work will occur in the 100 -year floodplain to accommodate the relocated fire lane. Because the amount of floodplain loss (5 percent of 800 CY of fill material) is negligible, there will be no effective loss of flood storage. Construction of the bridge will require temporary closure of the Green - Duwamish Regional Trail. Attachment of utilities to the existing bridge will require southbound lane closure on E. Marginal Way S. for up to two weeks. PROPOSED MITIGATION Sound Transit proposes to mitigate for impacts in the shoreline zone as follows. Areas that have been temporarily disturbed for construction access will be restored to pre - project conditions. To offset clearing impacts in the shoreline zone, a 500- foot -long by 20- foot -wide riparian corridor on the south (left) bank of the Green - Duwamish River will be planted with native trees and shrubs. Sound Transit will maintain Sound Transit Link Light Rail, Tukwila Freeway Route Revised Draft Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application 6 June 2004 z ce w J U 00 0 J F- U LL w 0 LLQ = • d 1 w Z = H zI- • w 0 O - o ff w W 1- u co .. z w 0 0 F" z and monitor the planted areas, not including the hydroseeded areas, for 5 years. The mitigation plan for the riparian enhancement is described in greater detail in the Sensitive Areas Study (Ch. 5). A separate landscaping plan for the shoreline zone is part of this permit application. Sound Transit will address impacts to significant trees as part of a Tree Clearing Permit Application, in a separate document. Once the light rail system is in place, Sound Transit will maintain a "tree free" zone along the guideway to ensure safe operation of the trains and minimize maintenance needs. No trees will be planted within 12 feet of the light rail structure, although shrubs and herbaceous species will be allowed. Woody stems growing within the clear zone will be periodically removed. Mitigation for direct impacts to the osprey nest includes constructing a new nest platform approximately 0.25 mile to the west of the existing nest within Cecil Moses Memorial Park. Sound Transit will coordinate with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to ensure that the replacement nest platform is placed in the most suitable location. If over time, the nest platform is unsuccessful or the location is not conducive for breeding, Sound Transit will prepare and execute a contingency plan. REFERENCES TECHNICAL MEI. RANDUM (CONTINUED) Ken Bucholz. April 5, 2003. Personal communication with Ken Bucholz, Lead Civil Engineer, Hatch Mott MacDonald, Seattle, Washington. RoseWater Engineering Inc. 2003. Surface Water Technical Information Report for Sound Transit Link Light Rail Project South Corridor, 60% Progress Submittal. Prepared for Hatch Mott MacDonald. Prepared by RoseWater Engineering, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Sound Transit. 2001. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project, Tukwila Freeway Route Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Central Puget Sound Transit Authority and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Seattle, Washington. Sound Transit. 2004. Sensitive Areas Study, Tukwila Freeway Route, Link Light Rail. Prepared for Sound Transit. Prepared by Parametrix, Kirkland, Washington. SWPPP. 2003. Master Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Central Link Light Rail construction initial segment: convention place station in downtown Seattle to S. 154 Street in Tukwila. Prepared for Sound Transit by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc., Seattle, Washington. March 2003. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Tukwila Freeway Route, November 2001, King County DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 1998. King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual. Sound Transit Link Light Rail, Tukwila Freeway Route Revised Draft Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application 7 June 2004 ara SOUNDTRANSIT March 22, 2004 Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila 6 300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: MODIFICATION OF SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR THE SOUND TRANSIT LINK LIGHT RAIL PROJECT (L03 -049) Dear Ms. Gierloff: On August 8, 2003, Sound Transit submitted an application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (L03 -049) for a light rail bridge over the Green - Duwamish River. Since the City's determination that the application was complete on September 5, 2003, a few refinements to the design have been made that affect elements of the project within the applicable shoreline zone. The enclosed Technical Memo and attached documents describe these proposed modifications to the permit application. Briefly, Sound Transit has made revisions in the shoreline zone to include ground improvements for the proposed bridge foundations, construction of underground ductbanks for the relocation of existing overhead utilities, and additional construction staging area along South 115 Street. Ground improvements are needed to stiffen soils for the bridge column foundations. Utilities are being placed underground to avoid conflicts with the aerial guideway structure. The proposed additional staging area will be used for the aerial guideway construction. The materials being submitted with this letter reflect these changes. The following sections of the August 8, 2003, submittal should be replaced with the enclosed documents: Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Union Station 401 S. Jackson St. Seattle, WA 98104.2826 Reception (206) 398.5000 Facsimile (206) 398 -5499 www.soundtransit.org Technical Memo Written description of project consistency with each decision criteria (Tab 8) Site Plans (Tab 9) Chair John Ladenburg Pierce County Executive Vice Chairs Greg Nickels Seattle Mayor Mark Olson Everett Councilmember Fred Butler Issaquah Deputy Council President Jack Crawford Kenmore Councilmember David Enslow Sumner Councilmember Doug MacDonald Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Connie Marshall Bellevue Mayor Richard McIver Seattle Councilmember Julia Patterson King County Councilmember Dwight Pelz King County Councilmember Kevin Phelps Tacoma Councilmember Larry Phillips Chair, King County Council Aaron Reardon Snohomish County Executive Ron Sims King County Executive Claudia Thomas Lakewood Councibnember Pete von Reichbauer Vice Chair, King County Council Chief Executive Officer Joni Earl Ms. Nora Gierloff March 22, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, • Three copies of a revised sensitive areas study were submitted to you earlier in March. Please remove the previous Technical Memo, Tabs 8, 9, and 10 (Sensitive Areas Study only), and replace them with the revised information. Please let us know if there are any additional requirements associated with the proposed modifications to the permit application. If you have questions, call me at (206) 398 -5135. Chris Townsend Senior Environmental Planner C: Rod Kempkes, Sound Transit James Irish, Sound Transit Abigail Bonk, Sound Transit z • = z. ug 0 0 (0 0' W = " •N w 0, LL < H ui • E- 0` W U 0 co O f— :w = - I I 0 F Z w = O ~ • z • Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION • I, Sim g DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: f Notice of Public Meeting _ ISS )t [� 4e Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: J t/ti Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice n �� Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda X Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other 4 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on th i s v 2 day of S6 ' in the year 2003 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM + M:: +64a04 , 4WVa414YoNnav L Project Name: f L., _ ISS )t [� 4e Project Number: L-03 Mailer's Signature: J t/ti vvt. Person requesting mailing: n �� Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on th i s v 2 day of S6 ' in the year 2003 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 08/29/003:31 PM + M:: +64a04 , 4WVa414YoNnav L CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Sound Transit has filed application for a crossing of the Duwamish River by the Link Light Rail directly west of the existing East Marginal Way South bridge. Permits applied for include: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Other known required permits include: Shoreline Height Variance Tree Permit Unclassified Use Permit Street Vacation Design Review Lot Consolidation Sign Permits Hauling Permit Building Permits Special Permission — Sensitive Area Mitigation Studies required with the applications include: Sensitive Areas Study for Wetlands and Streams Geoarchaeological Resources Assessment A Central Link Light Rail Environmental Impact Statement, Tukwila Freeway Route Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Initial Segment Environmental Assessment have been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: L03 -049 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., October 27, 2003. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments on the Light Rail Project will be provided during the public review process for the Unclassified Use Permit. Additional public notice, including notice of public meetings and hearings before the City Council, will be mailed and posted once Sound Transit has submitted applications for additional permits. For additional information about the status of the Link Light Rail project call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The Shoreline Permit is appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ............. 0 , xfi o'pt'Wo'rmA ..........•■•••••••••■••••••••••*•••••••• • r' I CITY r7 SCATTLC TACOMA INTL A IRPORT NOT?FOLR LIMITS 1%0111731 , . I • r. -41 N.4. PROJECT LOCATION MAP MIWZNIIS LINES ....... .......... • • z I I- _J O 0 CO a • LLJ W • u_ Lij 0 < 1 a I- ill Z I- 0 Z LLI 0 S 0 I- W Lii I z o CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Sound Transit has filed application for a crossing of the Duwamish River by the Link Light Rail directly west of the existing East Marginal Way South bridge. Permits applied for include: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Other known required permits include: Shoreline Height Variance Unclassified Use Permit Design Review Sign Permits Building Permits Special Permission — Sensitive Area Mitigation Studies required with the applications include: Sensitive Areas Study for Wetlands and Streams Geoarchaeological Resources Assessment A Central Link Light Rail Environmental Impact Statement, Tukwila Freeway Route Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Initial Segment Environmental Assessment have been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: L03 -049 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Tree Permit Street Vacation Lot Consolidation Hauling Permit OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., October 27, 2003. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments on the Light Rail Project will be provided during the public review process • for the Unclassified Use Permit. Additional public notice, including notice of public meetings and hearings before the City Council, will be mailed and posted once Sound Transit has submitted applications for additional permits. For additional information about the status of the Link Light Rail project call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The Shoreline Permit is appealable to the State Shoreline Hearings Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. »y; (t, , x m g.. • .. � • v ..., y a • . w «� f«cgir: F�.: :z tx.. a y z -�.: .r ,n.. .: •. �F '. r. },..... ,:::�:. .. ..' ... . :t> September 4, 2003 Chris Townsend Sound Transit 401 S. Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Shoreline Permit L03 -049 Dear Mr. Townsend NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Your application for a shoreline substantial development permit for a river crossing located directly west of the East Marginal Way bridge has been found to be complete on September 4, 2003 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. Per the application materials I see that the proposal does not meet the 35 foot height limit and that Sound Transit intends to seek a height variance. The shoreline permit cannot be evaluated until the outcome of the variance has been determined. In addition, per Jack Pace's September 10, 2002 letter to Terry Beals: A Shoreline permit will not be issued until after the Unclassified Use Permit has been approved by the City Council. This is due to the requirements of KCC 25.16.030 (B) stipulating that the provisions of the underlying zoning must be satisfied (i.e. land use). This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. The City finds that additional review time will be necessary to process your permit application because the outcome of the Unclassified Use Permit and Shoreline Variance is needed to complete the review process. The precise amount of additional review time which may be needed will be the number of days between the date of this letter and the resolution of the above permit issues. Therefore this permit is placed on hold and the 120 day clock is stopped pending the outcome of the Unclassified Use Permit and Shoreline Variance applications. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will prepare a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the Q: \Light Rail \ShoreCOMPLETE.DOC comment period will start. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. If you have any questions about this process feel free to call me at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: Brian Shelton, Public Works Jack Pace, DCD Alice Strand, DCD Q: \Light Rail \ShoreCOMPLETE.DOC z A I- - • Z w QQ • � J V 0 CO C W = — , w w O; Q D. � z � I O' z �-; 2 Lif U O = O I - : WW H U ~ O ` Z lL! O ~ PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WHEREAS, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) proposes to construct the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project (Project) within the cities of Seattle, Tukwila and SeaTac, and the Project is requesting funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); and WHEREAS, FTA has consulted with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Council's implementing regulations; and WHEREAS, FTA has determined that this project may have an adverse effect on historic properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) concur in this Programmatic Agreement and have designated FTA as lead Federal agency and FTA agrees to serve as the Agency Official who shall act on their behalf; and WHEREAS, the Suquamish Tribe, the Muckleshoot Tribe, the Duwamish tribal organization (Tribal Governments), the City of Seattle, and the Friends of Seattle's Olmsted Parks have participated in the consultation; and have been invited to concur in this Programmatic Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City of Seattle will conduct its own review of the project design under provisions of the Seattle Municipal Code regulating city landmarks and special review districts; and WHEREAS, the consulting parties have considered the applicable requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seg.) (NAGPRA) and Washington's Indian Graves and Records (Chapter 27.44 RCW) in the course of consultation and, to the best knowledge and belief of the consulting parties, human remains, associated or unassociated funerary objects or sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony as defined in NAGPRA may be encountered in any archaeological work undertaken; and Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -1 Programmatic Agreement WHEREAS, FTA has completed a traditional cultural properties (TCP) archival inventory of the area of potential effects using secondary sources and information available in the public domain, has identified a single property of cultural interest to the Tribal Governments, located in the vicinity of the South Boeing Access Road, and is finalizing consultation with the Tribal Governments to determine eligibility of this property for NRHP listing and, if z determined to be eligible, to assess effects on this property and to develop applicable z ►= stipulations; NOW, THEREFORE, FTA, SHPO and Council agree that in the event FTA decides to fund p the undertaking, the Project will be administered and developed in accordance with the co W following stipulations to satisfy FTA's Section 106 responsibilities for all individual in z components of the Project, and that FTA shall require that the following terms and U) conditions, including the Archaeological Resources Treatment and Monitoring Plan, will be w 0 implemented in a timely manner and with adequate resources in compliance with (NHPA), as amended. g Q STIPULATIONS = a I w z � FTA, as lead federal agency, shall require that the following measures and stipulations are z o w w O 2 O H w L'O w z — • I O ~ carried out. I. Archaeological Resource and Traditional Cultural Properties A. Cultural Resource Inventory An Archaeologist will conduct an inventory of archaeological resources along the corridor of the preferred alternative. This work must be performed by individuals who meet or exceed the US Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards set out in Stipulation IV. In places where it is not feasible to conduct test excavations, Sound Transit and FTA will work with Tribal Governments on developing alternative methods. A TCP/Ethnographic Area Study will be prepared to clarify and further develop research questions. The study will be done in consultation with the Tribal Governments by a consultant mutually acceptable to Sound Transit and the Tribal Governments. B. Treatment and Monitoring Plan The attached Archaeological Resources Treatment and Monitoring Plan is an initial working draft and will be continually modified and adjusted as necessary by FTA and SHPO in consultation with Tribal Governments. The Treatment and Monitoring Plan will be consistent with the. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation (48 FR 44734 44737), Council's Treatment of Archaeological Properties (Advisory Council on Historic Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R - 2 Programmatic Agreement z ) Preservation, draft 1980), applicable Washington regulations, and responsive to contemporary professional standards. FTA, in consultation with SHPO, shall require implementation of the Treatment and Monitoring Plan for the mitigation of anticipated effects on eligible properties. C. Supplemental Treatment Plans ' e w 6 FTA will prepare Supplemental Treatment Plans (Supplements) for archaeological v o resources and/or traditional cultural properties identified during inventories for construction phases subsequent to approval of the Treatment and Monitoring Plan and W for such properties or resources discovered during construction. Supplements will be approved as stipulated below by SHPO. Each Supplement will modify the existing il l O Treatment and Monitoring Plan to be site and property specific. Additional information shall include: u.. j a 1. The archaeological resources or traditional cultural properties discovered or to be Z affected in the specified Project segment and the nature of those effects. I-- O 2. Proposed measures to mitigate or avoid adverse effects to identified ui archaeological resources, or traditional cultural properties. a U U 3. Where data recovery is proposed to mitigate an affected eligible property, the o E- Supplement will contain: = w a. Specific research questions and an explanation of their relevance to the overall research goals as established in the Treatment Plan. w z b. Site - specific fieldwork and analytical strategies that will be employed in data recovery. z F- c. Methods for securing the site against vandalism, if not already protected. d. Schedule for submission of progress, summary and other reports to FTA, SHPO, Council and Tribal Governments. D. Comments and Concurrence on Supplemental Treatment Plans 1. Within two working days of FTA's determination of effect on an eligible property, FTA will submit any Supplements to SHPO and Tribal Governments for review. FTA and SHPO will consult with Tribal Governments to elicit comments and/or suggestions. SHPO will have a maximum of six working days upon receipt to review and provide comments and/or objections to FTA. If SHPO does not submit comments and/or objections within these six working days, FTA shall take such non- responsiveness as concurrence. 2. If any party has an objection .to the Supplements, the objection must be specifically identified and the reasons for objection documented in writing to FTA. Objections will be resolved according to the procedures in Stipulation V, Dispute Resolution, of this Agreement. Central Link light Rail Transit Project R -3 Programmatic Agreement 3. If revisions to the Supplement are needed, SHPO will have two working days to review the revisions. If no comments or objections are received within this time frame, FTA will assume concurrence. 4. All Supplements will be deemed finalized when all revisions are made and concurred with by the reviewing parties, or any disputes have been resolved through Stipulation V, Dispute Resolution. Once finalized, Supplements will be provided to SHPO, Council and Tribal Governments. FTA may then issue authorization to proceed with implementation of the Treatment Plans and Supplements. 5. Upon concurrence from SHPO, FTA may issue authorization to proceed with construction in those segments of the Project that contain archaeological properties once agreed upon fieldwork/treatment specified in the Treatment Plans and Supplements have been completed. If FTA and SHPO agree that any segment(s) of the Project will have no effect on any NRHP listed or eligible properties, FTA may provide authorization to proceed with construction in such area(s), subject to the conditions of the Treatment and Monitoring Plan (Attachment 1) and Stipulation III — Changes in Construction Corridors and Ancillary Areas. II. Historic Resources During the environmental review for this Project, conceptual engineering plans and conceptual station designs were reviewed for potential impacts on identified historic resources. These conceptual plans and designs, and related potential impacts, are included in the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and the Archaeological and Historic Resources Technical Report. The following stipulations will govern future design activity concerning stations, trackways, guideways, and all related features of the Project. A. Project Design FTA shall require that the design of the Project is compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of the following historic properties: 1. Columbia City Historic District The design of all street improvement and landscape plans associated with the pedestrian corridor linking the Edmunds Street Station and Rainier Avenue South shall be prepared in consultation with SHPO and approved by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. Such plans shall be developed with the objective of enhancing the pedestrian connection between the Columbia City commercial district and the station. The design shall be compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of the historic district and consistent with approaches and' guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (US Department of Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -4 a Programmatic Agreement gMeoot the Interior, National Park Service, 1995) and those guidelines formally adopted by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board for the Columbia City Landmark District. 2. Cheasty Boulevard All station components, street improvements, and landscape plans associated with the design of the McClellan Street Station and guideway overpass at Cheasty Boulevard (S. Winthrop Street) shall be prepared in . consultation with the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board and SHPO. Such plans shall be developed with the objective of: a. Improving Cheasty Boulevard in the light rail station area in a manner compatible with the documented Olmsted design concepts for Seattle's boulevards. b. Minimizing the physical encroachment into the right -of -way of Cheasty Boulevard. c. Minimizing the obstruction of views from Cheasty Boulevard toward Mt. Baker Boulevard. 3. Pioneer Square Preservation District All street improvement plans associated with changes to surface transportation systems within the historic district shall be prepared in consultation with SHPO and approved by the Pioneer Square Preservation Board. The design of street improvements shall be compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of the historic district and consistent with approaches and guidelines set forth. in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995) and the design guidelines adopted by the Pioneer Square Preservation Board for the historic district. 4. University Heights School When Sound Transit constructs Segment A of the Project (Northgate to the University District), and if a vent shaft and related above - ground structure are located on the grounds of University Heights School, all design plans for architectural, landscape, and other features associated with the above - ground structure shall be prepared in consultation with SHPO and approved by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. Such plans shall be compatible with the character of the historic school building and grounds and consistent with the approaches and guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995). 5. Ravenna Boulevard When Sound Transit constructs Segment A of the Project (Northgate to the University District), and, if Alternative A2.1 or A2.2 is selected, all station components, street improvements, and landscape plans associated with the design of Roosevelt Station and guideway overpass at Ravenna Boulevard shall be prepared in consultation with the SHPO and the Seattle Landmarks • Preservation Board. Such plans shall be developed with the objective of: Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -5 Programmatic Agreement __1 a. Retaining the historic character of the Olmsted- designed boulevard. b. Minimizing the visual intrusion of the guideway support column(s) by appropriate landscaping or other means. c. Minimizing the visual impact of the elevated Roosevelt Station by appropriate placement, design, landscaping, or other means. B. Station Design In order to avoid any potential adverse effect on the historic resources in the vicinity of station development, FTA shall require that the designs of the following stations are developed in consultation with SHPO. In addition, FTA shall require that the design of the Westlake Station entrance be prepared in consultation with and approved by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. Such designs shall be developed with the objective of ensuring that station designs are responsive to the approaches and guidelines set forth in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995). 1. N.E. 45 Street Station 2. Capitol Hill Station 2. First Hill Station 3. Westlake Station 4. Royal Brougham Station 5. Beacon Hill Station 6. McClellan Station C. Design Review and Approval Process 1. Sound Transit shall provide plans and specifications for all station, street improvement or landscape designs cited in Stipulations ILA and II.B at both the 30% and 90% design stages. SHPO will review such plans and specifications and provide comments within thirty (30) days. Failure to respond within thirty days will constitute SHPO review of such plans and specifications. 2. Sound Transit shall coordinate with the Seattle Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) regarding the local review and approval process and meeting schedules of the local review boards. Sound Transit shall not proceed with any construction related activity for all station, street improvement or landscape designs cited in • Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -6 Programmatic Agreement 4:;AM341 1t4Avai - Stipulations II. A and II. B until completion of SHPO review, or as stipulated in II.C.1, and/or the appropriate local review board has been obtained. D. Minimization of Construction Impacts 1. No historic property will be used for construction staging or systems operation staging without prior consultation with SHPO and/or approval of the appropriate 1 w local review boards. g -1 U 2. In order to avoid any potential adverse effect on historic properties situated in the w o immediate vicinity of project construction and/or construction staging activity, w i FTA shall require that the following measures, or other measures where —' F' applicable, are taken when necessary to minimize construction related impacts on w 0 historic properties. 2 �Q a. Using rigid support of excavation structures (shoring) to minimize the cn a movement of the ground. _ Z = b. Underpinning the building prior to excavation. z O w w c. Ground stabilization through cementitious or chemical grouts, freezing the v o ground, or other modification techniques. o H 3. Facades of nearby historic buildings will be protected from accumulation of v excessive dirt, or will be cleaned in an appropriate manner at the conclusion of w O construction. Appropriate cleaning methods will be determined in consultation i Z with the SHPO or the local review board regulating the property. U 4. Access to all historic properties will be maintained except for unavoidable short periods during construction. 5. Temporary construction sheds, barricades, or material storage will be located so as to avoid obscuring significant views of historic properties. 6. The Project will comply with the City of Seattle noise restrictions for construction and equipment operation (SMC 25.08.425) and any variance granted specifically for this Project. 7. When Sound Transit constructs Segment A of the Project (Northgate to the University District) and, if any part of the site of University Heights School is used for a staging or tunnel spoils removal area, upon completion of construction at this location the site will be restored with improvements to fencing, paving, landscaping, and associated features, to compensate for temporary loss of use and alterations to existing conditions. Design plans for restoration of the site shall be developed in consultation with the SHPO and approved by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -7 Programmatic Agreement r-� E. Olmsted Planning Studies Sound Transit will provide to SHPO funds not to exceed $75,000 to otherwise compensate for the impacts of the project on Cheasty Boulevard [and potentially Ravenna Boulevard] that cannot be fully mitigated by modifications of project design, street improvements, and landscaping features. The funds in their entirety will be allocated from SHPO to the City of Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods, Historic Preservation Program. The organization, management and uses of this fund will be specified in a separate agreement, executed by SHPO, Sound Transit, and the City of Seattle. These funds are intended for research, inventory, and planning of the Olmsted Plan for Seattle's Parks, Boulevards, and Playgrounds. This work, must be performed by individuals who meet or exceed the US Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards set out in Stipulation IV. Results of the research regarding Cheasty Boulevard will be incorporated into the station design through an interpretative display or other means. III. Changes in Construction Corridors and Ancillary Areas If during the course of Project planning or construction there arises a need to make changes to construction corridors or ancillary areas (including but not limited to: reroutes of portions of the proposed light rail trackways and guideways, changes to the footprints of stations or park- and -ride lots, disposal of excavation spoils upon public or private lands, or use of a previously unidentified staging or use area is determined to be necessary, etc.), FTA shall take the following steps. A. Notify SHPO of the project change. B. Require that the new area of potential effect is inventoried and evaluated in a manner consistent with 36 CFR § 800.4. C. If requested through further consultation with the Tribes, SHPO and/or Council, conduct a traditional cultural properties inventory in a manner consistent with the National Park Service's National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. If any traditional cultural properties are found during the inventory phase, FTA will consult with the Tribes, SHPO and Council in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. D. Distribute all inventory reports to SHPO for 30 -day review and comment. E. If FTA and SHPO do not agree on NHRP eligibility of any properties, FTA will obtain a formal determination of eligibility from the Secretary of the Interior pursuant or36 CFR § 63. F. FTA will apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect in a manner consistent with 36 CFR § 800.5 to all properties determined to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -8 Programmatic Agreement G. If archaeological resources or traditional cultural properties will be affected, a Supplemental Treatment Plan will be prepared in consultation with SHPO and Tribal Governments in a manner consistent with Stipulation H. If historic resources will be adversely affected, FTA and SHPO will continue z consultation in a manner consistent with 36 CFR § 800.6 and will execute a supplemental agreement document to stipulate mitigation measures before authorizing construction to proceed. 1 6 0 IV. Professional Qualifications cn w J = FTA shall require that all historic preservation or archaeological resources work u performed by Sound Transit or on their behalf pursuant to this Agreement shall be w O accomplished by or under the direct supervision of a person or person who meet(s) or g exceed(s) the pertinent qualifications standard set out in the Secretary of the Interior's j Professional Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738 - 44739). = d zE— V. Dispute Resolution z t— A. Unless otherwise specified in this agreement, should any signatory to this Agreement ? o object in writing within 30 days to any plans provided for review, specifications provided or actions or findings proposed pursuant to this Agreement, FTA shall o j: consult with the objecting party to resolve the objection. Upon receiving the written = w objections: tL 1. FTA will notify SHPO as to the nature of the dispute. 2. FTA will attempt to informally resolve the objection. z 3. In the event informal attempts are unsuccessful, FTA will invite the objecting party to a reconciliation meeting for the purpose of discussing and resolving the objection. FTA will issue such invitation no later than five working days after receipt of the written objection and will schedule a meeting to be held within 10 working days following receipt of the invitation. The time frames specified herein may be expedited by mutual, written agreement. B. Should any affected Tribal Government object to any proposed .plan, curation procedures or handling of Native American human remains, FTA shall consult with the objecting Tribal Government to seek to resolve the objection under Stipulation V.A. C. If, FTA, in consultation with SHPO, determines that an objection cannot be resolved through Stipulation VA FTA will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to Council. Within 15 days of receipt of all documentation, Council shall either: Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -9 Programmatic Agreement SzS�r 5°35 "s2t is 2,. i:.. -4 7441 * Eaaty 1. Provide FTA with recommendations, which FTA shall take into consideration in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute; or 2. Notify FTA that it will comment within 45 days in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.7(c)(2). Any Council comment provided in response to such a request will be z taken into account by FTA in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.7(c)(4) with reference to the subject of the dispute. w D. Any recommendation or comment provided by Council will be understood to pertain p only to the subject of the dispute; ETA's responsibilities to carry out all actions under cn this Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged. W VI. Amendment i n 0 The signatories to this Agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon the parties will consult in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6 to consider such amendment. I a I -w Z = VII. Termination H O z 1-- Any signatory to this Agreement may terminate it by providing 30 days written notice to 2 in the other parties, provided that the signatories will consult during this 30 -day waiting v period to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. o - In the event of termination, FTA will comply with 36 CFR § 800.3 - § 800.13 with W uj regard to individual undertakings of the project covered by this Agreement. F =.. U u'O VIII. Failure to Carry Out the Terms of the Agreement w Z U N If Council determines that the terms of this Agreement are not being carried out, FTA 0 will comply with 36 CFR § 800.3 - § 800.13 with regard to individual undertakings of z the project covered by this Agreement. IX. Scope of Agreement This Programmatic Agreement is limited in scope to all alternatives for Segment A and the preferred alternative for Segments B, C, D, E, and F of Sound Transit's Central Link Light Rail Transit Project as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and is entered into solely for that purpose. X. Effective End Date This Programmatic Agreement will continue in full force and effect until December 31, 2006. At any time in the six -month period prior to this date, FTA may request Council and SHPO in writing to review the Project and consider an extension or modification of this Programmatic Agreement. No extension or modification will be effective unless all signatories to the Programmatic Agreement have agreed to it in writing. XI. Satisfaction of Section 106 Responsibilities Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -10 Programmatic Agreement Execution and implementation of this Programmatic Agreement evidences that FTA has satisfied its Section 106 responsibilities for all individual actions of this undertaking. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, REGION X By: '1ti \, Helen Knoll, Regional Administrator WASHINGTON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER By: Date: aaA- , c n c k Date: Dec. -20, //`” son Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer RY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Executive Director Central Link Light Rail Transit Project R -11 Date: / Z 1 .4f Programmatic Agreement ......• ;.Wrest {r� ; ttJ''i;i'AJtul ^ !! t 3itiY.'.liar:ui.:o.1.3V3:: .y_; . +:u::d:7itu''• r by GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL PROJECT [ Draft - For Internal Mansion Only Not Reviewed or Approved by or on Behalf of Any Party, Maury E. Morgenstein and Astrida R. Blukis Onat Submitted to Sound Transit, Central Link Light Rail Contract RTA/LR 69 -00 November 2002 BOAS Project No. 20005.A1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF FIGURES iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. 'APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 4 3. GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE 8 4. METHODOLOGY 9 4.1 Literature Search 9 4.2 Geotechnical Studies and Samples 11 5. GEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUGET LOWLAND 11 6. GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE PUGET LOWLAND 13 7. Geoarchaeological RESOURCE PROBABILITY CRITERIA 15 7.1 Paleontological Resource Criteria 16 7.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Criteria 17 8. CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL PROJECT SEGMENTS 18 8.1 Segment A - N.E. Northgate Way To N.E. 50th Street, University District 18 8.1.1 Landform Characteristics 20 8.1.2 Paleontological Resource Probability 20 8.1.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability 21 8.2 Segment B - N.E. 50 Street, University District to Convention Place Station 21 8.2.1 Landform Characteristics 21 8.2.2 Paleontological Resource Probability '23 8.2.3. Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability 23 8.3 Segment C - Convention Place Station to South McClellan Station 24 8.3.1 Landform Characteristics 24 8.3.2 Paleontological Resource Probability 24 8.3.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability 26 8.4 Segment D - South McClellan Station to Boeing Access Road Station 26 8.4.1 Landform Characteristics 26 8.4.2 Paleontological Resource Probability 26 8.4.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability 28 8.5 Segment E - Boeing Access Road Station to South 154 Station (Tukwila) 28 8.5.1 Landform Characteristics 28 8.5.1 Paleontological Resource Probability 28 8.5.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability 30 8.6 Segment F - South 154' Station to South SeaTac Station 31 8.6.1 Landform Characteristics 31 8.6.2 Paleontological Resource Probability 31 8.6.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability 31 9. ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 33 REFERENCES CITED 34 APPENDIX GEOLOGIC UNITS 40 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Central Link Light Rail Corridor Segments 2 Figure 2. Initial Segment. 3 z Figure 3. North Link Light Rail Alternatives 5 = z Figure 4. SeaTac Light Rail Alternative (West of Cemetery Alignment). 6 ce W Figure 5. Physiographic Divisions of the Metropolitan Seattle Area. 10 6 v Figure 6. Segment A: Paleontological and Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas 19 v 0 Figure 7. Segment B: Paleontological and Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas 22 u) w Figure 8. Segment C: Paleontological and Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas 25 Figure 9. Segment D: Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas 27 co o Figure 10. Segment E: Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas 29 2 Figure 11. Segment F: Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas 32 g a Figure A.1. Segment A: Surficial Geology .42 u_ a Figure A.2. Segment B: Surficial Geology 43 I w Figure A.3. Segment C: Surficial Geology ..44 z u Figure A.4. Segment D: Surficial Geology ..45 O. Figure A.5. Segment E: Surficial Geology ..46 . z w , Figure A.6. Segment F: Surficial Geology ..47 2 o 0 O N a 1 — . I U I- LL ill Z U � F-I O z ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv APE Area of Potential Effect ARMT Archaeological Resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan CLLR Central Link Light Rail EIS Environmental Impact Statement FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWAA Northwest Archaeological Associates OAHP Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PI Principal Investigator SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer :••` :J.. f'n ti 4 'iyt.LJ+1 ,.i..�.tii Jkr'✓ -fif 4.c., 44ot,..11;ic.i ikc �+r`tsi iii+ z'; :ik74440:w .+.�r,�:is.w: 1. INTRODUCTION In November 1999, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (tFEIS)''was issued by the Sound Transit Board for the Central Link Light Rail (CLLR) project (Sound Transit 1999). It was prepared by the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the lead federal agency on the project, and by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit - ST). A Draft Programmatic Agreement is attached to the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) as Appendix R. The unsigned draft agreement is accompanied by a draft Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (ARMT). This Draft ARMT was to be modified and adjusted as necessary by FTA and SHPO in consultation with the Muckleshoot, Suquamish, and Duwamish tribal governments. In addition, The FEIS incorporates by reference a separately bound Technical Report [on] Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Historic Resources, Native American Traditional Cultural Properties, [and] Paleontological Sites (Courtois et al. 1999). The Sound Transit Board adopted the CLLR route from Northeast 45 Street in Seattle to South 200 Street in SeaTac (Figure 1) and FTA issued a Record of Decision in January 2000 for the project. In October 2000 BOAS, Inc. (BOAS) was contracted (Contract.RTA/LR 69 -00) to prepare a final Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (ARMT) for the CLLR project corridor. At that time, ST provided BOAS with a final signed Programmatic Agreement (Sound Transit 2000b) and a modified version of the Draft ARMT (Sound Transit 2000a). The BOAS contract also included a geoarchaeological assessment and an historic archaeological assessment of the CLLR corridor, as well as an ethnographic study of the project vicinity. The historic archaeological assessment (Bennett 2002) and the ethnographic study (Miller 2002) have been prepared as separate documents. On November 29, 2001, the Sound Transit Board adopted the Initial Segment of the CLLR route (Figure 2) and, in February 2002, issued an Environmental Assessment on the Initial Segment (Sound Transit 2002b). The Initial Segment begins at Convention Place Station on the north and extends south to South 154 Street in SeaTac. Also in November of 2001, a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) was issued by the Sound Transit Board for the Tukwila Freeway Route portion of the Initial Segment (Sound Transit 2001a). The FSEIS was prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (ST). Historic and archaeological resources are addressed in the FSEIS (Sound Transit 2001a:4-79-4-85). Appendix R includes "pre - construction archaeological surveys and monitoring of construction activities in high archaeological probability areas" (Sound Transit 2001a:R -26). A technical memorandum on cultural resources (Nelson 2000) was prepared as a background document for.the FSEIS. The FTA issued an Amended Record of Decision in May 2002, including the Initial Segment as part of the CLLR route. 1 J 1 _ 4th QO r Segment A: Northgate to University District Segment B: University District to Westlake Segment C: Westlake to • South • McClellan St. l • Segment D: South McClellan St. L. to Boeing T w Access Road Segment E: TLkwila • Segment F: SeaTac i N 2 N\ • SOUNDTRANSIT Proposed Light Rail Stations Name Northgatet Roosevelt NE 45th Pacific Campus Parkway Roy /Aloha First Hilll Eastlake South Lake Union Seattle Center Convention Place Westlake University Street Pioneer Square international Districtz Royal Brougham Lander Beacon Hill t Poplar Place McClellan Charlestown Genesee Edmunds Columbia City Alaska Graham Othello Henderson Boeing Access Road' South 144th Longacres'•z Southcenter Segment A A ' lndudesNew Paritard•Rlde Potential Light Rail/ Commuter Rail Transfer Maintenance Base Alternatives CI MC2 Route Alternative • Station B 0 MILES B B B B B B B B B B C C C C C C C C C D D D D D D D D D E E E E North SeaTac'(South 159th) F North Central SeaTac F South Central SeaTac F South SeaTac' F 2 Figure 1. Central Link Light Rail Corridor Segments (Sound Transit 1999:Figure S -1). Z W ' 6 00 • 0 W H U) u w 0 Q. N = w F- I Z F- Z I— w � • 0 O • N O E- W W I i-- - LI W Z co O ~ Z Figure 2. Initial Segment (Sound Transit 2002b:Figure 1). 3 SOUNDTRANS1T Light Rail Stations Name NE 95th Pacific Capitol Hill First Hill *Westlake *University Street *Pioneer Square *international District= Royal Brougham *Lander *Beacon Hill *McClellan *Edmunds Graham *Othello *Henderson Boeing Access Road South 194th *South 154th' North Central SeaTac South SeaTac' I Includes Near Park- and -Ride I light Rail/Commuter Rail Transfer *included In Wual segment MOS IAmimurn Operable Segment Tunnel Elevated At Grade »M•» Retained Cut•F11 Undetermined • Station 0 7 MLES 2 j Sound Transit is presently in the process of analyzing alternative routes for service between Convention Place and Northgate —the North Link Light Rail Alternatives (Figure 3) (Sound Transit 2001b) and between South 154 Street and South 200 Street —the West of Cemetery Alignment (Figure 4) (Sound Transit 2002a). This geoarchaeological assessment has been made to ascertain if adequate provisions are presently in place for the recordation, protection, or otherwise systematic treatment of paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resources within the impact zones of the CLLR project. Following a preliminary discussion of the assessment process, we address specific construction segments of the project corridor in terms of both paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resource potential. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Cultural resources and cultural resource management are broad terms developed in the 1970s as terms parallel to natural resource management (King 1998:5 -6). Often, the term cultural resources is used as a synonym for historic property as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): ...any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register (of Historic Places), including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property...(NHPA Sec. 301[5]). It is also used as a catch -all term to include any property that is important for some cultural reason such as: Native American graves and cultural items; shipwrecks; artifacts; places; museum collections; historical documents; religious sites and practices; cultural use of natural resources; folklife, tradition, and other social institutions; and theater groups, orchestras, and other community cultural amenities (King 1998:6, 265). The term cultural resource management is used mostly by archaeologists, architectural historians, and historical architects when referring to laws and regulations specific to historic places. Significant scientific, cultural, and historic resources are protected by a number of federal laws, including the American Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431 -433), the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461 -467), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et seq.), the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469- 469c), and the Archaeological Resources Preservation Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa -mm). Scientific resources can include paleontological sites, cultural resources can include traditional cultural practices, and historic resources can include historic documents and oral histories (King 1998:47). Cultural and historic resources are protected by the revised Section 106 process of the NHPA (June 17, 1999 Final Rule - Protection of Historic Properties - 36 CFR Part 800; revised January 11, 2001). 4 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR WAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. I ` 1 . i ~' 1 I e t / 1 i 1 t 1 1 � � I \ . i ii 3 i 1 !- �-'4Oth St y� l J / j 1 _ (^_ 5173rd -5t ! L _ l— i __ " ' • I r t 1 i I a L I J S 176th st 1 Station ; Figure 4. SeaTac Light Rail Alternative (West of Cemetery Alignment) (Sound Transit 2002a). 6 Z W JU UO U) W J F^. WO g Q co _ a. 1 _ w Z E-- Z 0 U N H tu Z O Z Regulations implementing Section 106 encourage maximum coordination with the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 - 4347). Cultural resources are evaluated in terms of their significance as historic properties, eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). National Register criteria for evaluation. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, w building, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, D materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and _1 o co 0 a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the w = broad patterns of our history; or -' F' b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or W 0 c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of g construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic co d values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose component I w may lack individual distinction; or z I- d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or w O 0 u j history. (36CFR §60.4] ? o O Paleontological resources are included under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 o H- (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 -4347) and the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C), which = W require the preservation of important natural aspects of our natural heritage. Resources that are F- r_ to be considered include significant scientific resources (40 CFR 1508.27), such as �'-- z paleontological resources (King 1998:47). If paleontological deposits are discovered during v 0) construction, the resources will be identified and assigned to a class of paleontological resource. 1 Attributes such as size, depth, content, age of deposits, and integrity will be recorded to the z extent possible. Paleontological deposits, such as fossil flora and peat, which have the potential to contribute significant understanding to the paleontology, paleoecology, paleoenvironment and paleoclimate, paleofauna, and paleoflora, will be sampled. In some instances, such as with paleoenvironmental data, both paleontological and archaeological data may be identified in the same deposits. The revised Section 106 process (June 17, 1999 Final Rule - Protection of Historic Properties - 36 CFR Part 800; revised January 11, 2001) includes steps to address discovery, identification, evaluation, and project effects on historic properties. The first step, a cultural resources survey, was conducted and areas with high and moderate probability for intact subsurface archaeological deposits were identified along the preferred CLLR route by Courtois et al. (1999) as part of project planning. Several locations along the route were designated as having moderate or high probability prehistoric and historic archaeological resources (Courtois et al. 1999:Figures 42- 47). The second step in the Section 106 process is to evaluate the archaeological deposits in terms of their significance as historic properties eligible for listing on the NRHP using criteria outlined in 36 C1Nlt Part 60.4. Much of the CLLR route is covered by buildings, roads, and other ground 7 cover impenetrable to standard archaeological methods. Therefore, a third step, construction monitoring, was chosen as a means whereby archaeological resources could be identified, assigned to a class of historic property, and evaluated in terms of their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places in areas of high and moderate probability. Site significance would be determined according to criteria included in the ARMT. The fourth and final step would be to z resolve adverse effects on eligible properties through Supplemental Treatment Plans. _ ~ w CC Washington State also has a number of regulations in place to address cultural resources found 6 D on state lands or lands that are subject to permitting by state agencies (RCW 27.34, Libraries, v p Museums and Historical Activities; RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records; RCW 27.53, as w 0 amended, Archaeological Sites and Records; RCW 39.34, Office of Archaeology and Historic J z Preservation (OAHP); RCW 79.01, Public Lands Act; RCW 79.90, Aquatic Lands, in General; 0) o WAC 25-48 -060, Permit Requirements; and WAC 222 -16, Definitions). Resources that are uj 0 afforded protection are those that have the potential to contribute significant understanding to the .human presence in the State. King County and the City of Seattle have similar regulations for u. sites that are significant to the County and the City. Hence, studies such as paleontology, = d paleoecology, paleoenvironment and paleoclimate, paleofauna, and paleoflora can provide data Z about the landscape in which people lived and which they altered. zF- On nonfederal lands, paleontological resources are protected under the National Environmental m D Policy Act (NEPA) and under Washington State Law, Section 155, Chapter 255 (Laws of 1927) v and RCW79.01.616. Resources that are afforded protection are those that have the potential to o contribute significant understanding to the paleontology, paleoecology, paleoenvironment and = W paleoclimate, paleofauna and paleoflora of the State of Washington. In some instances, such as 1— with paleoenvironmental data, both paleontological and archaeological data may be identified in "—' o the same deposits. v 1= _ 0 l- z As noted earlier, the geoarchaeological assessment has been made to ascertain if adequate provisions are presently in place for the recordation;--protection, or otherwise systematic treatment of paleontological resources and prehistoric archaeological resources within the impact zones of the CLLR project. The geological development of the Puget Lowland is summarized in order to provide a context for paleontological resources that are known to be located along project segments and others that might be found and identified. The geological context also is used as a landform -based reference to suggest the relative probability for fmding prehistoric archaeological resources. Following a preliminary discussion of the assessment process, route segments of the project corridor are addressed in terms of both paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resource potential. Recommendations are made for additional areas that will require monitoring for archaeological or paleontological resources. The assessment does not attempt to address whether any of these resources will be affected by project construction. The extent to which the area of potential effect (APE) contains paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resources that might be affected by the project is addressed in the Archaeological 3. GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT SCOPE 8 Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002a) and the Archaeological Resource Monitoring and Treatment sub -Plan for the Maintenance Base (Blukis Onat 2002b). 4. METHODOLOGY In order to accomplish the geoarchaeological assessment of the CLLR project corridor, we conducted a search for literature that was relevant to the Puget Lowland area. We also reviewed geotechnical project reports, core logs, and actual samples made available -for the CLLR project corridor by ST. The focus of the assessments was to determine the nature and location of geologic units that contained paleontological resources or archaeological resources, or both. 4.1 Literature Search We reviewed a number of published sources regarding the type of geological and prehistoric archaeological studies that have been conducted in the Puget Sound Lowland area. Many • sources were used to arrive at some conclusions regarding the kinds of geological processes that would have produced landforms and deposits where paleontological and archaeological resources could be found (Alt and Hyndman 1984, 1995; Armstrong et al. 1965; Atwater and Moore 1992; Beal 1990; Benoit 1978; Bravinder 1932; Bretz 1913; Burnham 1990; Cary 1968; Crandell 1963; Crandell et al. 1958; Crandell and Gard 1959; Crandell and Waldron 1956; Downing 1983; Livingston 1969:1 -23; McKee 1968a, 1968b; Mullineaux et al. 1965; Nesbitt 1998; Porter et al. 1965; Sherrod 2001; Thorson 1989; Troost and Stein 1995; Waldron 1962; Wolfe 1968). We also reviewed the Geology Technical Back -up report that was included with the 1999 EIS for the CLLR project (Link EIS Team 1999). Surficial geology maps from this report are presented in the Appendix. We have color coded geologic units pertinent to the potential presence of paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resources. The ultimate goal of this activity was to construct palinspastic maps. Such maps show present - day natural features that have been reconstructed to illustrate their depositional geographic and stratigraphic positions through considering tectonism, and erosional and depositional events. The probability that paleontological and prehistoric cultural activities could have taken place on different landform surfaces is elucidated by this approach. Buried land surfaces of different approximate ages can be delineated by this means. The associated attributes of the landforms, such as their proximity to fresh water resources, transport corridors, and/or food resources, can be ascertained. However, the accuracy of palinspastic maps is based on the adequacy of the information available for their construction. For much of the study area there is a paucity of detailed stratigraphic information to draw compelling location- specific conclusions. However, we can make some general statements and show relative probabilities of finding paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resource associated with mapped geologic units. Figure 5 and the Appendix (Figures A.1 —A.6) provide generalized views of the geomorphological characteristics of the CLLR project corridor. Discussion of resource probability in each CLLR segment can be correlated with these maps. 9 11pIand.Hiffs. Lowland.Troughs. 10 0 • A 4 S .Project Segments ... Figre5 Physiographic divisions of tbe metropolitan-Seattle area: CBD.—central business district; DI-• . — formerposition ofDenny Hill, BP— Bailey Peninsula. Modified from Galaster and Laprade (1991) eited in.Link EIS Team (1999:Figure I); • 4.2 Geotechnical Studies and Samples We reviewed CLLR project core records and samples provided by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (1999). The core records and samples collected for the CLLR 'project assisted with the identification of paleontological resources because peat resources were identified and, in some cases, were dated using radiocarbon ( Some paleontological resources have been recorded as rock outcrops in a landscape that owes its general structure to glacial processes. Geologic i ~ ' w units provided in the Appendix (and in Appendix Figures A.1 -A.6) are of interest for this ce assessment and are discussed in subsequent sections of this assessment. 6 = J U O 0 The core records and samples were not useful for the geoarchaeological assessment because they co were not designed for it. There are several reasons why we could not use the samples: J = F- U) w w 0 • Core sediments that were collected had been sampled to obtain important information 2 concerning the structural characteristics of the subsurface. In this core- sampling — process, much was lost relative to detailed fine stratigraphic structures, which might "- a provide evidence of fossils or of anthrosol (culture- bearing deposit) development. = W I-- _ zF- • When we examined the samples, they were mostly dried out and were not useful for 1— 0 zF- w w M • Samples from the surface to about 5 -10 ft. below surface were not collected from o 0 many of the coring locations. Archaeological resources commonly can be expected Di— u.' in within this zone. _ • Archaeological materials could be found in the existing samples only by hammering z w through all cored material because they are now present only as clumps of mixed o sediment debris. There would be no way that cultural strata could be identified. 0'- Cores need to be inspected for archaeological materials at the time of collection, z when the sediment clasts and stratigraphic relationships could be observed. our purposes. We have used our best judgment in discussing the geomorphology along the CLLR route corridor, based upon our fundamental knowledge of the geologic history of the area. 5. GEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUGET LOWLAND The Puget Lowland physiographic province extends approximately from the Canadian border to . the Columbia River. It is bounded on the west by the Olympic Mountains and the Willapa Hills and on the east by the Cascade Mountains (Alt and Hyndman 1995:295; Livingston 1969:7). During the Pleistocene, continental glaciers blanketed all of the area north of Tenino. All of the area to the north of Tenino is covered with glacial till and outwash gravel, with very few bedrock exposures. Pre- Pleistocene bedrock exposures are more common in the northern areas. 11 During the Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras (570 million to 60 million years ago) the Puget Lowland was covered by marine waters (Alt and Hyndman 1984:xi, 1995:29-76; Livingston 1969:7 -11). The region was subject to volcanic activity, with lava flowing onto the sea floor. Mountain building raised portions of Washington State above sea level. Dinosaurs evolved and became extinct during the Mesozoic. In the Cenozoic Era (60 million years ago to the present), during the Tertiary Period (60 million to 2 million years ago), the older mountains were eroded and sediments filled troughs developed by the previous mountain building (Alt and Hyndman 1984:x, 1995:159 -205; Livingston 1969:11 -13). During the Eocene Epoch (60 million to 36 million years ago), shore deposits and low -lying swamplands accumulated vegetal material that was later converted to coal. Flowering plants that dominate the world today became common. In the Puget Lowland, evidence for this time is present as marine fossils in sandstone and shale beds that alternate with coal seams. Volcanic activity became increasingly common and volcanic rocks buried the pre - Eocene deposits in western Washington. During the Oligocene Epoch (36 million to 24 millions years ago), the Puget Lowland continued to be covered by an ever - diminishing sea (Alt and Hyndman 1995:206 -227; Livingston 1969:13 -15). Volcanic activity also diminished along what is now the Pacific Coast but increased in the Cascade Mountains. Oligocene andesite flows, mudflows, sediments, basalt, and rhyolite are found in the active. Cascade Mountains (Alt and Hyndman 1984:x, 1995:221- 225). The sandstone, shale, and coal deposits contain fossils that are similar to those in Eocene rocks, although there are more cool -water species. It was during the Oligocene Epoch that the Cascade Mountains began to take the shape they have today. During the Miocene Epoch (24 million to 5 million years ago) and Pliocene Epoch (5 million to 2 million years ago), most of the geologic activity was concentrated in eastern Washington. Great volcanic eruptions, welling up from fissures in the earth's mantle, flowed onto the crust like water (Alt and Hyndman 1995:232 -323; Livingston 1969:16 -19). Several such lava flows occurred in succession. The Cascade Mountains had their greatest rise during the Pliocene Epoch. The Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era includes the past 2 million years. It was the time of the ice ages (Alt and Hyndman 1984:x, 1995:324 -356; Livingston 1969:18 -22). Four times during the Pleistocene Epoch (2 million to 10,000 years ago), continental ice sheets moved into the Puget Lowland from the north and retreated again. The last recession was approximately 12,000 - 10,000 years ago. The Puget Lobe filled the Puget Lowland as far south as Tenino. Valley glaciers were present in the Cascade Mountains, even as they continued to be uplifted. The troughs carved by glacial ice during advances filled with glacial sediments during recessions. The five prominent volcanoes of the region (Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Baker, and Glacier Peak) were formed. The remains of mammoth and mastodon, and species of now - extinct bison, caribou, and other mammals have been found in Pleistocene sediments. The present structure of the Puget Lowland was developed as the glaciers retreated for the last time. 12 l rtrT*T',e1 L,w�="=rs- tt r.+r._ The Holocene Epoch includes the past 10,000 years of glacial recession. Some dramatic events have occurred during this time, although they have affected relatively small areas (Alt and Hyndman 1984:x, 1995:361 -401; Livingston 1969:22). Sea level rose to the present level between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago. About 4,800 years ago, Mt. Rainier released a large mudflow on its north slope that slid down the White River Valley (now the Green River) as far as the southern reaches of the Duwamish River. This mudflow, the Osceola, was the largest of several Mt. Rainier mudflows that occurred during the Holocene. There were others of varied sizes and unknown dimensions. During the Holocene Epoch, there have been several volcanic eruptions of Mt. Rainier and Mt. St. Helens that have left signature ash and pumice deposits in the Puget Lowland. Most of the Mt. St. Helens cone rose in the past 2,000 years, only to be diminished by the eruption of 1980. Deposits of Mazama ash also can be found and are evidence of the eruption of Glacier Peak in Oregon. 6. GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE PUGET LOWLAND The modern shape of the Puget Lowland owes much of its character to its glacial legacy (Downing 1983:2 -3). The north -south elongated ridges and troughs of the CLLR project corridor most likely reflect the southward direction of ice flow in the Pleistocene during the last glaciation (Figure 5). The ice reached its maximum extent about 15,000 years ago, had retreated substantially about 13,500 years ago and was gone shortly thereafter (Alt and Hyndman 1995:362 -365; Galaster and Laprade 1991; Porter et al. 1965). The glacial ice carved long, narrow valleys during several advances. Glacial retreats deposited a considerable cover of till, outwash, and drift sediments. The older glacial sediments and bedrock are capped by Vashon till (Porter et al. 1965). Large boulders and lake sediments also were deposited as a result of glacial action. The poorly sorted and compact till deposits are interspersed with outwash sands and gravels that are well sorted due to drainage deposition. Laminated clay beds at the bottoms of lakes and glacier edges also are common. The arrangement of Puget Sound shorelines was established when the last Pleistocene glacial ice had retreated from the Puget Lowland about 13,000 years ago. However, the shorelines, deltas, and intertidal zones apparent today acquired their shape over the past 5,000 years (Downing 1983 :2 -3). Between 13,000 and 5,000 years ago considerable landform development occurred. Erosion leveled the land at some locations, reformed it at others; sedimentation filled in valley's and buried some topographic features. As the glacial ice retreated, the rocky crust under the Puget Lowland slowly underwent a process of uplifting that was completed about 6,000 years ago (Downing 1983:3 -4). The uplifting was linear from south to north, ranging from none at the farthest extent of ice at Tenino to 140 m at Whidbey Island. At the same time, sea levels were rising as a result of melting ice. Although the events were nearly simultaneous, uplift was twice the rate of sea level rise until about 6,600 years ago. Sea levels continued to rise until about 5,000 years ago, when the rate of increase became nearly imperceptible. In addition to the uplift and sea level changes, the Puget Lowland iliC1'�±rpn�.iR 13 is subject to tectonic events that produce landform alterations at specific locations (Downing 1983:4). The most characteristic landforms in the Puget Lowland are the coarse sand and gravel beaches, high bluffs, and ever - changing floodplain and delta systems (Downing 1983:4 -9). The beaches and bluffs have developed through erosion of glacially deposited sediments. The inland trough margins also form high bluffs subject to erosion from various drainages. The floodplains and delta systems are located within the troughs carved by the glacial ice and are filled with eroded and water -sorted glacial debris. Regional beaches and delta systems are regularly affected by tidal action and large sandspits and intertidal zones are characteristic of the region (Downing 1983:11 -13). When the glaciers retreated, human groups entered the region, culturally adapting to the landform changes over the next several thousand years. Cultural adaptation in the region is generally expressed in terms of resource development and is often divided into three or four distinct time periods- -e.g., Early Holocene (ca. 13,000 -7,000 years ago), Middle Holocene (ca. 7,000 -3,000 years ago), Late Holocene (ca. 3,000 -300 years ago), and Recent or Ethnohistoric (300 -100 years ago). In any given area, the beginning and ending dates for each stage vary, depending on resource availability, environmental change, and cultural factors. Some periods are better known archaeologically than others. The time periods are not discussed here in terms of resources or culture but in terms of potential discovery of archaeological sites along the CLLR route and vicinity. Cultural adaptation in the Puget Lowland from 13,000 to 3,000 years ago is not well known. The major reason for this deficiency appears to be related to physiographic development processes that impacted both the topography of older iandforms and the archaeological deposits associated with them. Early and middle Holocene cultural activities that took place on the ridges, and at the margins or in the troughs, have been subject to natural erosion and burial. In some cases, recent cultural activity has had similar effects. In many instances, older prehistoric archaeological resources have been removed from the land surface. However, some ridges, areas of springs, and other upland features associated with troughs and depressions still may contain remnant deposits. Only one recorded site in the Duwamish Valley trough contained evidence of potentially older archaeological deposits. It was located on a promontory called Surge Tank Hill, near the confluence of the Black River with the Duwamish River (Kennedy 1985; Larson and Lewarch 1995:1- 21 -22). The site contained lithic artifacts characteristic of middle Holocene lithic workshop sites. Much of this site has been disturbed or destroyed. Other sites in the Puget Lowland are associated with upland features that are well inland, in the Cascade Mountain foothills. Site 45KI9 is at the outlet of Chester Morse Lake (Schalk and Taylor 1988; Samuels 1993). It contains a full spectrum of Holocene archaeological materials. Site 45KI464 is located on a relict terrace at the confluence of Stossel Creek and the Tolt River (Blukis Onat et. al. 2001). It contains artifacts that are characteristic of the middle Holocene. Of interest are the investigations at site 45KI5, on the Enumclaw Plateau near the White River, at the northern reaches of the Green River Trough. Here, archaeological deposits were found 14 below the Mt. Rainier Osceola mudflow. Charcoal associated. with artifacts gave an age range of possible occupation at the site of between 4,920 and 5,860 years ago. A later deposit, above the mudflow, was dated to 1,200 years ago. Each site noted above is located on a different kind of landform, however all these landforms have been stable for the past several thousand years. Although the number of known sites that date to the early and middle Holocene is small, the probability that similar landforms and associated sites are present in the CLLR corridor is high. Due to sedimentation, early to middle Holocene cultural activities could be preserved in stratified cultural deposits in the trough landforms. These deposits may be of varying depth. Although there is yet no direct archaeological evidence for preservation of cultural resources within the trough features of the Puget Lowland, these landform features have not been investigated for that purpose. But all of the geological evidence points towards potential cultural importance for the trough -like features. Any finds in these features will have major implications for archaeological research in the region. Uplift and sea level changes, complicated by tectonism, have caused the submergence of most early and middle Holocene lowlands and beaches. It appears that most of the early Holocene cultural activities along the marine coast of Puget Sound were submerged with the coastline (Troost and Stein 1995). Investigations at site 45KI428 and 45KI429 have demonstrated this effect quite clearly (Larson and Lewarch 1995). Similar buried beach areas are highly probable in that part of the CLLR corridor that crosses the Duwamish Valley Trough system. Archaeological evidence for human presence in the Puget Lowland within the past 3,000 years is comparatively abundant. Many late Holocene archaeological deposits have been discovered along the present coastal zone or in associations with modern landform features near water (Larson and Lewarch 1995:Chapter 1). Several archaeological sites have been recorded in the Duwamish Valley and vicinity (Courtois et al. 1999:38 -44). Most late Holocene archaeological sites can be associated with Lushootseed or Chinook place names, have been identified as habitation or use locations through ethnographic studies, and date within the past 100 -300 years. Many other named places have been destroyed by urban development in the past 150 years; those remaining are in danger of being destroyed by additional development. They are the resources that are most likely to be disturbed by project construction and are within the upper 5- 10 ft. of sediments along the route. Many of these sites and high probability landforms have been identified (Courtois et al. 1999) and the ethnographic place names are detailed in Miller (2002). Further discussion of the more recent prehistoric sites is included in the Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002a). 7. GEOARCHA.EOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROBABILITY CRITERIA Paleontological resources differ from prehistoric archaeological resources in that some are present as distinct geologic units that are relatively visible and have been mapped. Although the exact locations of several prehistoric archaeological deposits also have been mapped, these sites are much smaller and generally are not present as distinct stratigraphic units. It is assumed that many more prehistoric archaeological sites remain undiscovered than are presently known. 15 .'.'+15Y;4maY,. 16 The surficial geology of the CLLR area has been mapped (Link EIS Team 1999:Figures 2 -7) and is shown in the Appendix to•this report. The Appendix also contains defining descriptions of geologic units (Link EIS Team 1999:2 -4). Geologic units of interest for their potential in containing paleontological resources and prehistoric archaeological resources are: Alluvium Q (Ha), Beach Deposits (Hb), Recessional Outwash (Vr), Advance Outwash (Ve), Glacial 1 z Lacustrine (VI), Sedimentary Bedrock (Tb), Tukwila Formation (Tpt), Intrusive Rocks (Ti) (Link w 2 EIS Team 1999:3 -4). ► -J 0 Land modified due to filling (Mf) and landslide deposits (His) are of interest because they may c w cover one of the preceding geologic units (Link EIS Team 1999:2) (Appendix). Land modified _ i_ due to cutting (Mc) is not of interest here. Glacial till (Vt) and Glacial Marine Drift (Vd) are u) p p over and under most of the project corridor uplands and lowlands. They may contain 2 unmapped geologic units of interest. The Renton Formation (Tpr) is also of geologic interest but a we do not expect to find it through archaeological resource monitoring within the APE of the c preferred CLLR route. I' W z t-- 7.1 Paleontological Resource Criteria z o 111 L Certain geologic units along the CLLR corridor have been identified and mapped (Courtois et al. v o 1999:Figure 10; Link EIS Team 1999; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999). Several geologic units O N will be affected by construction along the CLLR route (Appendix). Some of the geologic units ° 1- contain lithified (changed to stone) paleontological resources. i v u' ~O • Tukwila Formation (Tpt): Eocene deposit with marine invertebrate fossils. . z • Renton Formation (Tpr): Sandstone, shale, and coal non -marine deposits. v • Sedimentary Bedrock (Tb): Blakely Formation, a marine sedimentary deposit with shell. z F_ The Tukwila Formation has been sampled, but not thoroughly. Treatment by sampling for this geologic unit is detailed in the Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002a). If fossils are encountered within the Blakely Formation along the APE, they also can be treated by sampling. The Renton Formation is not within the APE of the CLLR route. Paleontological resources that have not lithified can be found in association with or within other geologic units. Some of these units have been identified and mapped; few have been investigated in detail. • Glacial Outwash (Vr, Ve, V1, Vd, and Pv): Extinct Vertebrates: Quaternary vertebrate and invertebrate remains may be found in glacial outwash deposits. • Holocene Peat Deposits (Hp): These Quaternary (and some pre- Holocene) deposits contain fossil flora, and both invertebrate and vertebrate faunal remains. Peat deposits have the potential for radiocarbon dating. Peat deposits sometimes underlie present-thy marshy areas. Although the Intrusive Rocks (Ti) geologic unit does not have paleontological significance, it may have potential as a prehistoric lithic materials source. The Tukwila Formation and the IVICJ 4 E , IPt ",+M :t 1:rr:N� — .?lrtrrAua .._. !,WkIt. 'f!FR1.el."". ,,,,,rr rrne+,,,,, , wravra,rre ' f^ ^` ^ - er: r'. M.!'Mx'L'�.+nv ^±h'MIVP Intrusive Rocks within the CLLR APE are locations with mythological importance to the Duwamish, Muckleshoot, and Suquamish people (Miller 2002). CLLR construction activity has the potential to uncover and discover paleontological resources heretofore not identified. The criteria that are used in addressing paleontological resource probability in each segment are as follows. High Probability Areas • Mapped Tukwila Formation locations • Mapped Peat deposits U co o <n LLI Moderate Probability Areas • Quaternary vertebrate remains associated with Glacial Outwash deposits w 0 • Fossils within sedimentary bedrock (Blakeley Formation) 2 � 7.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Criteria co a = W The surficial geologic deposits in the CLLR corridor (Figure 1 and the Appendix) are dominated z = - by Pleistocene Vashon till and glacial outwash deposits. The north -south trending troughs were z O created during Pleistocene glaciation as negative topographic features, which in the Holocene g w saw variable degrees of sedimentation, depending upon local and, in some cases, regional D o conditions. Sedimentary debris reached these trough systems as reworked Pleistocene sediments o that are often difficult to distinguish from their upslope parent materials. Some troughs were at likely lacustrine features in the very late Pleistocene and were subjected to swamp -marsh = in sedimentation after that. u- p fit These Pleistocene deposits have provided the Holocene ground surfaces, shorelines, and glacial sediments for much of the area under proposed impact. Landforms that developed during the 17-- 1 ' Holocene have the potential to contain a variety of archaeological site types and to show evidence of historic landform modifications. We have designated both fresh water and saltwater resources (ponds, lakes, streams, marshes, bogs, deltas, intertidal zones, and • marine waters) as potential prehistoric land use areas for economic resource acquisition. We also designated fresh water and saltwater shorelines and highlands as areas for both habitation and economic resource acquisition. We did not include the possibility of economic resource acquisition away from water sources because there are no known criteria we could use to predict associations, although such acquisition did take place (Miller 2002). The range.of possible cultural use categories are detailed in the Monitoring and Treatment Plan developed for the CLLR project by Blukis Onat at al. (2002a). We have designated all areas that are within 350 m (1,200 ft.) or less of fresh water and saltwater resources as high probability areas. This probability extends over most intertidal zones. Cultural resources can be found in association with or incorporated in a variety of stratigraphic units associated with water resources. The high probability area extends into delta sediments deposited under water at fresh water outlets and along all saltwater shorelines, beaches, and sand spits. We have designated all areas within 350 -700 m (1,200 -2,400 ft.) of fresh water and 17 saltwater resources as locations with moderate probability for discovery of prehistoric archaeological resources. CLLR construction activity has the potential to uncover and discover prehistoric archaeological resources heretofore not identified: High Probability Areas • Along all edges of water bodies such as streams, lakes and marshes, including both low and high ground in these areas; • Within floodplains that are close to grade and all hills or other promontories within the floodplains; • On narrow land masses (700 m/2,400 ft. or less) between waterways; • Within the intertidal zone of the last 10,000 years. Moderate Probability Areas • In both upland and lowland areas away from water where lithic, animal and plant resources may have been procured; • On overlooks (bluffs) adjacent to bodies of water; • Under fill in areas close to water bodies. The preferred alternative identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) is addressed in the following discussion. Recent alignment options are currently under review and archaeological and paleontological resource assessments will be completed during the supplemental EIS process. Each segment of the preferred CLLR route is identified as mapped in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999:Figures 2.1 -5, 2.1-6, 2.1 -7, 2.1 -8, 2.1 -10) and FSEIS (Sound Transit 2001a:Figure 2 -1). Maps derived from the FEIS and FSEIS are provided for each segment. Revised high and moderate probability notations for prehistoric archaeological resources and paleontological resources have been marked on the maps. The marked areas are within the 200- 400 ft. APE along the route and within the APE designated for station and vent locations. In the discussion of each segment, summaries of information available about paleontological resources and prehistoric archaeological resources are presented, followed by concluding statements of paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resource probability. 8.1 Segment A - N.E. Northgate Way To N.E. 50th Street, University District The North Link Light Rail alternatives represent options for this segment currently under review (Figures 3). Archaeological and paleontological resource assessments will be completed during the supplemental EIS process. Only the preferred alternatives identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) are included in the following discussion. Figure 6 shows all alternatives under consideration in November, 2002. 8. CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL PROJECT SEGMENTS 18 ay SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND TRANSrr, 2001. AY rltbb ramea No goIraota of say sort Implied, Including icy, ioapletmea, or Maas for me. November 25, 2002 A/Alignment A/ Residential N Artetials / V State Highway A Interstate Freeway O Stations Water 19 0 0.4 Figure 6. Segment A: Paleontological and Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas. i! i' �'!; ?` t�sr� ","^p °.t`i'�fYrtat`.wsv-... r ... - c.•r•rv�r�n:�r�. .. ;�_ . - ... 0.8 Miles 8.1.1 Landform Characteristics The surficial geologic deposits in Segment A (Figure 6; Appendix, Figure A.1) are dominated by Pleistocene Vashon till and glacial outwash deposits (North Seattle Drift Upland). The north - south elongated ridges and troughs (e.g., Phinney Ridge and Ballard Trough), west of the proposed project area most likely reflect the southward direction of ice flow in the Pleistocene during Vashon time (Porter et al. 1965). Phinney Ridge and other similar ridges in the general project area commonly contain older sediments that are capped by Vashon till (Porter et al. 1965). These Pleistocene deposits have provided the Holocene ground surfaces, shorelines, and some sub - surface sediment for much of the area under proposed impact (Appendix, Figure A.1). The landforms developed during the Holocene have the potential to contain both a variety of archaeological site types and to show evidence of historic landform modifications. Thornton Creek and Green Lake are the major fresh water sources associated with Segment A. Other buried Pleistocene lacustrine deposits may be present in Segment A (Armstrong et al: 1965; Bretz 1913; Mullineaux et al. 1965) but remain unidentified. There is evidence for considerable deposits of lake- bottom silts and clays in the vicinity of the lake (Alt and Hyndman 1984:262). Thornton Creek flows through the Northgate area to the east and drains into Lake Washington. The flow of the creek has been altered somewhat by being channelled into culverts in the Northgate area. Water flows from Green Lake into Lake Washington by way of Ravenna Creek. The flow of the creek was impacted when Lake Washington was lowered in the early 1900s. Although the major ravine for which the creek was named is still open, both the eastern and western portions of the creek have been covered. Just east of Green Lake, Ravenna Creek is intersected by the 1 -5 corridor, as well as by each of the Segment A route alternatives between 45 Street NE and Northgate. The southern shores of Green Lake may contain the dominant Holocene depositional facies in the area. This area will not be impacted by the proposed project. 8.1.2 Paleontological Resource Probability The lacustrine and alluvial sediments in the Thornton and Ravenna Creek drainages in Segment A have potential for limnic peat or gyttja deposits. These deposits hold paleontologic interest and typically can be dated by radiocarbon ( (Bucknam et al. 1992; Hansen and Mackin 1940; Karlin and Abe lla 1992; Leopold and Crandell 1958; McKee 1968a; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999). Such dated deposits have significance regarding climate conditions, vegetation history, and local volcanic and tectonic activity (paleoearthquakes). Fresh water deposits also can be associated with vertebrate finds. Consequently, these deposits are considered to have moderate probability for paleontological resources in the same locations designated as having high probability for prehistoric archaeological resources (Figure 6; Appendix, Figure A.1). • zTe+~r.. -., �fti �r= .".KP!oA'FYl 7 ,. 'f' avt"` .vn. „ ...,M ".n:+, a? rgrMa; *r: *,aim.^,Karim;.;xa«n*c..,i.; ^•w- '.° -'�� `... Yxtsv!xtA�u:Sx!!!gg+rs.4N".F7RS 20 8.1.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability That section of Segment A where the route may cross Thornton Creek —south of Northgate— contains deposits that have been classified as having moderate probability for prehistoric archaeological resources (Courtois et al. 1999:Figure 42). We have reclassified the APE within 350 m (ca. 1,200 ft.) of the Thornton Creek banks as a high probability area. The APE from 350 m to 700 m (1,200 -2,400 ft.) of the creek banks is classified as a moderate probability area (Figure 6; Appendix, Figure A.1). There is considerable potential for prehistoric archaeological deposits _along the shorelines of Green Lake (Figure 6, Appendix, Figure A.1). Land use activities included resource procurement (food and materials) and seasonal and permanent habitation near Green Lake and associated drainages. The lacustrine and alluvial sedimentary facies present are dominated by Holocene sedimentation on pre - Holocene surfaces that have the potential to contain stratified cultural deposits. That section of Segment A where the route APE may cross Ravenna Creek —East Green Lake Way N. to 15 Ave N.E. — contains deposits that have been classified as having moderate probability for prehistoric archaeological resources (Courtois et al. 1999:Figure 42). We have reclassified the APE within 350 m (ca. 1,200 ft.) of the Ravenna Creek banks as a high probability area. The APE from 350 m to 700 m (1,200 -2,400 ft.) is classified as a moderate probability area (Figure 6; Appendix, Figure A.1). Zones of higher elevation (up to 100 m/340 ft.) have moderate potential for prehistoric cultural activity sites as overlook locations. Such promontories are present along the I -5 corridor from N 80 Street to south of the Ravenna Creek area (Figure 6; Appendix, Figure A.1). However, much of this area has been heavily disturbed by prior construction that may have destroyed most evidence of cultural activity. 8.2 Segment B - N.E. 50 Street, University District to Convention Place Station The North Link Light Rail alternatives represent options for this segment currently under review (Figure 3). Archaeological and paleontological resource assessments will be completed as part of the supplemental EIS process. The preferred alternative identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) is included in the following discussion. Figure 7 shows all alternatives under consideration in November, 2002. 8.2.1 Landform Characteristics The physiographic landform divisions for Segment B include the Lake Union Depression sandwiched between Capitol Hill and First Hill on the east and Queen Anne Hill (and former Denny Hill) on the west (Galaster and Laprade 1991) (Figures 1, 5, 7; Appendix, Figure A.2). Much of the general landform contains glacial drift and lacustrine deposits (Bretz 1913). Vashon till caps Capitol Hill and at a height of 103 m (350 ft.) it forms a prominent topographic feature. Denny Hill, another prominent topographic feature to the southwest of Lake Union, was 21 i re SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND TRANSIT, 2611. An rlzbd mated No pantos of any sort Implied, Ldoding Kturacy, completeness, or fitness for vac November 25, 2002 fi /Alignment /V 21esidential C,it State Highway Al Interstate Freeway Stations Water lily 22 • 0 Figure 7. Segment B: Paleontological and Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas. 0.4 0.8 Miles Z F-Z cc QQ� W i U 00 co o W F-- WO 2 • Q = • a I. W Z = F- 1- O ZI— W • W U u) O N 0I— W I— H LI. .Z W U= O Z removed and the vicinity was extensively modified in the 1800s (Bennett 2002). The central business district of Seattle lies immediately to the south of this location. Vashon till deposits dominate the landforms both west and east of the Union Depression in the Segment B area. Within the depression, Lawton Clays probably predominate below Holocene depositional facies that likely continue submerged below historic fill in the central business area of Seattle and join with the north- to-south Duwamish Valley Trough. This channel depression is a landform created during the Vashon ice flow and filled with Holocene terrigenous sediments. The lacustrine and alluvial sedimentary facies present are dominated by Holocene sedimentation on pre- Holocene surfaces that have the potential to contain stratified cultural deposits. The major drainages in the Segment B area are Lake Union, Portage Bay, and Lake Washington. In the early 1800s, small streams drained from the east and south into Portage Bay. Portage Bay and Lake Union are joined on the north by a narrow channel. Small streams enter the bay and lake from the north and south. A narrow isthmus was present between Lake Washington and Portage Bay and maintained an elevational difference between the two bodies of fresh water until the early 1900s. At that time, the Montlake Cut was constructed to connect the two lakes for the purposes of shipping goods inland. This lowered the level of Lake Washington by approximately 3 m (10 ft). Another cut was made to connect the west shore of Lake Union to Elliott Bay. However, the elevational difference between fresh water Lake Union and saltwater Elliott Bay has been maintained by a series of locks. The Lake Union to Duwamish Valley trough system very likely contains buried marsh and peat deposits under the central business district of Seattle (Beale 1990; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999). Such deposits may provide climatic and palynological data of significant value for research into the development of local environments (McKee1968a; Wolfe 1968). They also may contain the remains of ancient vertebrates. However, much of the CLLR route in the central business district will be in existing tunnels, therefore construction will not impact any deposits in the area. There is high potential for finding prehistoric archaeological resources within 700 m (2,400 ft.) of Lake Union, on the surfaces of the Esperance Sand and Lawton Clay formations, which likely were exposed as ground surfaces very early in the Holocene. These deposits are located on the eastern flank of Lake Union at the base of Capitol Hill (Appendix, Figure A.2). There is high probability where the APE is within 350 m (1,200 ft.) of all stream outlets and freshwater shorelines. There is moderate probability of prehistoric archaeological resources where the APE is within 700 m (2,400 ft.) of all the freshwater shorelines. The moderate probability extends to the Roy /Aloha Station APE as defined in the FEIS (Figure 7) (Sound Transit 1999). Most of the CLLR route south of the Roy /Aloha Station is within tunnels and is not expected to impact any prehistoric archaeological resources. Proposed locations of stations also are not in 8.2.2 Paleontological Resource Probability 8.2.3. Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability en 23 any potential prehistoric archaeological resource locations. The paleoshoreline of Elliott Bay has been covered by fill and has been affected by tectonic activity. It is possible that prehistoric deposits were buried by landfill in the central business district, especially as one approaches the paleoshoreline of Elliott Bay. Because much of the CLLR route in the central business district will be in existing tunnels, it is unlikely to affect prehistoric archaeological resources. 8.3 Segment C - Convention Place Station to South McClellan Station The Initial Segment (Figure 2) begins at Convention Place Station and includes Segment C as defined by the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999). The Operations and Maintenance Base is within this segment and is discussed in the Maintenance Base ARMT sub -Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002b). The CLLR route runs southeast from Convention Place, turns east at the Maintenance Base, and enters a tunnel underneath Beacon Hill that emerges at South McClellan Street Station (Figure 8). 8.3.1 Landform Characteristics The northern portion of Segment C is a continuation of the Lake Union to Duwamish Valley trough system (Figures 1, 5; Appendix, Figure A.3). During the terminal Pleistocene, the Lake Union - Duwamish sedimentary trough system was connected to Elliot Bay and has since been filled by both natural Holocene sedimentation and historic -era fill (Benoit 1978; Crandell et al. 1958; Forsman et al. 1997). The Beacon Hill Vashon till sediments are to the east at the southern portion of Segment C (Galaster and Laprade 1991). 8.3.2 Paleontological Resource Probability The Segment C area has been extensively modified since the 1850s by infilling over sandspits and a lagoon, shoreline beaches, intertidal mud flats and the several outlets of the Duwamish River delta (Courtois et al. 1999:Figure lla; Benoit 1978) (Figure A.3). The east -west Dearborn Cut through the north -south trending Beacon Hill, striking perpendicular to the natural topography, is the largest of several sources from which fill material was taken to cover the marine shorelines of the Seattle area. The Lake Union to Duwamish Valley trough system very likely contains buried marsh and peat deposits (Beale 1990; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999). Such deposits may provide climatic and palynological data of significant value for research into the development of local environments (Hansen and Mackin 1940; Leopold and Crandell 1958; McKee 1968a; Wolfe 1968). They also may contain the remains of ancient vertebrates. Much of the CLLR route in the central business district will be in existing tunnels and it is unlikely the buried deposits will be impacted. There is moderate probability for buried paleontological deposits within the APE to the south of the International District Station and to the east, within the same areas designated as having a high probability for prehistoric archaeological resources (Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999) (Figure 8). 24 >I: y? ti��. �r..,... a. .,.r..:o,,.o�`3K:aY;a.Ga;:➢t'ii a.L'Jrww +. -.� :':,, a'a'm.e."�..�""' " ..., \, hi I'•i'W» . i t re w n■. ■ ■a� �P' ar SOUNDTRANSVT SOUND TRANSIT, 2001. An den reserved No parades of soy sett implied, lnd.dtac accaraey. =rapidness, aar fitness forme. J November 25, 2002 NAlignment N Residential /v Arterials A/ State Highway N Interstate Freeway • Stations BIEI Water 25 0 0.3 Figure 8. Segment C: Paleontological and Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas. 0.6 Miles 8.3.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability The sandspit that was known as Denny Island was also the location of an Indian Camp (Courtois et al. 1999:Figure 11a). A place name, Djidjial'itc, is associated with a smaller spit to the east. z Stratigraphically below the historic fill,. there is a moderate potential for stratified prehistoric ,m z archaeological resources as this paleolandform was the major coastal zone segment inland from w 2 Elliot Bay. Although most construction within Segment C will be in existing tunnel locations or J at -grade and on top of historic -era fill, it is possible that construction excavation will extend c) o below historic -era fill and uncover prehistoric archaeological resources: There is high 0) w probability that prehistoric archaeological remains could be found within the APE along this -J F. former shoreline zone (Figure 8). u) a w 8.4 Segment D - South McClellan Station to Boeing Access Road Station g Q co : The Initial Segment (Figure 2) includes Segment D as defined by the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999). I w This segment begins at South McClellan Street Station (Figure 9). Z = F- t- 0 8.4.1 Landform Characteristics 111 Lo Do The Lake Washington -Green River Trough system lies to the east of the Duwamish Valley p N Trough system (Figures 1, 5). Both join the Green River Trough at the southern end of the o 1 Skyway Upland (Galaster and Laprade 1991). The Mount Baker Ridge ties into the southern i 0 Columbia Ridge and forms the southwestern shoreline features on Lake Washington. (Galaster F- and Laprade 1991). Bailey Peninsula juts to the east from this shoreline at Orcas Street (Figure w z 5; Appendix, Figure A.4). o F __ '— Mt. Baker Ridge and Columbia Ridge are to the east of Segment D; Beacon Hill is to the west z (Galaster and Laprade 1991) (Figures 1, 5). The Rainier Valley trough system is considerably narrower than the other trough systems. This remnant trough lies between Beacon Hill on the west and the Columbia Ridge system on the east. 8.4.2 Paleontological Resource Probability The trough narrows along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way and cuts between Beacon Hill on the north and the Skyway Upland on the south. There are landslide deposits throughout the area, ranging in age from historic to prehistoric. The central portion of Segment D crosses outcrops of Blakely Formation and the southern portion crosses outcrops of Pre - Vashon sediments (Appendix, Figure A.4). There is moderate probability that paleontological resources will be present within these formations (Bravinder 1932; McKee 1968a; Nesbitt 1998). 26 I T SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND TRANSIT, 2OOL All rights reserved N. guarantee of arty Dort Impaled, bawling accuracy, compkteniss or fitness for use. November 25, 2002 At Alignment Residential N Artenials State Highway Al Interstate Freeway • Stations Water 27 0 0.4 0.8 Miles Figure 9. Segment D: Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas. Z W ce 6 00 co O U) w J = F— u.l 0 2 Q U = d I. W Z = 1 ._ 1- 0 Z I-- w • w U 0 O N O H- W w I H - .Z W • = 0~ Z 8.4.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability A moderate potential for locating prehistoric archaeological deposits in the trough systems occurs as a function of Holocene sedimentation (Appendix, Figure A.4). In the Holocene alluvium section within the APE, between Henderson Station and the Boeing Access Road, there are two areas of moderate probability for locating prehistoric archaeological deposits, one at Henderson Station and another about % mile to the south (Courtois et al. 1999:Figure 45) (Figure 9). The probability extends to areas where landslides may have covered prehistoric archaeological resources. In the Othello Station APE area there is a moderate probability for locating prehistoric archaeological resources in the vicinity of the confluence of drainages. 8.5 Segment E - Boeing Access Road Station to South 154 Station (Tukwila) The Initial Segment (Figure 2) includes Segment E as defined by the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999). This segment also includes the Tukwila Freeway Route (Sound Transit 2001a) (Figure 10). 8.5.1 Landform Characteristics Segment E is centrally located in the Duwamish Valley Trough (Galaster and Laprade 1991; Tukwila EIS 2001) (Figures 1, 5). It is flanked by the Des Moines Drift Upland on the west and the Beacon Hill and Skyway Uplands on the east. Several small spring -fed and lake -fed drainages are located along the sides of the Uplands. 'The Duwamish Valley Trough has remained close to grade and has been dominated by depositional events since the Pleistocene, with deltaic sedimentation migrating in a northern direction (Porter et al. 1965; Troost and Stein 1995). The Green River Trough begins to the south of the former junction of the Black River with the Duwamish River. At this location, the sedimentary history is complicated by catastrophic natural events such as the several mudflows from Mt. Rainier and historic alterations related to lowering the level of Lake Washington in the early 1900s. The Tukwila Formation outcrops in several locations within Segment E, as do the Renton Formation and intrusive rocks (Link EIS Team 1999; Nesbitt 1998) (Appendix, Figure A.5). Some of the outcrops form promontories adjacent to the Duwamish floodplain and major portions at the southern end of the Skyway Upland consist of the Tukwila Formation. In the Puget Lowland, these are marine sedimentary equivalents of terrigenous (land formed) Eocene sedimentary rocks, such as coal (Burnham 1990). 8.5.1 Paleontological Resource Probability The CLLR project will cut into the Tukwila Formation in the Beacon Hill and Skyway Upland system in the vicinity of the Boeing Access Road (Nesbitt 1998; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999). The Tukwila Formation outcrops are within the APE and will be impacted by construction. Mitigation measures for this high probability formation are discussed in the Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002b). There also is a moderate probability for finding 28 mr:g tr,Wn • SOUNDTRANSIr SOUND 11tANSrr, 2011. AN tierb roo,ed No paraabe of any aai Implied, Including secorauy, completeness, sr Sticu for wi. November 25, 2002 Moderate Probability ll i I 111 911 N aignment / Residential A/ Arterials 'A Stab3 Highway A • Stations Water 29 rou I I 1 111)2 V 0 0.2 0.4 Miles l igare 10. Segment E: Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas. z w 6 or JU U O to 0 - • _ F- • W W O L L to d w z = I- O z I— UJ W 0 O — O I— wW I F- u'O .. z W - • I O ~ z buried peat deposits within the Duwamish Valley APE (McKee 1968a, 1968b; Porter et al. 1965; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999). There is a low potential of cutting into coal deposits associated with Beacon Hill (Burnham 1990; Wolfe 1968) (Appendix, Figure AS). 8.5.2 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability ~ w The northern portion of the APE in this segment within the Duwamish floodplain contains cc several recorded ethnographic sites ( Courtois et al. 1999:Figure 12; Miller 2002). The east side of the promontory known as Quarry Hill, on the west side of the Duwamish River, was at one v o time a prominent bluff, streaked with dark mineral stains. (Courtois et al. 1999:27; Miller 2002). It was called skwu -LAHTS ( "the face is masked" or "dirty face ") and figures prominently in the CO IL War of the Winds story that, according to tribal history and spiritual beliefs, is central to the w o creation of the entire Duwamish area. The northern end of this promontory is an Intrusive Rock (Ti) natural feature (Appendix, Figure A.5). Construction within the APE will cut into this rock. Two other hills, on the other side of the river, also figure prominently in the legend and are of = w cultural importance to the tribes in the area (Miller 2002). One is called sh- HEE- yah -du z ( "mountain beaver "). These hills also have been altered through quarrying. The northernmost z o hill on the east site of the river is traversed by the South Boeing Access Road. Both hills consist w of Tukwila Formation (Tpt) sedimentary rocks (Appendix, Figure A.5). Construction within the D cn APE may cut into these rock features as well. o s w Similar rock outcrops and promontories to the south have evidence of prehistoric archaeological v activity that may date to the middle Holocene (e.g. site 45KI267, located on a rock promontory . u_ to the east of the CLLR route and the Duwamish River). It is likely that any comparable iii Z promontory, such as those in the northern portion of Segment E, has a high probability that o prehistoric archaeological materials could be discovered on it. z I— Given the overall geological history of the Duwamish Valley Trough, one would expect to find a sequence of buried coastal prehistoric archaeological sites with chronological progression moving from south to north in the valley. There is likely to be a more mixed cultural chronology along the confluence of inland rivers and streams and along the floodplain margins. Upland Duwamish Valley locations such as Beacon Hill, Skyway Upland, Piegon Hill and Des MoinesDrift Upland (Figure 5) have the potential to yield prehistoric archaeological resources associated with a considerable time span, from the mid- Holocene to early historic times. Site 45KI51 is located on an old, raised terrace along the former channel of the Black River. Similar terraces are located along the eastern flank of the Des Moines Drift Upland, from the intersection of Highway 599 and I -5 to the intersection of 1 -5 with I-405. Westward from the latter intersection, within the APE, is an area where there are several relict terraces, springs, and other locations of moderate probability for prehistoric archaeological deposits (Figure 10). The culturally important Allentown Fishing site, also designated archaeological site 45KI431, is located along Segment E. It is on the east bank of the Duwamish River. It is possible that additional archaeological materials could be found on the west side of the river at this traditional fishing location. Thus, that portion of the APE from the intersection of Martin Luther King, Jr. 30 S'! Vr41 5 ? , Y P -o Pe y y"-9'.'r"*.r"V.Irt °5 _^+w w * r,.:......roan...�eq�r,..�n -, Way and the Boeing Access Road to the intersection of Highway 599 and I -5, except where it cuts through the Intrusive Rock (Ti) outcrop, is an area of high probability for prehistoric archaeological deposits (Figure 10; Appendix, Figure A.5). There also is a moderate probability of locating prehistoric archaeological resources in association with unidentified peat deposits within the project APE. Most of the other archaeological sites investigated in the Duwamish River floodplain have been associated with late Holocene prehistoric activity. Relatively few sites showing early and mid - Holocene cultural activity have been recorded anywhere in the Puget Lowland. Presumed reasons include: (1) The loss of riverine habitation sites due to their proximity to eroding riverbanks; and (2) The burial of most mid- Holocene sites by natural sedimentation and therefore the removal of these sites from surface exposure. 8.6 Segment F - South 154 Station to South SeaTac Station The SeaTac Light Rail alternative represents an option for this segment currently under review (Figure 4). A final archaeological assessment will be completed as part of the supplemental EIS process. Only the preferred alternative identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) is considered in the following discussion. 8.6.1 Landform Characteristics This segment is situated on the Des Moines Drift Upland, west of the Duwamish Valley and Green River Trough systems (Figures 5). The Upland contains Vashon recessional gravels. It also contains kettle lakes and kettle lake- marshes where peat has formed (Burnham 1990; Galaster and Laprade 1991; McKee 1968a; Wolfe 1968) (Appendix, Figure A.6). 8.6.2 Paleontological Resource Probability Several locations within Segment F are known to contain deposits of Holocene peat. These will require monitoring, as detailed in the Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002a). Mapped peat deposits within the APE in the vicinity of Bow Lake have a high probability for paleontological resources (Appendix, Figure A.6). Unmapped peat deposits within the APE in the vicinity of Angle Lake, Bow Lake, and other lakes no longer in evidence have a moderate probability for paleontological resources. The several areas modified by landfill also may contain peat deposits. There is limited potential for coal resources in Segment F (Burnham 1990; Link EIS Team 1999; Wolfe 1968). 8.6.3 Prehistoric Archaeological Resource Probability Kettle lakes such as Angle Lake have a high potential as habitation and resources utilization areas (Figure 11). However, since much of this area has been heavily altered by construction related to the airport and associated developments, prehistoric archaeological remains may only be found in pockets not impacted by these activities. The coarse - grained sedimentary deposits in the vicinity of the kettle lakes and within the APE have a moderate probability for evidence of 31 !QH1k- 3 ';'k^•�J":�3•� . yr• iretFEr?'M!�+:+,.r."'^.t�C+C:., .... .; ��s�t+�»ar.+ SOUNDT ,wslr SOUND TRANSIT, 2101. An r[gbb reserved N. goannte.dory sort Impard, laciotting Bey, e.sQkteaess, or Stncaa for tae. November 25, 2002 NAlignment A/ Residential N A teria►s i\r State Highway Interstate Freeway Stations Water 32 : 9*.! 7t:!' q' Y."• i��*4,7Y^_fD2¢`4L.;�M.:LN„t`A4' 0 0.6 Figure 11. Segment F: Prehistoric Archaeological Probability Areas. 1.2 Miles z ~ w et 2 J0 00 U, 0 J f C L.. w 0 I I O - 0 1— W W 2 I— u"O z U = O ~ z prehistoric cultural activities such as lithic material procurement at locations where they may have been exposed by spring outflow and stream channeling. The presence of peat deposits beneath 20 ft. of historic -era fill in the "vicinity of Bow Lake also suggests that there is a moderate probability that buried prehistoric archaeological deposits may be found in association with the marsh and peat deposits at the margins of the Bow Lake basin. 9. ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS Several conclusions may be drawn from the paleontology and prehistoric archaeology resource assessment of the CLLR route. The Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002a) details the level of monitoring and outlines the treatment with regard to specific resource categories. • Known paleontological resources will be impacted by the project at specific locations. These locations are portions of the Tukwila Formation, the Blakely Formation, and some peat deposits. Mitigation of these impacts can readily be addressed through pre- construction sampling. • Paleontological resources, especially unrecorded peat deposits and deposits of Pleistocene vertebrates could be found at CLLR project locations designated as high and moderate probability. Construction monitoring will be conducted at the designated locations. • Prehistoric archaeological resources that may be more than 3,000 years old can be expected in contexts associated with relict upland landforms. They also may be found associated with all shorelines that have been buried by later sedimentation. Several areas with high and moderate probability for early prehistoric archaeological resources have been designated for construction monitoring. • Prehistoric archaeological resources that date within the past 3,000 years can be expected in contexts associated with modern uplands and shoreline zones. They may exist only in fragmentary deposits as a result of impacts from land alteration activities that have occurred during the past 150 years. Several areas with high and moderate probability for early prehistoric archaeological resources have been designated for construction monitoring. • Both paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resources have been impacted by construction associated with the growth of the greater Seattle area over the past 150 years. Although many of the resource may have been destroyed or damaged, it is probable that at least some intact deposits remain. • The geoarchaeological study has added specific locations with moderate and high priority for the discovery of paleontological resources that were not defined in previous studies. It also has led us to modify probability designations for prehistoric archaeological resources in areas specified by Courtois et al. (1999). We have reclassified some moderate probability areas as high probability areas. In addition, the assessment has provided a guide to landforms characteristically associated with different site types at different times. 33 REFERENCES CITED Alt, D. 11 and D. W. Hyndman 1984 Roadside Geology of Washington. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, z a Montana. _ z re w 1995 Northwest Exposures. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. JU 0 Armstrong, J. E., D. R. Crandell, D. J. Easterbrook, and J. B. Noble CO CI 1965 Late Pleistocene stratigraphy and chronology in southwestern British Columbia and -� Northwestern Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 76:321 -330. p w Atwater, B. F., and A. L. Moore g 1992 A Tsunami about 1000 years ago in Puget Sound, Washington. Science 258:1614- cn 1617. w Z = Beale, H. F-- O 1990 Relative rise in sea -level during the past 5000 years at six salt marshes in Northern UJ Puget Sound, Washington. Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program, Department of Geology, Western Washington University, submitted to the Washington p N State Department of Ecology, Olympia. w U Bennett, L. A. u1. ~O 2002 Historic Archaeological Resources Assessment, Central Link Light Rail Project. . z iu Draft Project Report No. 20005. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Sound Transit, Seattle, Contract No. RTA/LR 69 -00. 0 Benoit, P. 1978 The Man - Induced Topographic Change of Seattle's Elliot Bay Shoreline from 1852 to 1930 as an Early Form of Coastal Resource Use and Management. Unpublished Master's thesis, Institute of Marine Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. Blukis Onat, A. R., L. A. Bennett, P. D. LeTourneau, J. Miller, and M. E. Morgenstein 2002 Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plans. Draft Project Report . No. 20005.B2. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Sound Transit, Seattle, Contract No. RTA/LR 69-00. Blukis Onat, A. R., M. E. Morgenstein, and K. Bernick 2002 Treatment Plan for Cultural Resource Monitoring at the Swinomish Marina Project Location. BOAS, Inc., Seattle.' Submitted to the Swinomish Tribal Community, Skagit County, Washington. 34 z Blukis Onat, A. R., M. E. Morgenstein, P. D. LeTourneau, R. P. Stone, J. Kosta, and P. Johnson 2001 Archaeological Investigations at stuwe 5k - Site 45K1464, Tolt River, King County, Washington. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Contract No. DC98097. Bravinder, K. M. z 1932 Stratigraphy and Paleontology of the Oligocene in the Eastern Portion of the Puget ' Sound Basin. MS thesis, University of Washington. ce 2 6U Bretz, J. H. U O u) o 1913 Glaciation of the Puget Sound region. Washington Geological Survey, Bulletin 8. J F Bucknam, R. C., E. Hemphill- Haley, and E. B. Leopold N p w 1992 Abrupt uplift within the past 1700 years at southern Puget Sound, Washington. Science 258:1611 -1614. g U 3 Burnham, R. J. ▪ w 1990 Some late Eocene depositional environments of the coal- bearing Puget Group of z'— western Washington State, U.S.A. International Journal of Coal Geology 15, pp. 27 -51. z w Ili Cary, A. S. • n. 1968 Military Road Slide. In Guidebook to Field Trips, Association of Engineering o u) Geology, 1968 National Meeting Seattle, Washington, pp. 79 -84. ° E _ w w U Courtois, S. L., K. H. Krafft, C. Wickwire, J. C. Bard, and R. McClintock u. o 1999 Final Technical Report [on] Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Historic w Z Resources, Native American Traditional Cultural Properties, [and] Paleontological Sites, U Final Environmental Impact Statement. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project. Central 0 Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Seattle), Seattle. Z Crandell, D. R. 1963 Surficial geology and geomorphology of the Lake Tapps quadrangle, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 388 -A. Crandell, D. R., and L. M. Gard, Jr. 1959 Geology of Buckley quadrangle, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Geological Quadrangle Map QC -125. Crandell, D. R., D. R. Mullineaux, and H. H. Waldron 1958 Pleistocene sequence in southeastern part of the Puget Sound lowland, Washington. American Journal of Science 256:384 -397. Crandell, D. R., and H. H. Waldron 1956. A Recent volcanic mudflow of exceptional dimensions from Mount Rainier, Washington. American Journal of Science 254:349 -362. 35 Downing, J. 1983 The Coast of Puget Sound, its Processes and Development. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Forsman, L. A., D. E. Lewarch, and L. L. Larson 1997 Denny Way/Lake Union Combined Sewer Overflow Control Project, Seattle, King z County, Cultural Resources Assessment. Report on file, Office of Archaeology and = W Historic Preservation, Lacey, Washington. ec 2 ...1 o Galaster and Laprade o o 1991 Geology of Seattle, Washington, United States of America. Association of w = Engineering Geology Bulletin 28:235 -302. co LL . w Hansen, H. P., and J. H. Mackin 2 1940 A Further Study of Interglacial Peat from Washington. Torrey Botanical Club Q Bulletin 67:131 -142. co = w Kennedy, H. z t�- 1985 The METRO Renton Effluent Transfer System, Archaeological Testing, Site z o 45KI267, ETS -3C. Letter Report from BOAS, Inc. to Thomas Delaat, URS, Seattle, 1 L11 Washington. v ° o - Karlin, R. E., and S. E. B. Abella ° I— w 1992 Paleoearthquakes in the Puget Sound region recorded in sediments from Lake 1 v Washington, U.S.A. Science 258:1617 -1621. w p z Larson, L. L. and D. E. Lewarch v 1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington. Submitted to CH2M Hill, o 1- Bellevue, Washington by Larson Anthropological /Archaeological Services, for King Z County Department of Metropolitan Services, Seattle, Washington. Leopold, E. B., and D. R. Crandell 1958 Pre- Wisconsin interglacial pollen spectra from Washington State, U.S.A. Geobotanical Institute Rubel Veroff 34:76 -79, Zurich, Switzerland. Link EIS Team 1999 Geology and Soils Technical Back -up. Parametrix, CH2M Hill, Herrera, submitted to Central Link Light Rail Transit Project, Final EIS, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. Livingston, Jr., V. E. 1969 Geologic History and Rocks and Minerals of Washington. State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines and Geology, Information Circular No. 45. 36 Mackin, J. H. 1941 Glacial geology of the Snoqualmie -Cedar area, Washington. Journal of Geology 49:449 -481. McKee, B. 1968a The Central and Southern Cascades. In Guidebook to Field Trips, Association of Engineering Geology, 1968 National Meeting, Seattle, Washington, pg. 31-45. z L w 1968b Glaciation in the Puget Lowland. In Guidebook to Field Trips, Association of 6 Engineering Geology, 1968 National Meeting Seattle, Washington, pp. 53-57. 0 co 0 0 Miller, J. 2002 Winds, Waterways, and Weirs. Draft Project Report No. 20005.D. BOAS, Inc., N a- Seattle. Submitted to Sound Transit, Seattle, Contract No. RTAJLR 69 -00. w Nelson, M. A. 2000 Addendum: Draft Technical Memorandum on Cultural Resources, Light Rail w Alternative E-4. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Seattle. Submitted to Sound Z Transit. 1— p z I-- w Mullineaux, D. R., H. H. Waldron, and M. Rubin o 1965 Stratigraphy and chronology of late interglacial and early Vashon glacial time in the o N Seattle area, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1194 -0. 0 W Nesbitt, E. A. h- o 1998 Marine Fauna of the Middle Eocene Tukwila Formation, King County. Washington ui Geology 26:13 -19. v u P '— Porter, S. G., J. E. Armstrong, D. R. Crandell, D. J. Easterbrook., R. J. Fulton, E. L. Hendricks, z M. F. Meier, D. Molenaar, D. R. Mullineaux, J. B. Noble, and R. S. Sigafoos 1965 Late Pleistocene glaciomarine environments of the Puget Lowland. In Pacific Northwest, INQUA VII Congress Guidebook for Field Conference J, edited by C. Bertrand Schultz and H. T. U. Smith. The Nebraska Academy of Science, Lincoln, Nebraska. Samuels, S. R. (editor) 1993 The Archaeology of Chester Morse Lake: Long -term Human Utilization of the Foothills in the Washington Cascade Range. Project Report 21, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Schalk, R. R. and R. L. Taylor (editors) 1988 The Archaeology of Chester Morse Lake: The 1986 -86 Investigations for the Cedar Falls Improvement Project. Seattle Research Unit, Center for Northwest Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. 37 Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1999 Geotechnical Data Report: Appendix A.1, Boring Logs, and Appendix D.15, Carbon Dating. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Sound Central Link Light Rail, Seattle, Contract No. LB235. Sherrod, B. L. 2001 Evidence for earthquake- induced subsidence about 1100 yr ago in coastal marshes of southern Puget Sound, Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 113:1299- 1311. Sound Transit 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project: Seattle, Tukwila and SeaTac, Washington. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) and U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle. 2000a Draft Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plans. Programmatic Agreement Attachment 1. Print copy dated 12/20/99, 23 pp., included with Request for Qualifications/Proposals, Archaeological Monitoring during Construction of the Central Link Project, RFQ /RFP No. RTA/LR 69 -00, May 2000. Sound Transit, Central Puget Sound Transit Authority, Seattle. 2000b Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Regarding Development of the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project in the State of Washington. Photocopy of signed document. 17 pp., included with Request for Qualifications/Proposals, Archaeological Monitoring during Construction of the Central Link Project, RFQ/RFP No. RTA/LR 69 -00, May 2000. Sound Transit, Central Puget Sound Transit Authority, Seattle. 2001a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Tukwila Freeway Route. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project: Seattle, Tukwila and SeaTac, Washington. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ' (Sound Transit) and U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle. 2001b "North Link" Light Rail Study, Environmental Scoping Information Report. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), Seattle. 2002a Central Link Southern Terminus. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). [Online]. Cited 3 May 2002. < www .soundtransit.org/stbusiness/ facts / factsheets/ stbusinessSouthernTerminus.htm>. 2002b Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Initial Segment, NEPA Environmental Assessment. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) and U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle. 38 rr "• RX�n.':: ?M' t. Y .:.:�.`w'.r».rtm'.'.s.�t.�.�t". — .7o 2002c North Link Light Rail Alternatives. Map. July 1, 2002. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), Seattle. 2002c North Link Light Rail Alternatives. Map. July 1, 2002. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), Seattle. z Thorson, R. M. 1989 Glacio - isostatic response of the Puget Sound area, Washington. Geological Society w W of America Bulletin 101:1163 -1174. JU 0 O Troost, K. A., and J. K. Stein o cn 1995 Geology and Geoarchaeology of West Point, Chapter 2. In The Archaeology of West I Point, Seattle, Washington, 4,000 years of Hunter - Fisher- Gatherer land use in southern u) u. Puget Sound, edited by L. L. Larson and D. E. Lewarch, Volume 1, Part 1. CH2M Hill, w o Bellevue, Washington. ga a' Waldron, H. H. = d 1962 Geology of the Des Moines quadrangle, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, 1— _ , Geological Quadrangle Map GQ -159. Z c . zI- Wolfe, J. A. 2 D 1968 Paleogene Biostratigraphy of Nonmarine Rocks in King County, Washington. U.S. o Geological Survey Bulletin 1335. o w w I H- L I O .. w z O I 39 z APPENDIX Geologic Units The geologic units described below serve as a key to the surficial geology maps in the figures that follow (Link EIS Team 1999:3 -4). re w Modified Land (Mc And Mf) The term "modified land" is used to describe surficial geologic U O conditions that have been "modified" by human activities such as, but not limited to ": cutting co ❑ (Mc), filling (Mf), grading, leveling, sluicing and shoreline protection. Fill material is usually w w composed of glacial soils or alluvium from different locations and may consist of clay, silt, sand -r F and/or gravel. Dumped rock, construction debris and boulders may also be present. Locally, u- some effort at compaction may have been made during placement of these fills, and their relative w density varies widely. The engineering properties of fill can be very different from location to 15 location. m❑ Landslide Deposits (His) Landslide deposits typically consist of intermixed debris from nearby = w soil units transported downslope as landslides, slumps and earth flows. The slides often occur Z = along steep bluffs and along the sides of steep stream gullies which have eroded headward from H p shorelines and valleys through the bluffs. Most slide deposits consist of a mixture of the overlying w (- material. This is often till and outwash mixed with underlying silts and clays. Organic debris, 2 j including logs and tree stumps, are often embedded in the slide debris. Slide debris can also be U ❑ referred to as colluvium. p D ❑ t- Alluvium (Ha) Alluvial soils were transported and deposited by water in streams, rivers, and = U in creeks. They are typically comprised of silt and fine to medium sand, but the size of the particles f in a particular deposit depends on the velocity of the water at the time of deposition. High 1-1-- Z velocity alluvium may include courser materials, such as medium to coarse - grained sand, gravel, w cobbles, and boulders. Fine - grained soil such as silt and fine sand are low - velocity alluvium. U 2 O Beach Deposits (Hb) Beach deposits generally consist of medium to coarse - grained sand and Z fine gravel. These deposits tend to be laminated or cross- bedded. Since. these deposits have accumulated in a relatively high energy environment, there are generally few fine soil particles such as clay and silt. Recessional Outwash (Vr) Recessional outwash was deposited by meltwater streams emanating from retreating glaciers during the last episode of glaciation. This unit is typically found directly overlying glacial till. It has not been overridden by glacial ice and is usually medium dense. In composition, it ranges from silty fine sand to clean coarse gravel with occasional cobbles and boulders. Due to the fluvial nature of deposition of recessional outwash, these materials are generally stratified. Glacial Till (Vt)'Glacial till typically consists of a heterogeneous mix of gravelly sand with scattered cobbles and boulders in a clay /silt matrix. It is very dense and is locally referred to as "hardpan." The predominant glacial till encountered in the area is Vashon -age glacial till. However, glacial till from previous glaciations may be encountered at depth along some portions of the corridor. Glacial till typically exhibits high shear strength, low compressibility and low permeability characteristics. It is generally considered the most competent bearing soil in the area, aside from bedrock. Temporary excavations in glacial till will generally stand near vertical. Excavation can be difficult due to its compact nature. Advance Outwash (Ve) Glacial advance outwash soils were deposited by meltwater streams emanating from advancing glaciers. Advance outwash is similar in composition to recessional 40 outwash, except it has been glacially over - ridden. Advance outwash soils typically range from silty fine sand to coarse gravel with cobbles and occasional boulders. Internal stratification of these deposits is the result of the fluvial environment of deposition. This unit is regionally important as an aquifer and is locally referred to as Esperance Sand. ; Because the advance outwash has been glacially overridden, it is generally dense to very dense. Glacial Lacustrine (VI) Underlying the advance outwash, glacial lacustrine deposits (also known locally as Lawton Clay) are typically encountered. Most of these fine grained soils were deposited in glacial meltwater lakes and were subsequently covered with coarser outwash before being overridden and densely consolidated by ice. The glacial clays and silts typically encountered in the project area range from massive to laminated and are frequently blocky or fractured. Locally they may be distorted or sheared, thereby having a lower mass strength than the surrounding soil. Glacial Marine Drift (Vd) Glacial marine drift deposits may be encountered near glacial lacustrine deposits. Glacial marine drift typically contains coarse - grained material that fell out of ice flows as they melted. This coarse grained material became incorporated in the glacial lacustrine deposit, and the result is a laminated clay with coarse material embedded within the clay. Glacial marine drift is similar in composition to till except that it tends to be laminated and may contain shell fragments. Pre - Vashon Deposits (Pv) Material from previous glaciations, such as older gravel, sand, clay, and gravelly clay may be encountered underlying the Vashon deposits. These deposits have been glacially consolidated and have properties similar to those of the Vashon -age deposits. Sedimentary Bedrock (Tb) Sedimentary bedrock is one of the bedrock formations typically encountered in the southern portion of the corridor. This bedrock generally consists of sandstone and conglomerates that are fairly compact but poorly cemented. Infiltration rates are generally slow and heavy equipment is necessary to excavate. The Blakely Formation, which is generally considered a marine sedimentary deposit consisting of sandstone and siltstone with occasional shells, is grouped with this formation. Renton Formation (Tpr) The Renton Formation typically consists of layers of non - marine sandstone, shale, and coal. Previous coal mining operations in the region have been within this unit, and mineshafts may exist in places. The sandstone is compact yet ranges from firmly cemented and hard to un- cemented and loose. Heavy equipment is generally needed to excavate this material; although difficulty of excavation varies with cementation. Tukwila Formation (Tpt) The Tukwila Formation is described as being composed of sandstone, conglomerates and a breccia containing volcanic rock fragments. This unit is very compact and tough; although some layers of sandstone are poorly cemented. Intrusive Rocks (Ti) This unit has been mapped in the walls of the Green River Valley south of the Foster Golf Course. It consists predominantly of pyroxene andesite and basalt that tends to break along preferential joints in small and large blocks (Link EIS Team 1999:3 -4). 41 amill.11111116f. I M Nam' 11 111111111W III t MINEE2111 IMM S0UNDTRANVSIT SOUND TRANSIT, 2461. AU riches reserved No cearsetee of say sort Implied, Irdadiac secisra4, completeeess, or Macs for use. November 25, 2002 / VMgnment A/ Residential Ni Arterials ; l e State Highway A Interstate Freeway • Stations Water 42 0 0.4 Figure A.1. Segment A: Surficial Geology. 0.8 Miles q �;!Fy; R ,^!; rr,.� ;c.�rx.rarz {^tMS- .�..•:r,��.rc f i? "t`,.. ,5�'-:a'� '7`! +r z i - = z ~ W c JU 0 w . � W g< = I I Z = 0 Z tii W U� N 0 W H H O .. z W U = O � z 11 .. IrA Unton I IL • • n • • r Limn 1 11111•••1 i11 lir111111111111111 I 171 Di IIII Wi I. INF% ....•.-45.4. . • "BP 1:4- 1 *- 1 ,1 11 1 no •••1111•••• i A I IL- Ili isms k ... II MEE. miliw. Mill Wallin/Ed MEI WO 1111111 I Ira VIII 4111111 \' 11111 AIM Imola 11116.4 " VI Lawton Cloy-may include some pre-Vashon sediments Ve Esperance Sand/advance outwash deposits • tukwilla Formation - late Eocene - Includes some middle Eocene marine sedimentary rocks 11 Intrusive Rocks Tb Blakely Formation - Oligocene Pv Pre-Vashon/Quatemary glacial and non-glacial sediments Mt Modified Land - mainly fill ' d 11.■ 11116: NINON nun is: \, 1111111111111111111111111i 11111111111111111 1 M11111 SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND TRANSIT, TOOL Ali right' No manatee of an sort litiptled. Including accuracy, •ompleteotoo, or fitness for we. November 25, 2002 Ali "/ Residential N Arterials State Highway A i Interstate Freeway • Stations Bill Water 43 0 0.4 Figure A.2. Segment B: Surficial Geology. 0.8 Miles VI Lawton Clay - may Include some pre-Vashco sediments ye Esperance Sand/advance ouhvash deposits Tpt Twifla Formation - late Eocene - includes some middle Eocene marine sedimentary rocks Ti Intrusive Rocks Tb Blakely Formation - Oligocene Pv Pre-Vashon/Quatemary glacial and non-glacial sediments MI Modified Land - mainly fill Hp Holocene peat Ha Holocene alluvium SOUNDTRANSIT N Nignment A/ Residential A/Arterials Ai State Highway A, Interstate Freeway • Stations C3 water 44 0 0.3 Figure A-3. Segment C: Surficial Geology. SOUND TRANSIT, 2001. All rights roared No guarsuitee of my sort Implied, Including smarmy, complebaless, or Mutts for use. November 25, 2002 _ 0.6 Miles SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND TRANSTr, 2H1. eU/ fleets reserved No gummier of any sort hat:died, Includiag accuracy, comistettacse, or Bunts for sic. November 25, 2002 N Alignment / Residential " NArtedals . /V State Highway A , Interstate Freeway • Stations Ell Water 45 0 0.4 Figure A.4. Segment D: Surficial Geology. 0.8 Miles P r ANIIIIMI:e:- " Lawton DaY- may include some core-Vashon sediments il Ve Esperance Sand/advance outwash deposits Tpt Tukwilla Formation - late Eocene - includes some riddle Eocene marine sedimentary rocks 11 Intrusive Rocks II lb Blakely Formation - Oligocene and Pre-VashontQuatemary giacia fvlxial sediments 1 11111111" MI fill It 11 1 • mud§ Nur all 11 m 1111191 WI YALU MCI ----.4h.--r- . Mt Modified Land-rnainly SOUNDTRAJVSIT SOUND TRANSIT, NW. AD rig*, reeved No rearautce of any sort Implied, law:haat accuracy, completruczt, or Dimas for ix. November 25, 2002 N ABgnment /V Residential N Arterials \/ State Highway A, Interstate Freeway • Stations Water 46 0 0.2 0.4 Miles Figure A.S. Segment E: Surficial Geology. Vt Lawton Clay - may rock de some pre- Vashon socSnwrds Ve Eaperanco Sand/advanco outwash deposits Tpt Tukwila Formation - late Eocene - Indudos some middle Eocene marine sedimentary rocks TI Intrusive Rocks Tb Blakely Formation - Oltgocerw Pv Pre- Vasho m NQuateary gtadal and n onytadal sediments Mk Modified Land - mainly fill $OUNDTWIsIT SOUND TRANSIT, 201. Ae rlgbt. rtsavcd N. cmuftc .t.o, isd kmp&d, bdudts «urscy. cemgctma,, .r ataa, ror.se. . i November 25, 2002 Nnment �'�/ Residential �ArteAais Int�erstat a Freeway O stations Water 47 0 0.6 Figure A.6. Segment F: Surficial Ceoiogy. 1.2 Miles HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL PROJECT October 2002 BOAS Project No. 20005.A2 Submitted to Sound Transit, Central Link Light Rail Contract RTA/LR 69 -00 U;*:31.i .:%it.;;23W' I.:.:... �y�7�A' n+,. ti.:7.:.. u�-,: vt: t,.. r.;: ti. atwu, u. r....., u a.. W..... v , r< x:+ �. t,.°. f. 4s: c+, �titiJ:: lsMyita; a, ik`%' �+ s�:: k'. '�i."rLi.so.%t.:..'�"r.::yG3:1: `u::�n:ca'a.e,::�•:a. z Z W . 6 UO . v)❑ W= W 0 La = d . W Z r0 Z �— U ❑ .O m W W' - 0 U. r - Z LLI U = 0 I- z TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 4 3. HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY ASSESSMENT SCOPE 8 4. METHODOLOGY 8 5. HISTORIC CONTEXT 9 5.1. Historic Archaeological Data Sets 10 5.2. Evaluation of Historic Archaeological Resources 10 5.3. Historic Periods for the CLLR Corridor 11 5.3.1. Frontier Period (1850 -1889) 12 5.3.2. Developmental Period (1890 - 1940). 12 5.3.3. Metropolitan Period (1941 -1968) 12 5.3.4. Modern Period (1969 -2002) 13 5.4. Historic Domains for the CLLR Corridor 13 6. CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL PROJECT SEGMENTS 15 6.1. Segment A - Northgate to Northeast 50 Street, University District 15 6.1.1. Need for Additional Survey 16 6.1.2. Historic Archaeological Probability 16 6.2. Segment B - Northeast 50 Street, University District to Convention Place Station 16 6.2.1. Need for Additional Survey 20 6.2.2. Historic Archaeological Probability 20 6.3. Segment C — Convention Place Station to South McClellan Station 20 6.3.1. Need for Additional Survey 23 6.3.2. Historic Archaeological Probability 23 6.4. Segment D - South McClellan Station to Boeing Access Road 24 6.4.1. Need for Additional Survey 24 6.4.2. Historic Archaeological Probability 28 6.5. Segment E - Boeing Access Road to South 154 Street Station (Tukwila) 28 6.5.1. Need for Additional Survey 30 6.5.2. Historic Archaeolo Probability 30 6.6. Segment F - South 154 Street to South SeaTac Station 30 6.6.1. Need for Additional Survey 30 6.6.2. Historic Archaeological Probability 30 7. ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 32 REFERENCES CITED 33 APPENDIX A Sample Quick Reference for Segment A 40 APPENDIX B Data Set Tables 45 i + i, r?:- r7dY .i�' +'u',r?aeiiJailFli:_:__:! �aiti::i!LC1Ju:krt LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Central Link Light Rail Corridor Segments 2 Figure 2. Initial Segment 3 Figure 3. North Link Light Rail Alternatives 5 Figure 4. SeaTac Light Rail Alternative 6 Figure 5. Segment A, Historic Archaeological Probability Areas 17 Figure 6. Segment A, Ravenna Boulevard Area 18 Figure 7. Segment B, Archaeological Probability Areas. 19 Figure 8. Segment B, Portage Bay 21 Figure 9. Segment C: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas 22 Figure 10. Segment D: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas 25 Figure 11. Segment D, Martin Luther King Jr., Way - Cheasty Blvd. to South Alaska 26 Figure 12. Segment D, Martin Luther King Jr., Way - South Alaska to South Bateman 27 Figure 13. Segment E: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas. 29 Figure 14. Segment F: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas 31 ii ll,;;fi' ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE • Area of Potential Effect ARMT Archaeological Resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan zz CLLR Central Link Light Rail 1-- w ce EIS Environmental Impact Statement 6 = JU FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement N o cn FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Lir H U) u_ NEPA National Environmental Protection Act W 0 NRHP National Register of Historic Places g D u_ Q NWAA Northwest Archaeological Associates cn a OAHP Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation ~ _ PI Principal Investigator z O : SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer = 2D o U O � 0 I- WW I I- U - Z El U I O F- z 111 «:r.: �. a:, �tAdr ..n`.'n�w.a.�a�l:c:r•,vu:cA W:.vrtn'::;ns�.j:..'r.Frwi: 1. INTRODUCTION In November 1999, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued by the Sound Transit Board for the Central Link Light Rail (CLLR) project (Sound Transit 1999). It was prepared by the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the lead federal agency on the project, and by the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit - ST). A Draft Programmatic Agreement is attached to the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) as Appendix R. The unsigned draft agreement is accompanied by a draft Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (ARMT). This Draft ARMT was to be modified and adjusted as necessary by FTA and SHPO in consultation with the Muckleshoot, Suquamish, and Duwamish tribal governments. In addition, The FEIS incorporates by reference a separately bound Technical Report [on] Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Historic Resources, Native American Traditional Cultural Properties, [and] Paleontological Sites (Courtois et al. 1999). The Sound Transit Board adopted the CLLR route from Northeast 45 Street in Seattle to South 200 Street in SeaTac (Figure 1) and FTA issued a Record of Decision in January 2000 for the project. In October 2000 BOAS, Inc. (BOAS) was contracted (Contract RTA/LR 69 -00) to prepare a final Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan (ARMT) for the CLLR project corridor. At that time, ST provided BOAS with a final signed Programmatic Agreement (Sound Transit 2000b) and a modified version of the Draft ARMT (Sound Transit 2000a). The BOAS contract also included a geoarchaeological assessment and an historic archaeological assessment of the CLLR corridor, as well as an ethnographic study of the project vicinity. The historic archaeological assessment (Bennett 2002) and the ethnographic study (Miller 2002) have been prepared as separate documents. On November 29, 2001, the Sound Transit Board adopted the Initial Segment of the CLLR route (Figure 2) and, in February 2002, issued an Environmental Assessment on the Initial Segment (Sound Transit 2002b). The Initial Segment begins at Convention Place Station on the north and extends south to South 154' Street in SeaTac. Also in November of 2001, a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ( FSEIS) was issued by the Sound Transit Board for the Tukwila Freeway Route portion of the Initial Segment (Sound Transit 2001a). The FSEIS was prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (ST). Historic and archaeological resources are addressed in the FSEIS (Sound Transit 2001a:4- 79- 4 -85). Appendix R includes "pre - construction archaeological surveys and monitoring of construction activities in high archaeological probability areas" (Sound Transit 2001a:R -26). A technical memorandum on cultural resources (Nelson 2000) was prepared as a background document for the FSEIS. The PTA issued an Amended Record of Decision in May 2002, including the Initial Segment as part of the CLLR route. 1 i:tuY.ti:.s6iicRati" • .� I e Segment A: Northgate to University District Segment B: University District to Westlake Segment C: Westlake to Ott South Bay McClellan St. Segment D: South McClellan St. ! t. to Boeing t1___; • Access Road i Segment E:. TLkwila Segment F: . SeaTac . Puget Sound { • • • 2 a- z SOUNDTRANSR I I `~ Z Ce JU 00 Pro Light Rail Stations 0 posed 8 N W Name Segment J F=- Northgate' A U) Ll. Roosevelt A 0 NE 95th B W 2 Pacific B Roy /Aloha B LL -Ti First Hill Hill B d Eastlake B = W South Lake Union B I-- Seattle Center B Z F Convention Place B 0 Z I-- . Westlake University Street C U.1 ILI international r S istricts C 0 0 Royal Brougham C 0 U) Lander C O Beacon Hill C 0 F— Poplar Place C W W 1-9b I H I- .Z W U= O~ McClellan D Charlestown D Genesee D Edmunds D Columbia City D Alaska D Graham D Othello D Henderson D Boeing Access Road's E South 194th E Longacres'x E Southcenter E North SeaTac'(South 159th) F North Central SeaTac F South Central SeaTac F South SeaTac' F ' Includes Ne v Park-god-Ride Pwendai Light Rau/ Commuter Raii Transfer 0 M Maintenance Route Alternative • Station B o MILES 2 Figure 1. Central Link Light Rail Corridor Segments (Sound Transit 1999:Figure S -1). Z Northgate Segment Routs and Stations to be determined 3 SOUNDTRANS1T Light Rail Stations Name NE 45th Pacific Capitol Hill First Hill e Figure 2. Initial Segment (Sound Transit 2002b:Figure 1). *Westlake *University Street *Pioneer Square *International District= Royal Brougham *Lander *Beacon Hill *McClellan *Edmunds Graham *Othello *Henderson Boeing Access Road' South 144th *South 154th' North Central SeaTac South SeaTaci I Includes New Parkand -Ride 2 Light Rall/Commuirr Ralf Transfer *Included In Inillal segment MOS um Operable Seg Tunnel Elevated At Grade Retained Cut -RI •••••�« ••• Undelemined . • Station 0 1 MILES 2 ..: u'rgni4/2n.` . . z ~ W J U 0O NO J 1- H u) LL W 2 • Q I. W Z H Z f— W uj 0 O S 0I— W W 2 I— i LL O W Z U D— O ~' z Sound Transit is presently in the process of analyzing alternative routes for service between Convention Place and Northgate —the North Link Light Rail Alternatives (Figure 3) (Sound Transit 2001b; 2002c), and between South 154 Street and South 200 Street —the West of Cemetery Alignment (Figure 4) (Sound Transit 2002a). 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 4 Cultural resources and cultural resource management are broad terms developed in the 1970s as terms parallel to natural resource management (King 1998:5 -6). Often, the term cultural resources is used as a synonym for historic property as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): ...any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register (of Historic Places), including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property...(NHPA Sec. 301[5]). It is also used as a catch -all term to include any property that is important for some cultural reason such as: Native American graves and cultural items; shipwrecks; artifacts; places; museum collections; historical documents; religious sites and practices; cultural use of natural resources; folklife, tradition, and other social institutions; and theater groups, orchestras, and other community cultural amenities (King 1998:6, 265). The term cultural resource management is used mostly by archaeologists, architectural historians and historical architects when referring to laws and regulations specific to historic places. Significant scientific, cultural, and historic resources are protected by a number of federal laws, including the American Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431 -433), the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461 -467), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et seq.), the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469- 469c), and the Archaeological Resources Preservation Act of 1979 (16 USC 470aa –mm). Scientific resources can include paleontological sites, cultural resources can include traditional cultural practices, and historic resources can include historic documents and oral histories (King 1998:47). Cultural and historic resources are protected by the revised Section 106 process of the NHPA (June 17, 1999 Final Rule – Protection of Historic Properties – 36 CFR Part 800; revised January 11, 2001). Regulations implementing Section 106 encourage maximum coordination with the environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321- 4347). Cultural resources are evaluated in terms of their significance as historic properties, eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR tHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 6 Figure 4. SeaTac Light Rail Alternative (Sound Transit 2002a). 'w1147014-' - 21: , :aazitardita104-6140At NvA. < • . re LAI O 0 U) 0 • W W --I 1— tij 2 1 5 ci I— ILI Z 0 Z L11 ui O (0 O — O F- LU M 0 L I 0 w c.) — I 0 National Register criteria for evaluation. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, building, structures, and objects that possess integrity of ,,location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; c) or that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose component may. lack individual distinction; or d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or ' history. (36CFR §60.4] The revised Section 106 process (June 17, 1999 Final Rule — Protection of Historic Properties — 36 CFR Part 800; revised January 11, 2001) includes steps to address discovery, identification, evaluation, and project effects on historic properties. The first step, a cultural resources survey, was conducted as part of project planning. Areas with high and moderate probability for intact subsurface archaeological resources were identified along the preferred CLLR route by Courtois et al. (1999:Figures 42 -47). The second step in the Section 106 process is to evaluate the archaeological deposits in terms of their significance as historic properties eligible for listing on the NRHP using criteria outlined in 36 CFR Part 60.4. Much of the CLLR route is covered by buildings, roads, and other ground cover impenetrable to standard archaeological methods. Therefore, a third step, construction monitoring, was chosen as a means whereby cultural resources could be identified, assigned to a class of historic property, and evaluated in terms of their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places in areas of high and moderate probability. Site significance would be determined according to criteria included in the ARMT. The fourth and final step would be to resolve adverse effects on eligible properties through Supplemental Treatment Plans. Washington State also has a number of regulations in place to address cultural resources found on state lands or lands that are subject to permitting by state agencies (RCW 27.34, Libraries, Museums and Historical Activities; RCW 27.44, Indian Graves and Records; RCW 27.53, as amended, Archaeological Sites and Records; RCW 39.34, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP); RCW 79.01, Public Lands Act; RCW 79.90, Aquatic Lands, in General; WAC 25-48 -060, Permit Requirements; and WAC 222 -16, Definitions). Resources that are afforded protection are those that have the potential to contribute significant understanding to the human presence in the State. King County and the City of Seattle have similar regulations for sites that are significant to the County and the City. 7 3. HISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY ASSESSMENT SCOPE The assessment of historic archaeological resources reported here was undertaken to ensure that historic archaeological resources along the entire CLLR corridor receive comprehensive consideration. To that end, an historic context and research domains have been developed for the resources that might be found in the corridor. The assessment identifies areas of high and moderate probability for historic archaeological resources in addition to those identified by Courtois et al. (1999). The resource probabilities are discussed in terms of the historic context and research domains that are most appropriate for each segment of the CLLR corridor (Sound Transit 1999). Recommendations are made for additional historic archaeological resource survey along the preferred route alternative (Sound Transit 1999) and where subsequent route changes may exceed the previously surveyed areas (Sound Transit 2001b, 2002c; Sound Transit 2002a). The assessment does not attempt to address whether any of these resources will be affected by project construction. The extent to which the area of potential effect (APE) contains historic archaeological resources that might be affected by the project is addressed in the Archaeological Resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002a) and the Archaeological Resource Monitoring and Treatment Sub -Plan for the Maintenance Base (Blukis Onat et al. 2002b). 4. METHODOLOGY As noted earlier, BOAS was contracted to provide a full and sufficient assessment of historic archaeological resources along the CLLR project corridor. The goals of this assessment were to (1) identify prior archaeological work in the vicinity; (2) ascertain past events that may have generated historic archaeological deposits or removed such deposits; and (3) identify historic domains and site types. The author worked with BOAS staff (Astrida R. Blukis Onat, Philippe D. LeTourneau, and Lucy Flynn Zuccotti) and James Schumacher (WSHS) to compile data for the assessment. First, the inventory of historic buildings and structures, including the Historic Property Inventory Forms compiled by Courtois et al. (1999) were reviewed to identify domains (themes), site types, and other elements of historical context for historic archaeological resources along the CLLR route. When these elements appeared lacking or poorly developed, BOAS researchers reviewed other literature that was pertinent to historic archaeological resources of the greater Seattle area. With few exceptions (Hart- Crowser 1986a:13 -25; Weaver 1989), we found that domains, site types, and other elements of historical context are generally lacking or poorly developed for the greater Seattle area. BOAS also was unable to prepare a full historic context because it is beyond the scope of the present contract. However, we have developed a base -line historic context for the area, delineated chronological periods, and proposed research domains that would be useful for the CLLR project. 8 • The FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) and the FSEIS (Sound Transit 2001a) segment maps were used for reference to ensure that all portions of the Initial . Segment and other preferred alternative routes were addressed in terms of historic archaeological resource probability. BOAS researchers compared Figures 2.1 -5 through 2.1 -10 in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) and Figure 2 -1 in the Final Supplemental EIS (Sound Transit 2001a) with Figures 23 through 47 in Courtois et al. (1999) — especially Figures 42 through 47, which show areas of archaeological probability. The narrative portions of the Courtois et al. (1999) report were reviewed for additional information about the preferred route and its probability for historic archaeological resources. Where information was not sufficient to assess this potential, additional historic research was undertaken to estimate the probability of historic archaeological deposits. The new alternative routes for service from Convention Place to Northgate (Sound Transit 2001b, 2002c) (Figure 3) and from South 154 Street to South 200 Street (Sound Transit 2002a) (Figure 4) were addressed briefly. Numerous sources of information about history and historic archaeology' in the CLLR project corridor were reviewed for this assessment. They included most of the potentially pertinent cultural resource studies available from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). Other historic sources were researched at the University of Washington libraries and King County libraries. Site records available at the OAHP and at King County Heritage and Landmarks offices were examined. Numerous books, historic maps, unpublished documents, and sources available on the internet also were examined. A survey of local repositories for aerial photographs, tax assessment files, engineering records, and other data that may be needed during construction monitoring also was compiled. All sources that proved useful are cited in this document. All were used to develop the historic context and research domains. In addition to this document, a quick reference of possible historic events and associated elements was compiled from the forms and records. These data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet to provide a segment -by- segment reference for the CLLR project corridor. This quick reference will be used by BOAS/WSHS archaeological monitoring personnel as a guide for evaluating cultural resources that may be discovered during monitoring. The data file is intended to be dynamic and only a sample is appended to this report (Appendix A). It will be updated as new information is identified. Sources used to compile the quick reference are cited in the appendix and are included in the references cites. 5. HISTORIC CONTEXT Researchers have recognized that conditions are suitable for subsurface historic deposits in some areas within the greater Seattle metropolitan area ( Courtois et al. 1999; Earth Technology 1984; Hart- Crowser 1986a, 1986b). At least one study identified potentially significant domains and site types for the downtown Seattle vicinity (Hart - Crowser 1986a:13 -25). None, however, prepared a complete historic context statement as defined by the National Register (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995). A historic context statement must fist consider what criteria will be used to identify historic archaeological resources. 9 5.1. Historic Archaeological Data Sets An essential component of the historic context is development of data sets that can be used to identify physical evidence of significant historic archaeological resources. Historic archaeological evidence may be categorized in data sets as buildings, structures, sites, or objects (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995). Potential archaeological evidence for each data set is presented in Appendix B. Building: Primary purpose is to shelter any form of human activity. Examples include house, barn, church, office building, privy, shed, stable, store, and factory. Structure: Primary purpose is other than shelter for human activity. Examples include bandstand, boats, canal, cairn, fence, highway, trolley car, tunnel, bridge, and railroad grade. Object: Primary purpose is artistic in nature, or a small -scale constructed item of cultural importance, that is associated with a specific setting or environment. Examples include fountain, monument, boundary marker, sculpture, and statuary (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995:4 -5). Site: Location of an important event, occupation, or activity whether or not these are standing buildings or structures. It is the location itself that possess the important historic value. Examples include campsite, designed landscape, shipwreck, village, natural feature having cultural importance, and trail. 5.2. Evaluation of Historic Archaeological Resources In the field, decisions must be made whether the historic evidence is in the form of a standing building, standing structure, site, or object. In the case of the CLLR, construction monitors may encounter cultural resource evidence of extant buildings, structures, and objects (Courtois et al. 1999). But most of the evidence available will be archaeological in the sense that the types of properties defined above will be present as ruins, artifacts, and features. As archaeological properties, they are evaluated for eligibility for the NRHP under criterion D for their potential to yield information important in history. Both requirements of this criterion must be met in order to say the find is significant: (a) the ruin, artifact, or feature must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of history, and (b) the information must be considered important (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995 :2, 21). These critical choices revolve around historic context, defined as ...those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history...is made clear (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995:7). 10 In other words, the physical evidence must be able to convey its history. Furthermore, the contextual integrity of the ruins, artifacts, and features needs to be intact for the evidence to tell its story. Although the story relates directly to historic context, there are criteria for assessing integrity. In general, historic archaeological integrity is present if z • Ruins, features, and artifacts are temporally diagnostic, spatially discrete, and functionally defined; w EL • The method of site formation can be identified and its impact on the archaeological 6 = deposit can be determined; and o • The ruins, features, and artifacts can be assigned to a particular individual, family, or cn group activity (Townsend et al. 1993:14 -15). w J To determine whether this physical evidence is important, five decision points are considered: uj 0 • 5 What aspect of history at the local, regional, or national level is represented by the u find; w ca • Whether that aspect of history is significant; H • Whether the find is a property type that has relevance and importance in illustrating Z t- the historic context; z I- • How the find illustrates that historic context; and g aj • Whether the find possesses the physical attributes necessary to convey the aspect of v history with which it is associated (Andrus and Shrimpton 1995:7). o Y2 w w In this assessment, areas of high probability are defined as relatively undisturbed locations where historic archaeological remains may be present in a condition that clearly conveys the L-!- z importance of the research domain represented by the remains. Areas of moderate probability w are locations wherein the archaeological material may reveal the domain but may not convey it F clearly because there has been limited prior disturbance. As noted previously, the extent to z I— which the project may impact these probability areas is not discussed here. 5.3. Historic Periods for the CLLR Corridor Historians have divided Seattle's growth and development into chronological episodes that suggest periods of significance as required by the NRHP. One of earliest demographic studies (Schmid 1944) suggests that growth occurred in three episodes: frontier (1853 - 4880),. urbanization (1880 - 1910), and metropolitan (1910- 1940). Viewed from a broader perspective, a more detailed chronology is presented by Sale (1978): frontier (1851- 1890), urban development (1890 - 1910), metropolitan (1910- 1918), between wars (1918 - 1940), industrial (1940 - 1968), and modern (1968- 1978). Taylor (1994), writing about African American residents, groups history into three episodes: frontier (1860 - 1899), community development (1900 - 1940), and modern (1941- 1970). The historic research suggests that different functional emphases do exist in Seattle's past and may be evident along the CLLR corridor. However, the bracketing dates for each growth and development episode vary from • one CLLR route segment to another. Therefore, we have identified four periods of significance with approximate dates. Not all periods are equally represented in each CLLR project segment. 11 5.3.1. Frontier Period (1850 -1889) 5.3.2. Developmental Period (1890 -1940) 5.3.3. Metropolitan Period (1941 -1968) The 40 -year span of this period includes the initial settlement of the project area by non -Native people. It also includes the years during which several communities were established as the pioneer settlements expanded in response to economic and technological change. Although the opening year is relatively well accepted among historians, the terminal date is less established. In the Duwamish Valley and along the shores of Elliott Bay, Lake Union, Union Bay and Portage Bay development by 1889 eclipsed pioneer settlements, and following Seattle's downtown fire in June 1889, rebuilding gave the city a new, more sophisticated look. However, in some areas not yet part of the city and not accessed by streetcar lines, homesteads and farms continued to be worked until the end of the nineteenth century. In such locations there may be historic archaeological evidence that functionally belongs to this period but which post -dates 1889. In this period Seattle grew from a straggle of independent communities into a network of neighborhoods connected by public and private transportation to Seattle's downtown business district. The city also capitalized on its excellent harbor and navigable Duwamish River to forge a lasting place in ocean-going trade. Agriculture continued to be important with emphasis on timber products from the foothills; fish from Puget Sound, lakes and rivers; and vegetables from the area's truck farms that frequently were operated by immigrants. These immigrants often employed Indians from the surrounding areas (Miller 2002). Small industries were established during the period that would help Seattle gain a place in both national and international markets. The 50 -year period begins following the rebuilding of Seattle's business district and after Washington was admitted to the United States of America as the 42 °d state. It ends with the country's entry into World War II. This development was not uniform throughout the city, however, and some CLLR segments will not have significant historic archaeological remains from this period. World War II brought new people to Seattle, many of them,defense workers who stayed in the area after the war. Together with the industrial expansion of steel making, airplane manufacture, ship building, and timber products, to name but a few of the many industries benefiting from a wartime economy, Seattle experienced financial growth and ethnic diversification. The momentum continued through the 1950s and 1960s, and during the 28 years of this period the city stretched its corporate boundaries to encompass new areas, opened new highways, and otherwise expressed itself as a metropolitan area. One of the most noticeable features of this period was the marked growth in suburban housing and the associated concentration of the less - well -off into neighborhoods defined largely by ethnicity. This situation, combined with other factors, triggered the season of civil unrest that closes the period. Historic archaeological resources that are less than 50 years old are not considered eligible for the NRHP unless they demonstrate exceptional importance (Sherfy and Luce 1996). Therefore, for the CLLR project, :1am?wr!!a!tts�ass;�s 12 the termination of this historic period is 1952. Allowing for possible delays in project implementation, an effective termination date of 1959 is suggested, making the operational duration of the period 17 years. Any archaeological properties that might be encountered during construction that post -date 1959 and that appear to be significant will be evaluated as an exception following guidance in Sherfy and Luce (1996). 5.3.4. Modern Period (1969 -2002) In many ways the last historic episode along the CLLR corridor is one marked more by social events than physical changes. The city's minority populations found effective voice and initiated political and social events still shaping today's communities, workplace, and economy. The period is also the first where professional archaeologists explored the buried features and artifacts of the Seattle metropolitan area, revealing to an inquisitive citizenry that the past is often very close at hand. From the standpoint of the CLLR project, however, this period is one of intellectual curiosity rather than regulatory need. Therefore, this period is not developed further in this document. 5.4. Historic Domains for the CLLR Corridor Many scholars have written about the history of the metropolitan Seattle area and it is not the intent of this section of the report to reproduce their work (e.g., Crowley 1998; Mumford 1980; Phelps and Blanchard 1978; Reinartz 1991; Sale 1978; Schmid 1944; Taylor 1994; Walthew 1940; Warren 1981; Wilma 2001a, 2001d, 20010. Instead, the major historic domains, periods of significance, and kinds of archaeological data that may be present in the CLLR corridor are identified. 1. Agriculture/Subsistence. This domain focuses on initial non - Native settlement of the CLLR corridor; hence the domain is associated closely with the Frontier Period. The archaeological expression of the domain includes buildings, structures, and sites (Appendix B, Tables 1, 2, 4). 2. Commerce/Trade. Small businesses and the service community are emphasized in this domain. Included are such varied businesses as grocery, livery, auto and equipment repair, mercantile, haberdasher, souvenir shop, import/export, restaurant, laundry, department store, and furniture store. Although this is not an exhaustive listing, it demonstrates that this domain covers a broad array of economic activity based on sales of products and services, but does not include manufacturing. Because commerce has played an important role in the area's history from first settlement through today, all historic periods will be represented in the CT T R corridor and the archaeological evidence for the domain will present in buildings, structures, objects, and sites (Appendix B, Tables 1-4). 3. Domestic Living. Family living is the focus, of this domain, which incorporates single and multiple family dwellings whether they appear in a commercial area or residential development. Although this domain could be considered a subset of the Social/Civic domain, the two are separate because the Domestic Living domain is geographically ubiquitous, whereas 13 is�..lvevt' the Social/Civic domain is geographically discrete. The Domestic Living domain does not include dwellings erected specifically for defense workers during the periods they were so occupied because evidence for defense housing belongs to the Military/Defense domain. Neither does it include residential schools, dormitories, or fraternity /sorority housing, all of which are part of the Education domain. The archaeological evidence for domestic living includes buildings, structures, objects, and sites and all historic periods. are expressed by this domain (Appendix B, Tables 1-4). 4. Education. This domain emphasizes public and private instruction in vocational skills and academic knowledge. It includes elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and vocational facilities, as well as their affiliated residences and sporting venues. The archaeological evidence will be in the form of buildings and structures (Appendix B, Tables 1- 2), but not objects or sites. The domain will be expressed in the Developmental and Metropolitan periods within the CLLR corridor. 5. Engineering. This domain addresses where and how human activity altered or accommodated the natural environment to make it more susceptible to development. It includes a variety of private and municipal projects such as sewers, culinary water, tideland and wetland reclamation, leveling hills, garbage disposal, creating passage ways through hills, changing river courses, street lighting, and flood control. The archaeological evidence will be present as buildings, structures, objects, and sites from all historic periods (Appendix B, Tables 1-4). 6. Ethnic Heritage. From the onset of non -Native settlement, people of many ethnic heritages have established homes and businesses in the Seattle area. This domain focuses on these groups and will be manifest in all historic periods. The complexity of history in the CLLR corridor suggests this domain will cross -cut other domains, hence the archaeological remains can reflect other domains at the same time as the evidence bears on ethnicity. Likewise, the archaeological record will find expression in all types of historic archaeological resources — buildings, structures, objects, and sites (Appendix B, Tables 1-4). 7. Health Care. From doctors' offices to hospitals, from shelters to backroom tables, the CLLR corridor has seen a variety of health care establishments. The archaeological evidence of this domain will be found in the form of buildings and structures and in each historic period (Appendix B, Tables 1-2). 8. Industry. The focus of this domain is the production of finished goods from raw materials. Finished goods vary from fully assembled and, ready -to-use items to parts used in the assembly of finished goods to repair and replacement parts. Marketing and distribution of the finished goods is part of the Commerce/Trade domain. Examples of the Industry domain include cutting and milling wood products, manufacture of gaseous fuels from crude oil, forming ores into metal, breweries, furniture manufacture, slaughter and packing operations, train and streetcar construction, casting and fabricating, and automobile assembly. All of the historic periods will be represented by this domain. The archaeological evidence will be found as buildings, structures, objects, and sites (Appendix .B, Tables 1-4). 14 r°'itr ' ''"X?!gr rMr, +•lur•.+Yn� t;±,±!4sTM![ w`?'k�y !n} ,' •. '..^' '.?s.,'a C , I i g z IZ w 6 JU 00 CO O (1) W W C/) LL w 2 ga CD d w Z I- 0 W ~ 0 D CI O-- C3 E- WW OC u- 6 ..z w = z 9. Landscape Architecture. This domain focuses on the modification of private and public spaces and includes such items as parks, playgrounds, and recreation developments. The archaeological evidence of the domain will be present as buildings, structures, and objects (Appendix B, Tables 1 -3). The domain is expressed in all historic periods. 10. Military/Defense. As a major seaport and manufacturing center, Seattle has been influenced by military presence and national defense efforts and this effect is the emphasis of the Military/Defense domain. The archaeological evidence will be found as buildings, structures, and sites from the Metropolitan period (Appendix B, Tables 1, 2, 4). 11. Social/Civic. The emphasis of this domain is the social organization and civic involvement of the local population. Archaeologically such behaviors are manifested in fraternal orders, public architecture, clubs, community centers, funeral and burial choices, and religious facilities. As such, the evidence will be present as buildings, structures, objects, and sites dating from all historic periods (Appendix B, Tables 1-4). 12. Transportation. This domain focuses on the technology and development of transportation networks within the greater Seattle area as well as the local termini for wider connections. It includes terrestrial means such as pedestrian trails, horse and wagon routes, trolleys and streetcars, railroads, and vehicular transport. Bridges and trestles, although important for their engineering, are most often part of a road network and are therefore considered in the Transportation domain. It also includes aerial transport and water -borne transportation such as canoes, ships, barges, booms, and ferries. The domain will be manifest in all historic periods and the archaeological evidence will be present as buildings, structures, and objects (Appendix B, Tables 1 -3). 6. CENTRAL LINK LIGHT RAIL PROJECT SEGMENTS The preferred alternative identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) is addressed in the following discussion. Recent alignment options are currently under review and historic archaeology assessment will be completed during the supplemental EIS process. Each segment of the preferred CLLR route is identified as mapped in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999:Figures 2.1 -5, 2.1-6, 2.1-7, 2.1 -8, 2.1 -10) and Final Supplemental EIS (Sound Transit 2001a:Figure 2- 1). The discussion begins at the most northerly point, Northgate Shopping Center, and proceeds southward to the CLLR station for South SeaTac. In the discussion of each segment, information regarding the level of archaeological survey is presented. This information is then evaluated in terms of whether additional survey is needed to identify historic archaeological resources. A statement of historic archaeological probability concludes the discussion. 6.1. Segment A - Northgate to Northeast 50 Street, University District The North Link Light Rail alternatives represent options for this segment currently under review (Figure 3). A historic archaeology assessment will be completed during the supplemental EIS 15 „A, ,�`jy. y end- w;, p,'. � �; � ''Y,meZ'o.�t'lD+;'7:a:;Krl�xrn; a'�'I ?, _ _ 1cL'r:'.'- 'Mr.�. process. Only the alternatives identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) are included in the following discussion. Courtois et al. (1999:68 -77) identified twelve historic resources along the route options for this segment, including three schools, two churches, two private residences, one public library, three parks, and part of the Fraternity /Sorority Historic District (Figure 5). All alternatives under consideration as of November, 2002 are shown in (Figure 5). 6.1.1. Need for Additional Survey To the extent that the North Link scoping document map can be compared with Courtois et al. (1999), survey coverage appears complete for that portion of Segment A discussed here (Figures 1, 3, 5, 6). Even though a slight route change is shown in the North Link scoping document map when compared with the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999:4 -180 -4 -196, Figure 4.15 -1), the Courtois et al. (1999:15) methodology was sufficiently extensive to incorporate the new proposal. 6.1.2. Historic Archaeological Probability As Native American use of the area north of Northeast 50 Street diminished, sparse and small communities and scattered farms appeared in the prairies, along creeks, and along lakeshores. Most of the area between Northgate and Northeast 50 Street was slowly settled as the city limits of Seattle moved north in the 20 century. Between Northgate and North/Northeast 75 Street, there is a very low probability that significant historic archaeological deposits will be found (Figure 5). Placement of the route adjacent to the I -5 freeway minimizes the likelihood that intact historic deposits will be found during construction of the North Link, as this area was heavily impacted by I -5 construction. Between Northeast 75 Street and Northeast 50` Street, the historic archaeological probability of this segment is generally low (Figures 3, 5, 6) because most of the route will be in underground tunnels. Excavation for the stations near Northeast 65 Street will probably encounter some historic artifacts, and perhaps remnant septic tanks, cellars, foundations, utilities, or similar structures, but the likelihood is low that these remains will provide significant new historical information. Where the APE crosses 'Ravenna Creek and Boulevard, there is moderate probability for the discovery of historic archaeological features associated with the engineering, landscape architecture, and transportation domains, primarily from the developmental period (Figures 5, 6). Data sets shown in Appendix B, Tables 2 and 4 might be present. 6.2. Segment B - Northeast 50 Street, University District to Convention Place Station The North Link Light Rail alternatives (Figure 3) represent options for this segment currently under review (Figure 3). A historic archaeology assessment will be completed during the supplemental EIS process. The preferred alternative identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) is included in the following discussion. Figure 7 shows all alternatives being considered as of November, 2002. 16 ■■ ��■�II�if a n msnn A I 1111 11 1 i x.....1 A 11 . 9 eU. .. 1 mom mum ■ U u MINIM 1 _ Ira's Souivn7MMNstr SOUND TRANSIT, 200i An rights roared `4o puaatee of say sort Implied, indadiai wormy, ompktenerr, or amen for on. November 15, 2002 NAli ^/ Residential N Arterials t State Highway N ./ interstate Freeway O Stations R Water Historical District pm Historical Property 17 a . natt tR_- kdA3SA211} i '! i " . ua?�x' �n.wgytNw °`.2.w mew+^+ ,.. .,.... 0.41 0.8 Miles figure 5. Segment A: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas. :1111111111111111 111111111111: M111 :111 =11 NUM Moderate Probability High Probability 11111111111111111= 11111111611111E 11111111111111: 11111111E111111 ...m a l. t s OOOO NI 1r-11111111111 H1111111111 111111111111111 1211:1111M1E:ra 1111111111111n 111111111111M 11111111111111 :1111111111111 11111111111111 1111111111111 11111111M1111 M111111111111 11111111111:1 1111111111111111 11111111111111: •1110111111: =1111111111: Frurr Vin SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND ramisrr, 2001. AU rights reserved No guarantee of airy sort Implied, lactoding accuracy, completemaa, or fitness for use. November 15, 2002 /s/Ali A/ Residential N Arterials State Highway Interstate Freeway • Stations R Water Historical District MN Historical Property ••'' • • - • • •• • . 18 0 0.2 Figure 6. Segment A: Ravenna Boulevard Area. 0.4 Miles 1 SOUNDTRANS1T SOUND TRANSIT, 20111. An siesta roserrsd No :surmise of soy sort Implied, lactudiog swing, lompletosess, or fitness for am November 15, 2002 N Alignment "/ Residential Arterials ;. I State Highway Ay Interstate Freeway Stations Water Historical District Historical Property 19 0 0.5 Figure 7. Segment B: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas. 1 Miles 1 •"4•,• . Courtois et al. 1999:68-70) identified 91 historic resources in Segment B, including one bridge, five churches, 17 residences, three historic districts, one statue, the Space Needle, four parks, six university buildings, three schools, two banks, more than 19 apartment complexes, and several other commercial, fraternal, and public utility buildings (Courtois et al. 1999:Figures 24 -30). Two areas of moderate archaeological probability were identified by Courtois et al. (1999:Figures 3, 43). The first is between Pacific Station and Portage Bay, the second from = z Portage Bay south to East Roanoke Street (Figures 7, 8). Figure 8 shows all alternatives under re 2 w consideration as of November, 2002. 00 6.2.1. Need for Additional Survey w J F Northwest Archaeological Associates (NWAA) are currently completing work on the North Link 0) p a Additional survey will not be needed for the preferred route alternative considered 2 here. g 5 wQ 6.2.2. Historic Archaeological Probability I w z The Portage Bay area has a long history of residential and commercial use, and is adjacent to the z O former shoreline of Portage Bay, an area favored by Native Americans and 'early settlers w w (Courtois et al. 1999:71; Dorpat 2001b; Miller 2002). The Kroll's Atlas of Seattle (1912- 1920), v co for example, shows several structures along Northeast Pacific Street and the Ranning Lumber 0 - Company complex between Brooklyn and University avenues just north of Northeast Pacific w w w (Kroll Map Co. 1912 - 1920:14). Courtois et al. (1999:102) identified the Columbia Lumber = v Company office (B55), and noted it was constructed by that company soon after their purchase , of the Ranning Lumber Company. More buildings are identified between Brooklyn and z University avenues from Northeast Pacific to the shore of Portage Bay (Kroll Map Co. 1912— v =. 1920:14). Some of these buildings may be residences and others are commercial structures, 0'- including a depot for the Northern Pacific Railroad near the intersection of Northeast Pacific Z Street and 15 Avenue Northeast. BOAS research suggests there is moderate probability that historic archaeological deposits may. be present in the Pacific Station and Portage Bay vicinity APE (Figures 7, 8). Several research domains might be addressed at this location, including commerce and trade, domestic living, education, engineering, ethnic heritage, . industry, and transportation, primarily from the developmental and metropolitan periods. All data sets shown in Appendix B, Tables 1-4 could be present. 6.3. Segment C — Convention Place Station to South McClellan Station The Initial Segment (Figure 2) begins at Convention Place Station and includes Segment C as defined by the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999). Part of this segment will tunnel underneath Beacon Hill to emerge at McClellan Street (Figure 9). The Operations and Maintenance Base is within this segment but is discussed in the Maintenance Base ARMT sub -Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002b). 20 r \ Moderate Probability High Probability vs SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND TRANSIT, 2001. An rielb ruvnd Iv. Looiutee of any sort Implied, belittling ocevx7, eemplchad, or Atom for Ire. November 135 2002 //Alignment Residential M oms 4 State Highway Interstate Freeway 0 Stations Water District ® Historical Property 22 ge ..c tT v.% v.TN-ssrstrrrrnt",,rwxtt;«<,,r.•.r<rnnn t ..F,'^,...;., - ?;'�y2.a...u�.,n.�r�...�}n.:r �.r???�ltw," ... 0.6 Figure 9. Segment C: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas. 1.2 Miles Courtois et al. (1999:111 -124, Figures 29 -34) identified 20 historic resources in this segment, including four historic districts, two churches, one school, two apartment buildings, and two commercial buildings. Eleven of these are in the vicinity of the preferred alternative. One area of moderate probability for archaeological resources was identified along 5 Avenue South between South Dearborn Street and South Lander Street, and continuing east on South Lander to 12 Avenue South (Courtois et al. 1999:149 -153, Figure 44). 6.3.1. Need for Additional Survey The area surveyed by Courtois et al. (1999) in this segment includes the preferred alternative identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999). It includes tunnel and at -grade routing and several stations. Survey coverage for this segment is adequate. 6.3.2. Historic Archaeological Probability The portion of this route that runs through the underground bus tunnel will have no probability for historic archaeological deposits (Figure 9). Modification for the APE at the existing stations (Convention Place, University Street, Pioneer Square, and International District) or installation of vent locations will have moderate probability because these are situated in some of the oldest areas of Seattle. Prior work in the vicinity, including boreholes, strongly suggests that historic archaeological remains may be present (Earth Technology 1984; Hart- Crowser 1986a; Thompson 1985). Several research domains might be addressed at this location, including commerce and trade, domestic living, engineering, ethnic heritage, industry, social/civic, and transportation, primarily from the frontier and developmental periods. All data sets shown in Appendix B, Tables 1-4 could be present. From the International District Station to the western edge of Beacon Hill the route passes over former tidelands that were the focus of a prolonged reclamation effort (Figure 9). At the same time, railroads, streetcars, and wagon roads were constructed on pilings and trestles across the tide flats. Archaeological evidence from these early historic era activities should be common in the reclaimed area. The methods used to reclaim this area are described in more detail in the Maintenance Base ARMT sub -Plan (Blukis Onat et al. 2002b). From an archaeological perspective, the route from the International District Station to the western edge of Beacon Hill is an area of high probability for historic deposits along the project APE (Figure 9). Several research domains might be addressed at this location, including commerce and trade, domestic living, engineering, ethnic heritage, industry, social/civic, and transportation, primarily from the frontier and developmental periods. All data sets shown in Appendix B, Tables 1-4 could be present. The part of this segment that will tunnel underneath Beacon Hill to emerge at McClellan will have a low probability for historic archaeological remains (Figure 9). The steepness of Beacon Hill precluded most historic uses, and later construction of I -5 removed those minor landforrs that might have had historic deposits. Both portal areas have already seen sufficient recent land alterations that significant historic archaeological remain are not likely to be present. 23 6.4. Segment D - South McClellan Station to Boeing Access Road The Initial Segment (Figure 2) includes Segment D as defined by the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) (Figure 10). Courtois et al. (1999:124 -134) recorded 15 historic resources in Segment D, including two historic districts, one school, two boulevards that are contributing elements of the Olmsted Park system, one commercial building, one apartment complex, and eight residences. One area of high archaeological probability was identified along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way South between South Perry and the Boeing Access Road Station (Courtois et al. 1999:153, Figures 45,46). At the time the segment was examined by Courtois et al. (1999), the Martin Luther King, Jr. Way South route from South McClellan to about South Angeline was proposed as an elevated track, changing to at -grade from there to South Graham. According to the survey methodology, Courtois et al. (1999:Figure 36) would have surveyed a corridor 60-122 meters (200 -400 feet) wide. The only historic resource identified along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way South, was the southwestern corner of the Columbia City Historic District (Figures 11, 12).. Courtois et al. (1999:127) described development on the west side of Rainier Valley and explained that Empire Way (the former name of Martin Luther King Jr. Way) was "pieced together from portions of older roads." They also noted that the area remained agrarian until emergency defense worker housing was constructed in the early 1940s. One of the housing projects, Holly Park, adjoins Martin Luther King, Jr. Way South, another is Rainier Vista Courtois et al. (1999:127). In spite of the descriptions of historic events, the Courtois et al. (1999) report did not identify any significant historic properties along the selected CLLR route. 6.4.1. Need for Additional Survey and Survey Results In December 2000, while driving along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way South, the author and the BOAS, Inc. PI observed a few houses that appeared to be older architectural styles that may date to the area's farming era and saw some older commercial buildings. Also, Holly Park appears to retain some of what may be its original design. In the context of this assessment of historic archaeological resources, the author concluded that the lack of significant historic resources along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way as determined by Courtois et al. (1999:128 -134, Figures 35-36) did not necessarily signify a lack of historic archaeological resources. Therefore, BOAS staff conducted a supplemental survey to identify areas where historic archaeological resources may be present that would need monitoring. The areas identified through the supplementary survey include locations where standing structures appear to date to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Although the structures may not be historically significant, the lots, blocks, and intersections where older structures are present represent locations that have a moderate probability for discovery of historic archaeological resources. The locations are identified in Figures 10, 11, and 12. 24 Lake Washington SOUND 'TRANSIT, 2001. An rights reserved N. pawner of say tat Impned, lauding scrune7, ,Souplctoas, or Ataess for toe. 1 1 SOUNDTMNSIT November 15, 2002 N Ali A/ Residential A/ Arterials A f State Highway Interstate Freeway • Stations Water Y ' Historical District MN Historical Property 25 0 0.6 Figure 10. Segment D: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas. 1.2 Miles + ?YTS ?M+ y- ,r'y"'..'' . *' .: ...:....: '' r ' x ' r ..mx:• ..,a.�....- ,........- i^- 'CCG:'�cn' ups.......= Z':'"'.. _, ...,.�r��.�..Y..�.......- --.-�— .,mgr.,;• r.;!±yttnyR�yS;rS t±•If. 11111 C ll 0,11/1111 uuti' 1( j111j111t.� MUMS 1 1111M1111 1 1 e11IM High Probability — —' -- -- — SSW MANI 00 NM IN Ill ill= , � � ' 'lllllill mliva$E1<aB�g11E I/ : ■1 IE��11111� I1119$BIIIIi� i� op �E�11111►,�IIE11331111i1 _ woo se men I�r : r, 1111 mum r III == ra MI11LIII ROM _ml_ .v.p... _ 1111M111111113 '1 dl a ::e1e- 011111111 t3�1,.tctt�tc:l�,t ;,ag11� iri11311 /1 1111 111111 111 iP SOUNDTRANSIT SOUND TRAN1Sir, 20411. AB rites reserved No toaraitet of ass sort implied, loclodlot accuracy, c ompktesess, x Mots for use. November 15, 2002 Alignment /\/ Residential N Arterials �•. State interstate F e reeway Stations F�l Water Historical District III Historical Property 26 0 0.2 Figure 11. Segment D: Martin Luther King, Jr. Way - Cheasty Blvd. to South Alaska St. 0.4 Miles cia W. VI Ell =t• :.l lAillki fI_( ; Zums li'1;1012 1 1 1 ,11iilgttIN hn.1. cap \ill iiiiiill► Y� Mai gOilti 'zoo a t i 1 �= nna.. � i �tt]t / nn mo l l: Ir �_. -i "unto _ _„ unnu.n E. I a =1M ail = =, D 111111111111 as �r i wii "I" t 1= r11tr, IjiuuPlI'i =_ .. °u.uIpI: moon: ii , :1 7 1 .nuunuu un SOUNDTMNslr SOUND TRANSIT, 20111. All rights reserved ' o runotee of aa7 tort Implied, laekdia= accuracy, ,... Pawktoef., or Otani for me. November 15, 2002 1 N Ali / \' Residential N Arterials State Highway A ! Interstate Freeway • Stations Water Historical District us Historical Property 27 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Figure 12. Segment D: South from Martin Luther King Jr. Way - South Alaska St. 6.4.2. Historic Archaeological Probability Martin Luther King, Jr. Way is one of the older routes in the eastern part of the city, having been designated in 1913 as a principal highway, then called Empire Way. Empire Way itself was an assemblage of earlier roads (Courtois et al. 1999:127) and streetcar lines (Schmid 1944:65). By 1920 many residential subdivisions had been platted along Empire Way and numerous homes had been erected. The presence of large lots suggests commercial truck gardens or nurseries remained along the route (Kroll Map Co. 1912 - 1920:32, 61, 68, 69, 77), reflecting the area's agrarian beginnings. By 1940 between 70 percent and 79 percent of the city's foreign -born population lived in Rainier Valley (Schmid 1944:127), and Empire Way provided primary access for those living on the west side of the valley. The residential -farm character of the area underwent a change during and immediately following World War II, as commercial developments spread southward along Empire Way from downtown Seattle, and outward from the communities of Rainier Beach, Columbia City, and Mount Baker. These business centers provided building supplies, groceries, automotive and other services relied upon by residents of Rainier Valley (personal knowledge). Defense worker housing was erected at Holly Park and Rainier Vista (Courtois et al. 1999:127; Sanborn [1945]:909, 925, 1338, 1346). Historic archaeological deposits along the CLLR corridor that will reflect the area's history can be anticipated. Sections of the APE along Martin Luther King, Jr. Way route have a moderate probability for historic archaeological resources (Figures 10 -12). Several research domains might be addressed at these locations, include commerce and trade, domestic living, engineering, ethnic heritage, military defense, and transportation, primarily.from the developmental and metropolitan periods. All data sets shown in Appendix B, Tables 1-4 could be present. 6.5. Segment E - Boeing Access Road to South 154 Street Station (Tukwila) The Tukwila Freeway Route replaced the Segment E preferred alternative alignment (Sound Transit 1999:Figure S -7) when the Sound Transit Board adopted the Initial Segment in November 2001 (Figures 2, 13). Courtois et al. (1999:137, Figure 37) surveyed the Tukwila Freeway Route from the Boeing Access Road to the junction of I -5 and SR 599 and recorded an historic farmstead (historic resource ID # E02 - Ray - Carrossino Farmstead). They also identified an area of high archaeological probability along this portion of the CLLR route (Courtois et al. 1999:134 -136, Figure 46); although the probability for historic deposits must be inferred from the narrative. Additional historic resource investigations were undertaken as part of the FSEIS (Sound Transit 2001a) and no additional historic properties were found within the area of potential impact (Nelson 2000; Sound Transit 2001a:R -16). The survey identified other historic features near the rail corridor at .South 130 Street, including a stone and concrete block wall, a hedge, and a line of five standing creosoted wood pilings. Because these . features are outside the construction corridor, they were not recorded (Nelson 2000). . 28 "%MI. „ ... 72v . ...7,M.?OK ,, -ATMOr.u , 111 .',,Ffetr Y-i .... ar1,M111,MR`.'f.tlH'. , Moderate Probability High Probability 1.: SOUND TRANSIT 2001. An rights rtoened N. guarantee of nay Dort Implied, bcb,dinc accuracy, ;compkhae», or Amur for air.. November 15, 2002 SOUNDTRANSIT N Alignrnent A/ Residential N Arterials /V State • stations Water NI H fd Property 29 0 0.3 Figure 13. Segment E: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas. 0.6 Miles Lt z i- • z re W 00 � 0 CD W LL1 H U L W O Q = Z = H H O Z W • p U 0 S • H W W I H � t L O .. Z W U= O~ z 6.5.1. Need for Additional Survey 6.5.2. Historic Archaeological Probability In combination, the work performed by Courtois et al. (1999) and NWAA (Nelson 2000) adequately covers the area of potential impact for the preferred alternative. No additional survey is required. Segment .E has a low overall probability for historic archaeological resources. Although it traverses territory that was included in the area's earliest Euroamerican claims in the Duwamish floodplain, testing suggests that buried historic archaeological deposits are not present (Nelson 2000). One small area of moderate probability is found in the Ray- Carrossino Farmstead vicinity (Figure 13). In addition, much of the route coincides with the existing Highway 599, I- 405, and I -5 corridors, further reducing the probability that historic remains will be encountered. 6.6. Segment F - South 154 Street to South SeaTac Station The West of Cemetery alignment represents an option for this segment currently under review (Figure 4). A historic archaeology assessment will be completed during the supplemental EIS process. The preferred alternative identified in the FEIS (Sound Transit 1999) is included in the following discussion (Figure 14). One historic resource, a school, was recorded by Courtois et al. (1999:Figure 41) in this segment. Courtois et al. (1999:142 -144, 154, Figure 46) identified an area of moderate archaeological probability beginning at the intersections of Check -In Drive, Rental Car Return, and International Boulevard, and continuing south on Air Cargo Road (28 Avenue South) to South 184' Street. 6.6.1. Need for Additional Survey No additional survey is needed. The work conducted by Courtois et al. (1999) is sufficient to cover this segment of the preferred alternative. 6.6.2. Historic Archaeological Probability Pacific Highway (Highway 99) was completed in 1928, and initiated the original commercialization of this area by businesses catering to automobile traffic ( Forsman and Larson 1998:7). Following SeaTac's opening in 1949, commercial uses along the highway expanded to accommodate tourists (Courtois et al. 1999:136; Forsman and Larson 1998:7). Two areas within this segment have moderate probability for historic archaeological resources. The proposed station at South 184 Street is an area associated with early settlement in the Bow -Lake vicinity and subsequent residential and commercial development (Forsman and Larson 1998:7). The route between this station and South 200 Street was once part of a late 1880s 30 SOU?W TRANSIT, 2001. AU rights mama No crur or« of ally sort lap&d, indodia=.ervaq. •apietoess, or Guns for ase. November 15, 2002 1 SOUNDTi NSIT A/Alignment /\/ Residential Nils inr State Highway A, v Interstate Freeway • Stations Water Historical District IN Historical Property 31 0 0.6 Figure 14. Segment F: Historic Archaeological Probability Areas. 1.2 Miles z 1- W JU 00 ff) J = f U) L L w O 2 t1 = I— w _ z F. I— O z I— W w 0 O — O I— W W. I- • 0 I-1-1 O .. W co O • ~ z homestead (Luttrell 2001:4). Its proximity to former Pacific Highway (International Blvd.) suggests there could be buried evidence of prior residential and commercial use (e.g., Forsman and Larson 1998:6 -7). Several research domains might be addressed at this location, including agriculture and subsistence, commerce and trade, domestic living, engineering, and transportation, from all time. All data sets shown in Appendix B, Tables 1-4 could be present. ~ w re ' 7. ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 6 D 00 U) 0 U) The historic archaeology assessment identified areas of moderate and high probability for . __I I ._. co historic archaeological resources. The historic archaeology assessment also identified areas that w 0 need additional historic architecture survey. The following summarizes historic archaeological 2 probability by route segment. g N Da a • Segment A: Overall low historic archaeological resource probability. t- _ • Segment B: Moderate probability for historic archaeological deposits in the vicinity of z I .- t-O Pacific Station and Portage Bay. w 1 w • Segment C: Moderate probability for historic archaeological deposits at Convention v o Place, University Street, Pioneer Square, and International District stations. High p N probability from the International District Station to the western edge of Beacon Hill. ° u w • Segment D: Moderate probability areas for historic archaeological resources along ! lr. 1- v sections of Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. "-' z • Segment E: Overall low historic archaeological resource probability. v F= I ._ • Segment F: Moderate probability for historic archaeological deposits at and between z South 184 Street and South 200 Street Stations. 32 �iG+++ct.Stii ' ..444.4.4 REFERENCES CITED Andrus, P. W., and R. H. Shrimpton 1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register z Bulletin 15. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. '~ w Bagley, Clarence 1916 History of Seattle. SJ Clarke Publishing Co., Chicago. -J 0 C tit 1929 History of King County, Washington. SJ Clarke Publishing Co., Chicago. J co L Bain, F. B. uj0 1926 E -Z Guide Map of Seattle, Wash. Fred B. Bain, San Francisco. / /¢ Blukis Onat, A. R., L. A. Bennett, J. Miller, M. E. Morgenstein, and P. D. LeTourneau w d 2002a Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment for the CLLR Route. Draft I _ Project Report No. 20005.B1. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Sound Transit, Seattle, Z Contract No. RTA/LR 69 -00. w O ul Blukis Onat, A. R., L. A. Bennett, M. E. Morgenstein, and P. D. LeToumeau o N 2002b Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Sub -Plan for the Maintenance 0 Base, Design Segments 600 and 810. Project Report No. 20005.B1. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. = w Submitted to Sound Transit, Seattle, Contract No. RTA/LR 69 -00. E z Bogue, V. G. vu� 1911 Plan of Seattle [Bogue Report]. Municipal Plans Commission, City of Seattle. 0 Chrzastowski, M. 1983 Historical Changes to Lake Washington and the Route of Lake Washington Ship Canal, King County, Washington. U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey, Denver. Collier, P. F. 1918 Map of the City of Seattle, Washington. In World Atlas and Gazetteer. F. P. Collier and Son, New York. Courtois, S., K. H. Drafft, C. Wickwire, J. C. Bard, and R. McClintock 1999 Final Technical Report [on] Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Sites, Historic Resources, Native American Traditional Cultural Properties, [and] Paleontological Sites, Central Link Light Rail Transit Project. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Seattle. Crowley, W. 1998 National Trust Guide Seattle. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 33 z 2001 Seattle at 150: Reflecting on the Uses of History. Seattle Times 13 November. Crowley, W., and P. Dorpat 1998 National Trust Guide Seattle. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Dorpat, P. [1981] 294 Glimpses of Historic Seattle, Its Neighborhoods and Neighborhood Businesses. City of Seattle Small Business Task Force, Seattle. 1982 494 More Glimpses of Historic Seattle. Mother Wit Press, Seattle. 2001a Now & Then— Rainier Brewery. History Ink, Seattle. 26 February 2001. <www.historyline.org / output.CFM ?file ID= 3001 >. 2001b University District Thumbnail History. History Ink, Seattle. 18 June 2001. <www.historyline.org / output.CFM ?fileID= 3380 >. Dorpat, P., and W. Crowley 2001 Rainier Beer —A Snapshot History. History Ink, Seattle. 8 February 2001. <www.historylink.org / output.CFM?file_ID=2523>. Earth Technology Corporation 1984 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel Project. Earth Technology Corporation, Seattle. Submitted to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Seattle. Forsman, L. A., and L. Larson 1998 Port of Seattle North SeaTac Airport Employee Parking Lot Cultural Resource Assessment. Letter report, 29 June. Larson Anthropological /Archaeological Services, Seattle. Submitted to Barbara Hinkle, Port of Seattle Engineering Department. Forsman, L. A., D. E. Lewarch, and L. L. Larson 1997 Denny Way/Lake Union Combined Sewer Overflow Control Project, Seattle, King County, Cultural Resources Assessment. Larson Anthropological /Archaeological Services, Seattle. Submitted to Brown and Caldwell Engineering Consultants, Seattle. Gousha Company 1962 Street Map of Seattle. Prepared for Standard Oil Company of California by H.M. Gousha Company, San Jose, California. Hart- Crowser and Associates 1986a Identification of Archaeological Research Topics and Questions for the Downtown Seattle Transit Project. Hart- Crowser and Associates, Seattle. Submitted to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Seattle. 34 1 %11 Nf.(MhK...+Y�hl�kM�k*•ktm 1986b Research Design for Archaeological Test Excavations, Downtown Seattle Transit Project. Hart- Crowser and Associates, Seattle. Submitted to Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Seattle. History Link 2002 Sewage Irrigating Seattle Vegetables Reported on February 5, 1901. History Link, .= z Seattle [ online]. <www.historylink.org/output.CFM?file_1D=1646>. Ing, V. --I o 1983 Downtown Seattle Transit Project Technical Report: Parklands and Historic, vi w Cultural and Archaeological Resources. Ing and Associates, Seattle. Submitted to CH2M Hill, Seattle. co u_ w King, T. F. 1998 Cultural Resource Laws and Practice, An Introductory Guide. AltaMira Press, Cl) Walnut Creek, California. I-- W Z 1 Krafft, K. H., and C. Wickwire F . p 1997 Historic Property Survey Report: Georgetown (Seattle, Washington). Certified w w Local Government (CLG) Grant, Federal FY 1997. Krafft and Wickwire, Cultural Resource Specialists, Seattle. Submitted to City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, p - Seattle. o F- w W Kroll Map Company o 1912 -1920 Kroll's Atlas of Seattle. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. w Z 0 Luttrell, C. T. o 2001 Cultural Resources Monitoring for Washington State Department of Z Transportation's SR 509 Extension and South Access Road Project, King County, Washington. Short Report DOT01 -01. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University, Cheney. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, Northwest Region, Seattle. Miller, S. • 2002 Winds, Waterways, and Weirs. Draft Project Report No. 20005.D. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Sound Transit, Seattle, Contract No. RTAILR 69 -00. Morgan, L., M. Morgan, and P. Dorpat 1982 Seattle: A Pictorial History. Donning Company, Norfolk, Virginia. Morgenstein, M. E., and A. R. Blukis Onat 2002 Geoarchaeological and Paleontological. Assessment, Central Link Light Rail Project. Draft Project Report No. 20005. BOAS, Inc., Seattle. Submitted to Sound Transit, Seattle, Contract No. RTA/LR 69 -00. 35 Mumford, E. H. 1980 Seattle's Black Victorians 1852 -1901. Ananse Press, Seattle. 1985 Black Heritage Survey of Washington State. Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Nelson, M. A. w 2000 Addendum: Draft Technical Memorandum on Cultural Resources, Light Rail Alternative E-4. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Seattle. Submitted to Sound v o Transit. • Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation [Washington State] w 0 2000 Historic Places in Washington: National Historic Landmarks, National Register of 2 Historic Places, and Washington Heritage Register. Washington State Office of g Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. U a = w Pacific Northwest Products Committee z 1-- 0 z F- w Phelps, M., and L. Blanchard v 1978 Public Works in Seattle, A Narrative History roll the Engineering Department 1875- 0 1975. City of Seattle Engineering Department, Seattle. w w u. 0 w _ Roy, D. F. z �" 1935 Hooverville: A Study of a Community of Homeless Men in Seattle. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Washington, Seattle. 1924 Directory of Seattle Manufacturers. Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Seattle. Reinartz, K. F. 1991 Tukwila Community at the Crossroads. City of Tukwila, Washington. Sale, R. 1978 Seattle, Past to Present. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Sanborn Insurance Company [1945] Fire Maps for Seattle, King County, Washington 1929 [updated to ca. 1945]. Sanborn Insurance Company, Chicago. Schmid, C. F. 1944 Social Trends in Seattle. Publications in the Social Sciences No. 13. University of Washington, Seattle. Seattle Chamber of Commerce 1939 Map and Guide to Seattle. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. 36 Seattle Post - Intelligencer 2002 View of the Harbor, 1880. Postcard. In, Postcards from Seattle's Past 1865 -1900. Seattle Post - Intelligencer online. <seattlepi. nwsource. com /historypostcards /photo.asp ?SublD= 167 &PhotolD = 7217 >. Seattle Times 1942 How Seattle Pushed Back the Sea! Seattle Sunday Times, magazine section, 27 December. 2001a Seattle Overview 1851. 150 Years Seattle By and By. Seattle Times <http: // seattletimes. nwsource. com / news /local/seattle history/mapsloverview_map.html >. 2001b Seattle, 1851. 150 Years Seattle By and By. Seattle Times <http: / /seattletimes. nwsource.com/newsllocallseattle_history/maps/seattle 1851_map.html >. Sherfy, M., and W. R. Luce 1996 Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years. National Register Bulletin 22. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Sound Transit 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project: Seattle, Tukwila and SeaTac, Washington. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) and U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle. 2000a Draft Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plans. Programmatic Agreement Attachment 1. Print copy dated 12/20/99, 23 pp., included with Request for Qualifications/Proposals, Archaeological Monitoring during Construction of the Central Link Project, RFQ/RFP No.RTA/LR 69 -00, May 2000. Sound Transit, Central Puget Sound Transit Authority. 2000b Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Regarding Development of the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project in the State of Washington. Photocopy of signed document. 17 pp., included with Request for Qualifications/Proposals, Archaeological Monitoring during Construction of the Central Link Project, RFQ/RFP No.RTA/LR 69 -00, May 2000. Sound Transit, Central Puget Sound Transit Authority. 2001a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Tukwila Freeway Route. Central Link Light Rail Transit Project: Seattle,. Tukwila and SeaTac, Washington. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). 37 2001b "North Link" Light Rail Study, Environmental Scoping Information Report. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), Seattle. 2002a Central Link Southern Terminus. Central Puget Sound Regioal Transit Authority (Sound Transit). [Online]. Cited 3 May 2002. <www.soundtransit.org/stbusiness /facts/ factsheets/ stbusinessSouthernTerminus.htm>. 2002b NEPA Environmental Assessment, Central Link Light Rail Transit Project: Initial Segment. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). 2002c North Link Light Rail Alternatives. Map. July 1, 2002. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit), Seattle. Stratton, D. H., and G. W. Lindeman 1977 Survey of Historical Resources: Corridor of Interstate 90 from Junction with Interstate 5 to the Vicinity of the Junction with Interstate 405. Washington Archaeological Research Center, Pullman. Submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia. Taylor, Q. 1994 The Forging of a Black Community: Seattle's Central District from 1870 Through the Civil Rights Era. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Thompson, G. 1985 Letter to William C. Barnes, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas. The Earth Technology Corporation, Seattle. • Townsend, J., J. H. Sprinkle, Jr., and J. Knoerl 1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts. National Register Bulletin 36. U. S Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. U. S. Department of the Interior, General Land Office. 1856 Plat of Township 25 North, Range 4 East. Washington, D.C. 1859 Plat of Township 26 North, Range 4 East. Washington, D.C. 1860 Plat of Township 27 North, Range 4 East. Washington, D.C. 1862a Plat of Township 23 North, Range 4 East. Washington, D.C. 1862b Plat of Township 24 North, Range 4 East. Washington, D.C. 1863 Plat of Township 23 North, Range 4 East. Washington, D.C. 38 U. S. Geological Survey 1908 Seattle, Washington. U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Denver. Waard, K. C. (compiler) 1964 Business Directory of the City of Seattle for the Year 1876. Reprinted. Shorey Book Store, Seattle. Originally published 1876, B. L. Northrup. Walthew, M. (sponsor) 1949 The Duwamish Diary 1849 -1949. Cleveland High School, Seattle. Warren, J. R. 1981 King County and Its Queen City Seattle. Windsor Publications, Woodland Hills, California. Weaver, R. M. 1989 Archeological and Historical Research Issues: Urban Archeology in Seattle. Archaeology in Washington 1:21 -29. Wilma, D. 2001a Georgetown Thumbnail History. History Link, Seattle. 14 February 2001. <www.historyline.org / output.CFM?file_ID=2975>. 2001b Holly Park Housing Project Opens on August 1, 1942. History Link, Seattle. 26 February 2001. < www. historylink .org/output.CFM ?file_ID- 3022 >. 2001c Northgate Shopping Mall Opens on April 21, 1950. History Link, Seattle. 2 August 2001. < www. historylink .org/output>CFM ?file_ID= 3186 >. 2001d Rainier Valley Thumbnail History. History Link, Seattle. 14 March 20021. <www.historylink.org >. 2001e Ravenna - Roosevelt Thumbnail History. History Link, Seattle. 16 August 2001. <www.historylink.org/output.CFM ?file_ID= 3502 >. 2001f . Straightening of Duwamish River Begins on October 14, 1913. History Link, Seattle. 16 February 2001. <www.historylinlc.org/output>CFM?file_ID=2986>. Wing, Warren 1995 To Tacoma by Trolley: The Puget Sound Electric Railway. Pacific Fast Mail, Edmonds, Washington. 39 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEARfiHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. SEGMENT YEAR A A A A A A A A A A A A 1888 Ravenna Park 1900 Ravenna Blvd LOCATION I Sample Quick Reference for Segment A* DESCRIPTION SOURCE 1850 Montlake Blvd NE at 40th St NE Indian village on W shore Union Bay where UW power plant Wilma 2001 f (approx) later constructed. Date approx. 1850 Ravenna Blvd northward 1859 Lake Washington drainage in Twp 26N, Rge 4E 1874 Green Lake to University District 1880 Ravenna Blvd at 55th Ave NE 1887 Ravenna Blvd btwn 25th Ave NE & Brooklyn 1888 Ravenna neighborhood; area N & E of 15th Ave NE & NE55St 1888 Ravenna neighborhood; area N & E of 15th Ave NE &NE55St 1891 Latona Bridge to 15th Ave NE; 15th Ave NE to Ravenna Park ( ?) 1894 Unspecified streets, probably between N.t5th & Capitol Hill Burned area, perhaps deliberate. Would have been easy for Courtois et al. 1999 early settlers to establish homesteads, but few came until • after 1885. Date approx. Lakeshore, several streams, some marshes. No cultural . U. S. Dept. Int., GLO features. Plats Early map indicates no development or roads. Shows creek Seattle Times 2001 draining Green Lake Into Union Bay. Homestead at mouth of creek by William Bell. Sells in 1887. Wilma 2001f Ravenna Springs Park platted by George & Oitiide Dorffel. Wilma 2001f Ravenna townsite plaited by Wm Beck at Ravenna Station Wilma 2001 f on Seattle, Lake Shore & Eastern RR. Seattle Female College & Ravenna Flouring Mill founded by Wilma 2001f Wm Beck (location approx). Ends in 1893 during depression. Ravine between 15th Ave NE & 20 Ave NE fenced for park by Wilma 2001f Wm Beck. Exotic plants Imported, paths & picnic shelters built. Streetcar service extended from downtown to Ravenna. Wilma 2001f Cedar (and some fir) blocks set In sand used for street surfaces. Used on cable car lines. Many manufactured by 1978 Stetson & Post Co. Used for several years. Ravine developed by Charles Cowen as a park. Crowley 1998 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR fiHAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Phelps and Blanchard N A 1900 University Way north of NE 45th A 1901 Green Lake vicinity A 1907 Ravenna neighborhood A 1907 University District A 1908 Cowen Park A 1908 Ravenna Blvd A 1908 Ravenna Park A 1910 Maple Leaf & Green Lake Reservoirs A 1910 Ravenna Blvd A 1911 Ravenna Park A 1911 Ravenna Park A 1915 Green Lake to University District Map showing streetcar routes. A 1916 Unspecified buildings A 1919 Major arterials Fraternity houses established, replaced by 1913 with commercial businesses. Area still heavily wooded. Many residents kept milk cows, chickens, and pasture on their lots. Annexed by Seattle. Livestock & farms gone from neighborhood. Dorpat 2001 b Mumford 1980, 1985 Bagley 1916, 1929 Dorpat 2001 b Park set aside by Charles Cowen; donated to city 1909. . Wilma 2001f Part of boulevard follows route of creek that drained Green Lake Into marsh at N end of Union Bay (now University Village). Wm Beck permits local clubs to name the large trees. Construction completed. Overflow later channeled to Green Lake. Completion of 6-ft brick -lined sewer tunnel under road. Acquired by condemnation. City condemns and acquires the park, big trees begin to be logged. U.S. Geological Survey, 1908 Wilma 2001f Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Sale 1978 Wilma 2001f Wing 1995 Dorpat and Crowley Prohibition begins In Seattle, 2 years before it sweeps the nation. 2001 City assumes ownership & operation of existing railways. No Phelps and Blanchard new equipment purchased. 1978 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Lk) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 1919 Roosevelt Way 1926 Ravenna Park 1927 Roosevelt neighborhood; Lake City Way to Ravenna Blvd 1930 Northgate 1931 Residential streets 1940 Aurora Ave to Lake Washington north of Ship Canal 1941 Unspecified streets 1945 NE 8th St and northward 1948 Major arterials 1948 Ravenna & Cowen Parks 1950 NE 103rd St & NE 111 St between 1st Ave NE & 5th Ave NE; Northgate Shop Center 1953 Major arterials, residential streets, downtown streets 1954 85th St to 145th St 1957 Ravenna Blvd between 16 & 17"' NE After completion of University Bridge, road becomes major N- Courtois et al. 1999 S hwy through city. Residential development follows. City has last of the large trees logged. Named after Theo Roosevelt. Did not develop until after auto became widespread. Small housing development occurs between Ravenna & Roosevelt areas northward, following Roosevelt Way. Conversion of street lights to 110v. Porcelain enamel on metal street signs, black letters on white background, 5-1/2 inches wide, installed during 1940s. Begin trackless trolley & bus service. End of track mounted street & cable cars. Post-war housing development common. Ultimately resulted In annexation to city in 1954 -55. Replacement of old street lights. Existing light pole bases. used where possible, new poles erected on them. Completed 1954. City diverts creek Into sewer. Opened to public (outside city limits then). First suburban shopping complex in US & parking for 4000 cars on 62 ac. Expanded several times since. Citywide replacement of street signs. New ones were porcelain enamel on metal, 7 inches wide, black on white. Installation of wooden street signs, black on white, on wood posts. Break in 6-ft brick sewer tunnel caused huge hole. Quicksand encountered. Repairs made with steel pipe & concrete. Hole fliled with gravel and soil. Completed 1959. Wilma 2001f NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Wilma 2001f Courtois et al. 1999 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Courtois et al. 1999 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Wilma 2001f Crowley 1998; Wilma 2001e Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 A 1962 Interstate 5 A 1962 Major arterials, residential streets, downtown streets A 1964 Residential streets A 1965 NE 103 St & NE 111 St between 1st Ave NE & 5 Ave NE; Northgate Shopping Center Construction of freeway 1961 -1963 but most sources say it was finished In time for Century 21 Fair In 1962. Ali black on white street signs replaced with reflective silver on green background on aluminum. Replacement of old streetlights using existing light pole bases used where possible. Installation of complete new fixtures where old ones not present. Completed In 1968. Mail expanded to add 25 stores after 1 -5 completed. Area surrounded by apartments & office buildings. Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Phelps and Blanchard 1978 Wilma 2001e *Numerous sources of information about history and historic archaeology in the CLLR project corridor were reviewed in order to create the Quick Reference: Bagley 1916, 1929; Bain 1926; Bogue 1911; Chrzastowski 1983; Collier 1918; Crowley 2001; Crowley and Dorpat 1998; Dorpat 1981, 1982, 2001a, 2001b; Dorpat and Crowley 2001; Earth Technologies Corporation 1984; Forsman et al. 1997; Forsman and Larson 1998; Gousha Company 1962; Hart- Crowser 1986a, 1986b; History Link 2002; Ing 1983; Krafft and Wickwire 1997; Luttrell 2001; Morgan et al. 1982; Mumford 1980, 1985; Nelson 2000; OAHP 2000; Pacific Northwest Products Committee 1924; Phelps and Blanchard 1978; Roy 1935; Sale 1978; Sanborn Insurance Co. 1945; Schmid 1944; Seattle Chamber of Commerce 1939; Seattle Post- Intelligencer 2002; Seattle Times 1942, 2001a, 2001b; Stratton and Lindeman 1977; Taylor 1994; Thompson 1985; U. S. Dept. of the Interior 1856, 1859, 1860, 1862a, 1862b, 1863; U. S. Geological Survey 1908; Waard 1964; Warren 1981; Weaver 1989; Wilma 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d, 2001e, 2001f; and Wing 1995. Not all sources are referenced in the above sample. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR'I`HAN THIS NOTICE _ IT . IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Evidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 cash register X X X X cellar • X cistern X X X X X cooling system X X X X X X X electrical X X X X X X X X X X X equip, bottling X equip, canning X X X X X equip, medical X X fence X X X X X X X X X floor X X X X X X food scrap X X X X X X X foundation furniture, household X X X. X X furniture, office X X X X X X hardware X X X X X X X X X X harness & tack X X X X heating system X X X X X X X kitchen ware X X X .X X X X X pew X plumbing fixture X X X X X X X X X X pontoon, houseboat X X X refuse deposit X X X X X X X religious icon X X X X X X safe/strong box X X X se i tic tank table ware toiletry X X X' X X tool, hand X X X X X X X tool, writin : X X X X X X to X X X X X wall, buildin X X X X ~ X X X X X Table . 1. Building Data Set: Potential Historic Archaeological Evidence by Historic Domain *. Note: * 1. Agriculture/Subsistence; 2. Commerce/Trade; 3. Domestic Living; 4. Education; 5. Engineering; 6. Ethnic Heritage; 7. Health Care; 8. Industry; 9. Landscape Architecture; 10. Military/Defense; 11. Social/Civic; 12. Transportation. 46 Evidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 automobile X X X X X X berm X X X X bridge abutment X X cairn X X X X canoe X X X X casket X X X electrical . X X X X X X X X X X equip, other • X X X X X X equip, rail X X fence X X granary X X log boom X X pavement, asphalt X X pavement, wood X pavement, stone X pavement, brick X piling • X X X X X platform sewer line/drain X X ship X X X spring development X X X street light X trestle X X X trough X X X wall, retaining X X X X X water line/valve X X X X X X X X X X weir X X X well X X X X X X X Table 2. Structure Data Set: Potential Historic Archaeological Evidence by Historic Domain *. Note: * 1. Agriculture/Subsistence; 2. CommercelTrade; 3. Domestic Living; 4. Education; 5. Engineering; 6. Ethnic Heritage; 7. Health Care; 8. Industry; 9. Landscape Architecture; 10. Military/Defense; 11. Social/Civic; 12. Transportation. 47 Evidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 boundary marker X X X X X X fountain X X X X X X monument X X X X X X statuary X X X X Evidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 burial X X X dump X X X X X grave goods X X Table 3. Object Data Set: Potential Historic Archaeological Evidence by Historic Domain *. Note: * 1. Agriculture/Subsistence; 2. Commerce/Trade; 3. Domestic Living; 4. Education; 5. Engineering; 6. Ethnic Heritage; 7. Health Care; 8. Industry; 9. Landscape Architecture; 10. Military/Defense; 11. Social/Civic; 12. Transportation. Table 4. Site Data Set: Potential Historic Archaeological Evidence by Historic Domain *. Note: * 1. Agriculture/Subsistence; 2. Commerce/Trade; 3. Domestic Living; 4. Education; 5. Engineering; 6. Ethnic Heritage; 7. Health Care; 8. Industry; 9. Landscape Architecture; 10. Military/Defense; 11. Social/Civic; 12. Transportation. 48 Revised Final Tukwila Freeway Route Link Light Rail Sensitive Areas Study Wetlands and Streams - SOUNDTRANSIT Parametrix Sound Transit REGE:JVh .. CO viMUNi I Y DEVELOPMENT January 2004 Revised July 2004 z W. Ir i 00: co tu J = H 'U) u_, W O .. u-Q u) W 2 z 0: th :O w W O . LL U O H Z Table 5 -7. Overview of Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Streams and Buffers along TFR (continued) Stream Impact Mitigations Permanent Buffer fill for placement of two columns to support 10,000 ft of riparian plantings along the south bank at the the bridge over the Green - Duwamish River. Green - Duwamish River. Buffer fill for columns, at -grade guideway, Restoration of the buffer at Wetland 114 (ratio 1:1). stormwater ponds, and permanent access roads at Southgate Creek East Drainage and Gilliam Creek North Tributary. Temporary Buffer clearing at the Green - Duwamish River to construct the light rail bridge. Buffer vegetation clearing for construction access at Southgate Creek main stem, Southgate Creek East Drainage, Gilliam Creek main stem and Gilliam Creek North Tributary. 10,000 ft of riparian plantings along the south bank at the Green - Duwamish River along with reseeding the temporary distribution area. Re- vegetation of disturbed stream buffers with native riparian vegetation. ' Where there are no constraints to re- vegetation, buffers wi I be replanted with trees. Buffers will be replanted with scrub -shrub vegetation where the bottom of the guideway is more than 15 feet above grade, and with low shrub species where the guideway bottom is less than 15 feet above grade. 5.2.2.1 Mitigation for Impacts at the Green - Duwamish River Shoreline The light rail will require two columns to be constructed in the Green - Duwamish River buffer. The columns will permanently fill 1,961 ft of river buffer. Sound Transit proposes to plant 10,000 ft (500 feet by 20 feet) of the south Green - Duwamish River bank with native trees and shrubs immediately downstream of the light rail bridge to compensate for clearing and vegetation removal on the north and south banks (Figure 5 -15). The re- vegetation design is intended to enhance riparian functions, such as bank stabilization, organic production and export, bank cover, and perching/roosting habitat. This restoration effort is consistent with the Amended Record of Decision (Amended ROD) for the light rail project (FTA 2002). Baseline Data Baseline conditions along the south bank of the Green - Duwamish River were described above in Chapter 3. Sound Transit proposes to plant a 20 -foot by 500 -foot area on the south bank, which is currently degraded. Non - native herbaceous and shrub species, such as reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, Scot's broom, and travelers' joy (Clematis vitalba), are present. There are a few trees in a narrow corridor between the top of the bank and the adjacent bike trail. The existing riparian vegetation does not provide much shade or cover (the river is 200 feet wide at this location) and does not contribute to channel complexity or in -stream habitat. This site was chosen because it has more likelihood of success than the north river bank. The north bank is steeper, has been armored with rip rap, and is south - facing. These conditions, combined with daily tidal fluctuations, make the north bank a very difficult site to plant successfully. Sound Transit, Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route - Sensitive Areas Study 5 -29 274 - 3164 -001 (811/TW2) /553- 2535 -003 (01/03) REVISED - July 2004 'ill ill 5 53 LIGHT RAIL BRIDGE \ - • NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 1 I • S ST . • ... . - *,- I • Figure 5-15 Plan View of Green - Duwamish River Shoreline Restoration Zone Construction Plan Site Preparation Non - native vegetation will be removed in the 20- foot -by -500 -foot planting area. Woody invasive species will be grubbed out. However, no grading is proposed and no work is proposed below the OHWM. Existing desirable native vegetation present in the mitigation area will be flagged and protected during clearing work. Fences will be placed along the outside edge of driplines of trees to remain. Planting Sitka spruce and black cottonwood will be planted on the riverbank above the 11 -foot elevation contour, with shrubs including red osier dogwood, pacific ninebark, peafruit rose and others in the understory (Table 5 -8). Hooker's willow live stakes will be planted at 3 -foot spacing on the bank between 9 and 11- foot elevations (Figures 5 -16 and 5 -17). New plantings will be "pit planted" due to concerns about bank erosion. All container plants will be installed with plastic collars to deter herbivory. Where container stock is being planted, native soil will be amended with organic compost at a ratio of 3:1, native soil to compost. Trees will be planted in two sizes, the larger size will be planted at higher elevations. The smaller size will be planted at lower elevations in order to avoid the potential for scour during high flows. Composted organic mulch will be applied to reduce weed competition. Plant densities will be 280 trees per acre and 2,100 shrubs per acre. Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) Hooker's willow (Salix hookeriana) Peafruit rose (Rosa pisocarpa) Pacifi ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) Sound Transit. Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route - Sensitive Areas Study Table 5 -8. Proposed Plant Species for Shoreline Revegetation, Green - Duwamish River, TFR Trees Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera spp. trichocarpa) z i1 w re L J U U LIJ t— �w w u_Q co =w H = z � I— 0 z F- Li w 0 O - 0 l-- w w = 0 Size /Condition Percent u_ z • 2.5" caliper i 10 U - 1 gal. or bare root 40 0 I- 6-8' tall 10 1 gal. or bare root 40 Shrubs Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca) -. _ 1 gal. I 10 Live stake, 1/2" dia. 4' long I 20 1 gal �� ..__ ...___..__,._....____.....__.._ 20 Red -osier dogwood (Corpus sericea ssp. sericea) Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) 1 gal. 20 ..._._ - ...... ._. Live stake, 1/2" dia. 4' long 20 1 gal. Refer to final plans, specifications and estimates for exact species, condition /size and spacing. 10 5 -31 274 - 3164 -001 (811/7W2) /553 -2535 -003 (01/03) REVISED - July 2004 GREEN - DUWAMISH REGIONAL TRAIL 7 7rametr(x DATE: 07/09/04 09:53am • SOUNDTRANSIT 20' WIDE PLANTING ZONE TREES AND SHRUBS ABOVE ELEV. 11 FT . RIVER BANK PLANTING CROSS SECTION LOOKING DOWNSTREAM NO SCALE FILE: K3164001P8I1TTW4F -05 -16 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET LIVE STAKES ELEV. 9 -11 FT FT 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 6 Figure 5 -16 Cross Section of Green - Duwamish River Shoreline Planting Z I l ;F- W et 2 J U. O 0 cn W = J i — . N LL W co LL Q Z I .. I— O Z tu n p I U a F-- W W' - o LL w U 2, O ff. Z SYMBOL COMMON NAME. SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE & CONDITION PERCENT TREES SITKA SPRUCE SALIX SITCHENSIS 6' -8' HIGH 10 0 SITKA SPRUCE SALIX SITCHENSIS 1 GAL OR BARE ROOT 40 O BLACK COTTONWOOD POPULUS BALSAMIFERA SSP TRICHOCARPA 2.5" CALIPER 10 0 BLACK COTTONWOOD POPULUS BALSAMIFERA SSP TRICHOCARPA 1 GAL OR BARE ROOT 40 ELEV 9 -11 ABOVE ELEV 11 111111111111111111111111111M1111 ri%Le GREEN - DUWAMISH TRAIL SHRUBS 111 0 11 HOOKER'S WILLOW SALIX HOOKERIANA LIVE STAKE, Y2 DIA 10 4' LONG RED -OSIER DOGWOOD CORNUS SERICEA SSP SERICEA LIVE STAKE, Y2" DIA 10 4' LONG PACIFIC CRABAPPLE MALUS FUSCA 2 GAL, 4' HIGH 20 SNOWBERRY SYMPHORICARPOS ALBUS 24" HIGH 20 NOTE: REFER TO FINAL PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES FOR EXACT SPECIES, CONDITION, SIZE AND SPACING. Cam.. - OUNDTRANSIT Parametrix DATE: 07/09/04 09:55am FILE: K3164001P811TTW4F -05 -17 TYPICAL RIVER BANK PLANTING LAYOUT APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 " =20' 0 10 20 SCALE IN FEET Figure 5 -17 Typical Planting Scheme at Green - Duwamish River Shoreline Performance Standards and Evaluation w w �` =0 `' Table 5 -9 identifies the goal, objectives, performance standards and evaluation methods for the riparian u_ / planting. Annual monitoring will collect data at the mitigation site. Final construction plans, — O z specifications and estimates, along with contractor notes about any required changes will be used as the V cn basis for monitoring to evaluate achievement of performance standards. If the site does not meet E = H performance standards,Sound Transit will manage the site adaptively and develop contingency measures z to respond to conditions (Chapter 6). 5.2.2.2 Mitigation for Impacts to Tributary Streams Permanent impacts to tributary streams consist of placement of fill in Southgate Creek East Drainage and a small tributary to the East Drainage. Channel impacts caused by filling will be compensated for by relocating the affected reaches outside the fill footprint (i.e., around guideway support columns or the at- grade structure) as described in Chapter 4 (see Figures 4 -15 through 4 -21). Light rail construction also will require temporary placement of stream reaches in culverts and clearing of riparian buffer vegetation to construct access roads. These activities will affect Southgate Creek, Southgate Creek East Drainage, Gilliam Creek and Gilliam Creek North Tributary. Following construction, the temporary culverts will be removed, the streams will be restored to their original channels, and the riparian zones will be planted with native species. This section describes planting to improve riparian conditions at the relocated streams and at all other riparian areas affected by construction activity. Sound Transit, Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route - Sensitive Areas Study 5 - 274 - 3164 -001 (811/TW2) /553 -2535 -003 (01/03) REVISED - July 2004 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations include drilling an auger hole, hoisting the pre- fabricated pole- and - platform structure, disposing of removed soil from the auger hole, and potential placement of guy wires to stabilize the pole. Upon completion of construction all land will be restored to original or better condition and areas cleared will be replanted with appropriate native species. Sound Transit will minimize disturbance to buildings, irrigation, or other infrastructure or systems already in place at the site when they install the new nest platform. The work will be conducted to minimize disturbance to plants and wildlife present at the site at the time of construction. 2. Consistency with General Requirements (KCC 25.16.030) General requirements of the King County shoreline regulations are listed below followed by statements describing project compliance with each criterion. In addition, consistency with the criteria for a shoreline variance is addressed in Attachment A. A. Non water related development and residential development shall not be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. King County defines non water related use as "a use which is neither water dependent nor water related" (KCC 25.08.320). A water dependent use is defined as "a principal use, which can only exist where the landwater interface provides biological or physical conditions necessary for the use" (KCC 25.08.590). The proposed bridge and appurtenant facilities are not a non water - related use or residential development. By their very nature, bridges are dependent upon a location abutting water and are therefore considered water - related uses. By definition, bridges must extend waterward of the high water mark. Prior to submitting the application, Sound Transit sought confirmation from the City that bridges are considered water - related uses. The City confirmed that a conditional use permit will not be required for the bridge based on King County's practices whereby bridges are considered water - related uses. (Letter from Jack Pace, Deputy Director for the Tukwila Department of Community Development to Chris Townsend, January 6, 2003). The proposed bridge is consistent with this criterion. No activity associated with the fire lane relocation, temporary construction staging, movement of the farmstead, or placement of the osprey platform will occur waterward of the OHWM. B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying zones are more restrictive, no structure shall exceed a height of thirty - five feet above average grade level. This requirement may be modified if the view of a substantial number of residences will not be obstructed, if permitted by the applicable provision of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is agricultural, water related or water dependent. The farmhouse does not exceed the 35 -foot height limitation now nor will it after it is moved. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 4 of 13 ,. ossOmiler Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations The bridge height exceeds the 35 -foot height limit, therefore the City has determined that a variance is required (per letter from Jack Pace to Chris Townsend, January 6, 2003). King County's 35 -foot height limitation is more restrictive than the underlying Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) zoning requirements. The zoning designations for the proposed bridge crossing are MIC/H north of the river and MIC /L south of the river. The zoning height requirements for these areas are 125 feet and 45 feet, respectively (TMC 18.38.080 and 18.36.080). According to KCC 25.08.240 height is measured from the average grade level to the highest point of the structure, not including appurtenances such as antennas and chimneys. Average grade level is defined as the average of the natural or existing topography at the center of all exterior walls of a building or structure...provided, that in the case of structures built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of ordinary high water (KCC 25.08.040). The City and King County have concluded that the light rail overhead power lines and support structures are appurtenances and therefore not included in the bridge height calculations (Letter from Jack Pace to Chris Townsend dated May 20, 2003). The bridge height (the highest component of which is the hand rail) over land is approximately 31 feet above average grade level —well within the limits stated in KCC 25.26.030 (B). However, the bridge height over ordinary high water is 48 feet. Typical osprey nest platforms are between 50 and 100 feet tall and will therefore exceed the 35 -foot height shoreline height restriction. The current design guidelines for the nest platform call for it to be between 50 and 75 feet above grade, including a 42 -inch perch above the nest platform. The park where the nest platform will be relocated is in MIC/H zoning, therefore if it is located within the shoreline zone in the park, it would be subjected to the 35 -foot height limitation. If it were located outside of the shoreline zone in the park, it would not be subject to the 35 -foot height restrictions. The SMP allows for modification of this provision subject to the following three conditions: (1) If the structure does not obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences - The light rail bridge will be a relatively narrow (26.5 -foot wide) linear feature and will not obstruct views from nearby residences. The bridge is located in a commercial /industrial area and the closest residences are located east of E. Marginal Way S. on the south side of the river —more than 200 feet to the east of the proposed crossing. These residences are barely visible from the existing E. Marginal Way S Bridge because there is a small stand of trees between the houses and the roadway. These trees will likely block the view of the new bridge from the residential area. Relocation of the fire lane, temporary staging, public art (blue lights), and undergrounding of utilities and attachment to the existing bridge will not obstruct views. Additionally, the osprey nest platform would not obstruct views because it has a narrow profile. (2) If permitted by the applicable provision of the underlying zoning - The Tukwila zoning code (TMC 18.36.050 and TMC 18.38.050) allows mass transit facilities in areas zoned MIC/L and MIC/H pursuant to the requirements, procedures, and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter 5 of 13 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations (TMC 18.66). Sound Transit has submitted an application for an unclassified use permit in conjunction with the shoreline substantial development permit application. The bridge is partially consistent with the height requirements of the underlying zoning. As stated above, the bridge height over ordinary high water is 48 feet. This exceeds the 45 -foot height restriction for the MIC /L -zoned area on the south half of the river, but is well within the 125 -foot restriction for the MIC/H -zoned area on the north half of the river. The dividing line between the two zoning designations is in the center of the river; therefore half of the bridge meets the height limit and half does not. The osprey nest platform has been approved by King County Parks Department to be located in the Cecil Moses Memorial Park. According to zoning code (TMC 18.38.020(29) parks are allowed uses in MIC/I -I zoned areas; therefore because the osprey nest platform has been approved to be located in the park, it is an allowed use. (3) If the proposed development is agricultural, water related or water dependent - As noted above, the bridge crossing is a water - related use. Relocation of overhead utilities is needed for safe construction of the bridge and is an integral component of the bridge construction. Osprey nests naturally occur within and near shorelines. Therefore, constructing an osprey nest platform in the shoreline zone would be considered a water related use. Despite meeting these criteria, the bridge will require a shoreline variance because it exceeds the height limit imposed by the SMP. The bridge is consistent with the variance criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) as described in Attachment A. C. All development shall be required to comply with K.C.C. Chapter 9.04 to control runoff and to provide adequate surface water and erosion and sediment control during the construction period. Before construction begins, sediment and erosion control measures will be installed, and they will be maintained and monitored during work in the shoreline zone. Interceptor swales, check dams, straw bales, sediment fences and brush barriers will be used where ground is disturbed. Sediment fences or other detention methods will be installed as close as reasonable to culvert inlets and outlets to reduce the amount of sediment entering aquatic systems, particularly at the culvert entering the Green - Duwamish River from the south bank. For the light rail corridor in general, the stormwater management plan has been designed to either provide stormwater management control facilities for flow control or to reduce the effective impervious area by eliminating point discharges to ground surfaces. Stormwater management facilities for flow control are being designed to meet King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) Level 2 flow control requirements, which are consistent with the Surface Runoff Policy KCC 9.04.2. Reduction of effective impervious area is being provided in accordance with the guidelines and principles of KCSWDM Sections 5.2 and 5.3 and Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume V, Section 5.3. In addition, construction of the bridge, fire lane, temporary staging area, utility relocation, and construction activities associated with the Carosino farnistead will be Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 6 of 13 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations conducted in accordance with the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the construction phase National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Temporary erosion and sediment control plans have been prepared for the project consistent with the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. The project will not degrade the quality or quantity of the surface or ground water based on the following: • The impervious surfaces associated with the Green - Duwamish Bridge crossing are not subject to automobile traffic and are therefore not considered Pollution - Generating Impervious Surfaces (PGIS). This determination is based on several recently constructed, electrically powered light rail projects that were considered by regulatory agencies to be non - pollutant generating surfaces (Sound Transit 1999). Therefore, pollutants associated with stormwater runoff from typical transportation projects are not anticipated and water quality treatment is not required. The relocated fire lane would be used for bicycles and a fire truck in the event of a fire. No increase in the amount of stormwater would be generated as this project would only be replacing an existing fire lane. • At various locations along the corridor where point discharges cannot be avoided, • stormwater detention facilities will be constructed to detain runoff according to King County regulations as discussed above. However, the bridge is exempt from detention, based on exemptions allowed in King County and City of Tukwila regulations, because stormwater will enter an existing drainage system that discharges directly to the river. Based on coordination with the City of Tukwila, adverse impacts to the capacity of the existing drainage system are not likely due to the amount of existing impervious surfaces within the contributing basin. D. Development shall maintain the first fifty feet of property abutting a natural environment as required open space. The shoreline at the proposed crossing location and the temporary construction staging are designated as "urban environment ". There are no natural environment areas abutting the project. Therefore, the bridge and appurtenances are not subject to this requirement. E. Parking facilities, except parking facilities associated with detached single - family and agricultural development, shall conform to the following minimum conditions: 1. Parking areas serving a water related or a non -water related use must be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves. Temporary parking may occur within the construction staging area at the construction staging location. As mentioned above, the site is currently undeveloped land, and no permanent change in the use will occur. 2. Any outdoor parking area perimeter, excluding entrances and exits, must be maintained as a planting area with a minimum width of five feet. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 7 of 13 Any parking associated with the construction staging area would be considered temporary and would not be subject to this requirement. 3. One live tree with a minimum height of four feet shall be required for each thirty linear feet of planting areas. Refer to the response above for number 2. Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations 4. One live shrub of one gallon container size or larger for each sixty linear inches of planting areas shall be required. Refer to the response above for number 2. 5. Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may be required, at the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen parking areas or when large parking areas are proposed. As noted above under C, the project will not degrade water quality. Sound Transit does not propose to construct parking, nor is parking required, for the bridge. Therefore, this requirement does not apply. F. Collection facilities to control and separate contaminants shall be required where stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would degrade or add to the pollution of recipient waters or adjacent properties. The light rail facility is a non pollution - generating surface, and runoff from the bridge will not degrade water quality as described in C above. The fire lane will only be used in emergencyy situations and not for general traffic, so it is negligible as a pollutant generating surface. In addition, this fire line is replacing an existing fire lane rather than creating a new fire lane. G. The regulations of this chapter have been categorized in a number of sections; regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, all development must comply with all applicable regulations. The project complies with all of the general criteria of KCC 25.16.030 and all other applicable regulations. The bridge is consistent with the policies of the state Shoreline Management Act because it: recognizes and protects the statewide interest over local interest; preserves the natural character of the shoreline; results in long term transportation benefits (over short term benefit); and protects the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Although the project does not directly increase recreational opportunities or access to publicly owned shoreline areas, it does not impede or detract from any existing recreational uses or access locations. The project is also consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the King County SMP, which states: "The purpose of designating the Urban Environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by permitting intensive use and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains the shoreline of a multiplicity of urban Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 8 of 13 uses. The Environment is designed to reflect a policy of increasing utilization and efficiency of urban areas, to promote a more intensive level of use through redevelopment of areas now under- utilized and to encourage multiple use of the shoreline if the major use is shoreline dependent." Consistency with the general policies of the urban environment is as follows: (1) Emphasis should be given to development within already developed areas — The bridge will be located just west of the existing E. Marginal Way S. Bridge in a heavily developed commercial /industrial area. The relocation of the farmhouse will not change the overall character of the farmstead. Additionally, the temporary construction staging site currently being used for storage and staging therefore it is being sited in an area that is already developed. Relocating the fire lane will occur in an area that is already developed. (2) Priority should be given to shoreline dependent and water oriented uses over other uses. Uses which are neither shoreline dependent or water oriented should be discouraged except for residential — The bridge is a water - related use, as described above. The relocation of the fire lane, utilities, and farmhouse, are necessary to the construction and operation of the light rail and associated bridge. The temporary construction staging area is located near the proposed bridge to avoid long distance travel on the roadways and the site is currently being used for staging and storage. Installing the osprey nest platform within the shoreline zone allows for the birds to be close to a water body where they hunt for fish. (3) Emphasis should be given to developing visual and physical access to the shoreline in the Urban Environment — Passengers on the light rail trains will have visual access to the shoreline area at the crossing location. Placement of utilities underground will improve visual access to the shoreline by removing utility poles and wires. The fire lane, public art, or osprey nest platform will not visually or physically impede access to the shoreline. Storing construction materials at the staging area will not impede physical access to the shoreline because the property is separated from the OHWM by S. 115 Street and located over 100 feet from the OHWM. Some construction storage materials and activities may temporarily obscure views, however visual access would be restored upon completion of the project. (4) To enhance the waterfront and insure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities consistent with public safety and security. — None of the proposed activities are industrial or commercial uses and would not affect use of the shoreline for waterfront activities. (5) Multiple use of the shoreline should be encouraged — Transportation is one of the uses of the urban environment that is encouraged through the SMP. Relocating the Carisino Farm house allows for multiple uses in the shoreline to continue to coexist. - (6) Redevelopment and renewal of substandard areas should be encouraged in order to accommodate future users and make maximum use of the shoreline — The new bridge is not a redevelopment project and does not involve substandard areas. This goal is not applicable to the project. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations 9 of 13 Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations (7) Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted by means of sign control regulations, architectural design standards, planned unit development standards, landscaping requirements and other such means — Planned unit development standards are not applicable to this project and the project does not require signs to be placed in the shoreline zone. A landscape plan is being prepared for City review and approval to address restoration and mitigation of clearing impacts. To the extent that the bridge is subject to the City's design review requirements under City Code 18.60, applicable design review criteria will be addressed in a separate application. Placement of utilities underground will improve aesthetics by removing utility poles and wires and installing public art on the bridge will improve aesthetic conditions of the project. (8) Development should not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including water quality and air quality, nor create conditions, which would accentuate erosion, drainage problems or other adverse impacts on adjacent environments - The project will have minimal adverse effects on the shoreline environment and will not directly affect the river or any associated wetlands. There will be no new structures in the river channel, but bridge support piers will be built on the banks landward of OHWM. The project includes a mitigation planting plan to offset the temporary effects of vegetation clearing. The project also includes a stormwater management plan designed to meet KCSWDM Level 2 flow control requirements. Reduction of effective impervious area is being provided in accordance with the guidelines and principles of KCSWDM and Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume V, Section 5.3. The project will also be constructed and operated in accordance with the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the construction phase National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans have been prepared for the project consistent with the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. Therefore, the project will not degrade water quality. Air quality will not be adversely affected as a result of the project. Light rail cars are electric and because they help alleviate automobile traffic actually have a positive effect on air quality emissions. H. Development proposed in the shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County trail system; or 2. Part of the site is presently being used and has historically been used for public access. The Duwamish/Green River Trail is located on the south bank of the river. A pier for the bridge structure would be placed near the trail (within 45 feet) and a short segment of the trail will be closed temporarily during construction. Disturbed areas in the vicinity of the trail would be restored and reseeded following construction. The proposed bridge will not permanently affect the trail in any way. Clearance under the existing E. Marginal Way S. Bridge will not be changed by attachment of utility conduits to the underside of the bridge. 10 of 13 z re 2 0 CO 0 J H • u_ W 0 2 L.L. co � _ t-W z = t-- O Z I— LL! 2 p 0 O — O 1-- W W IL O .Z W U = O~ z Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations I. Along shorelines of the state on Lake Sammamish, no building shall be placed on lands below thirty -two and one half feet mean sea level. Not applicable. 3. Consistency with Excavation, Grading and Filling Requirements (KCC 25.16.190) Construction of the bridge support piers, fire road relocation, utility undergrounding, and placement of the osprey platform requires excavation and filling in the shoreline zone. Relocation of the Carosino Farmhouse would require minor excavation to construct a new foundation and grading of the original farmhouse site. Excavation, grading and filling may be permitted in an urban environment, only as part of an approved overall development plan not as an independent activity provided that the following criteria are met: A. Any fill or excavation regardless of size, shall be subject to the provisions of K.C.C. 16.82.100 Activities that disturb the shoreline zone will be provided with sediment and erosion control measures that meet King County standards. Sediment and erosion control plans will be implemented in accord with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) approved by the Department of Ecology. No permanent cut or fill slopes are proposed in the shoreline zone. Excavation for pilings to support the light rail, for the Carosino Farmhouse foundation, fire road relocation, for utility trenches and vaults, and placement of the osprey platform will be carried out according to conditions required by KCC 16.82.100.B. B. Landfill may be permitted below the ordinary high water mark only when necessary for the operation of a water dependent or water related use, or when necessary to mitigate conditions which endanger public safety There is no land filling below OHWM associated with any element of the proposed project. . C. Landfill or excavations shall be permitted only when technical information demonstrates water circulation, littoral drift, aquatic life and water quality will not be substantially impaired Construction of the light rail bridge and fire lane involves minimal fill in the shoreline zone and will not impair water circulation, littoral drift, aquatic life or water quality. The project does not involve any in -water work and will not have any measurable effects on aquatic life or water circulation patterns in the river. This section of the river shoreline is influenced by tidal action, but the banks are steep and armored in most places so there is minimal movement or deposition of littoral debris in this area. Furthermore, all of the earthwork will occur at least 30 feet landward of the OHWM, so no measurable effects on littoral drift are expected. Appropriate measures will be implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The project has been designed in accordance with the technical criteria and standards of the applicable stormwater management requirements, as noted above, so water quality will not be impaired. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 11 of 13 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations D. Landfill or disposal of dredged material shall be prohibited within the floodway The project does not involve land filling or disposal of dredge material in the floodway. E. Wetlands such as marshes, swamps, and bogs shall not be disturbed or altered through excavation, filling, dredging, or disposal of dredged material... No wetlands (marshes, bogs, or swamps) will be disturbed as a result of the bridge construction, fire lane relocation, placement of utilities underground, Carosino farmhouse relocation, or for osprey nest platform construction. F. Class I beaches shall not be covered by landfill except for approved beach feeding programs There are no Class 1 beaches at the crossing location. The project will not affect Class 1 beaches. G. Excavations on beaches shall include precautions to prevent the migration of fine grain sediments, disturbed by the excavation, onto adjacent beach areas and excavations on beaches shall be backfilled promptlyy using material of similar composition and similar or more coarse grain size There are no beaches at the crossing location. The project does not involve beach excavation. H. No refuse disposal sites, solid waste disposal sites, or sanitary fills of putrescible or non - putrescible material shall be permitted within the shorelines of the state Not applicable. I. Excavation or dredging below the ordinary high water mark shall be permitted only... There is no excavation or dredging below OHWM associated with the project. J. Disposal of dredged material shall be done only in approved deep water disposal sites 'or approved contain upland disposal sites The project does not involve disposal of dredged material. K. Stockpiling of dredged material in or under water is prohibited The project does not involve stockpiling of dredged material in the shoreline zone. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 12 of 13 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations L. Maintenance dredging not requiring a shoreline permit(s) shall conform to the requirements of this section The project does not involve maintenance dredging. M. Dredging shall be timed so that it does not interfere with aquatic life The project does not involve dredging. N. The county may impose reasonable conditions on dredging or disposal operations including but not limited to working seasons and provisions . of buffer strips, including retention or replacement of existing vegetation, dikes, and settling basins to protect the public safety and shore users' lawful interests from unnecessary adverse impact .. The project does not involve dredging or disposal operations. O. In order to insure that operations involving dredged material disposal and maintenance dredging are consistent with this program as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), no dredging may commence on shorelines without the responsible person having first obtained either a substantial development permit or a statement of exemption; PROVIDED, that no statement of exemption or shoreline permit is required for emergency dredging needed to protect propertyy from imminent damage by the elements The project does not involve dredging or disposal operations. P. Operation and maintenance of any existing system of ditches, canals, or drains, or construction of irrigation reservoirs, for agricultural purposes are exempt from the shoreline permit requirement. Not applicable. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - June 2, 2004 13 of 13 .•:�.::.�..: �;,iw:?::i.�Y Vt? c,:.{: c.,: ai: �, ys,. L: riat.'�t}:tJSS'.'wii:.C�:d�sfi.' n1:f.UrY�ll�acr'tiaita�:a '. ".4>i: W:Sl.C.'GF ' `" ^ C' ,. �4' F�. 4�h ':dN,Aixii'u.'..v4:n+iwaYV+�a Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations Link Light Rail Project Tukwila Freeway Route 1. Introduction This memorandum discusses the King County shoreline regulations as they apply to construction of the Link Light Rail Tukwila Freeway Route (TFR), specifically the bridge over the Green-: , Duwamish River. The Green - Duwamish River is a shoreline of statewide significance because it has a mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or more The shoreline zone includes the area extending200 feet landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), plus floodways andcontiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways, and any associated wetlands. This'area is subject to the provisions of the King County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (King County; Code [KCC] 25.16.030) because it was annexed afler Tukwila had adopted its SMP in 1974:,; King County designates the shoreline area as an Urban Environment and it is therefore subject .to the provisions of Chapter 25.16 of the King County WI). . The Tukwila zoning at the river. crossing is Manufacturing Industrial Center /High (MIC/H) and Manufacturing Industrial Center/Low (MIC /L). roject Overview lo originates at Martin Luther King Way S. just north of Boeing Access oad, and terminates near the function of S 154t Street and Tukwila International Boulevard (SR 99) Approximately 4.1 miles of the guideway., will be elevated and approximately 0.8 mile will be: c onstructed on retained cut-and-fill The project includes two activities that are subject to the requirements' of the SMP.because they occur within the shoreline zone. These activities are des'cribed'below: Green- Duwamish Bridge The light rail crossing occurs at approximately RM 7, parallel to and downstream of the East Marginal Way S. Bridge. At this location, the river is approximately 200 feet wide and 6 feet deep. The new bridge will be supported by piers constructed 36 to 70 feet landward of the OHWM adjacent to the normal stage waterway, at the edge of the 100 -year flood zone. Excavation for the pier foundations (one on each side of the river) will occur above the OHWM and outside the 100 -year floodplain. Each pier foundation is approximately 33 feet by 42 feet in size and supports one column. The foundations are excavated, 20 steel piles are driven, a concrete pile cap is poured and support columns are poured capped to support the bridge deck. The top of the bridge railing will be approximately 49.6 feet above OHWM and approximately 31 feet above the average ground surface. There would be no embankments or abutments for the bridge or approaches in the floodway at the Green - Duwamish River crossing. At the crossing location the riverbanks are steep and armored with riprap. There is a small emergent wetland along the south bank of the river, but it will not be affected by the new bridge. On the north bank, land use in the shoreline zone consists of two residential properties; one is an historic farmhouse, the Carosino farm, with associated outbuildings and parking. The residential property is surrounded by parking and light industrial land use. The Green - Duwamish Regional CM�!!!Voi'M.q:'A.:IMI, ttt ...±. ryt n7• n! F: SI }1'7."xr.^_mVlsCtn:MrzW11,6); Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations Trail parallels the river on the south bank. Land uses in shoreline zone on the south bank consist of light industry and parking areas. Carosino Farm Relocation z Pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Transit Administration, Washington z z State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for tori re Link Light Rail project, Sound Transit will relocate the farmhouse to increase its setback from E. 6 = Marginal Way to minimize impacts from the light rail structure. This activity is considered v 0 0 necessary in order to construct the light rail alignment and is therefore an integral component of w o the proposed project. J = H u) W The enclosed site plan indicates the area in which the farmhouse is proposed to be relocated. w O Within this envelope, the building would be no closer to the river than it currently is. The final 2 placement of the farmhouse may be adjusted slightly as the development of the historic Q preservation plan for the property progresses. N d The procedure for relocating the farmhouse consists of penetrating the foundation, inserting Z H beams under the house, and jacking up the structure to insert a large platform on wheels. The H O structure is then towed to the new location and the process is reversed over a new perimeter w E-- foundation. Overhead utilities and water and sewer services will then need to be connected to the 2 j structure. At the original location of the farmhouse the old foundation would be removed and the U 0 site regraded and seeded with grass. In moving the farmhouse, one or both of the smaller o structures, the bunkhouse and shed, may be demolished as they are not structurally sound and are w uj in the path of towing the farmhouse to the new location. Other buildings on site, such as the shed H adjacent to the barn and the newer modern metal storage building next to the property line may u. 5 also be demolished depending on the findings in the pending historic preservation plan for the {ti z farmstead. U O I 2. Consistency with General Requirements (KCC 25.16.030) z General requirements of the King County shoreline regulations are listed below followed by statements describing project compliance with each criterion. In addition, consistency with the criteria for a shoreline variance is addressed in Attachment A. A. Non water related development and residential development shall not be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. King County defines non water related use as "a use which is neither water dependent nor water related" (KCC 25.08.320). A water dependent use is defined as "a principal use, which can only exist where the landwater interface provides biological or physical conditions necessary for the use" (KCC 25.08.590). The proposed bridge is not a non water - related use or residential development. By their very nature, bridges are dependent upon a location abutting water and are therefore considered water - related uses. By definition, bridges must extend waterward of the high water mark. Prior to submitting the application, Sound Transit sought confirmation from the City that bridges are considered water - related uses. The City confirmed that a conditional use permit will not be required for the bridge based on King County's practices whereby bridges are considered water related uses. (Letter from Jack Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 \WgdaIa\gen coansegEnvizontnaltal Complioncelinkgnitial SegniengTukwila pumiltingUTASTERmk.ila shoreline. criteria for projects subject to KC shoreline rcgs doe tYtk+en±nsyrxsmr 2 of 10 1 • Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations Pace, Deputy Director for the Tukwila Department of Community Development to Chris Townsend, January 6, 2003). The proposed bridge is consistent with this criterion. No activity associated with the movement of the farmstead will occur watenvard of the OHWM. B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying zones are more restrictive, no structure shall exceed a height of thirty - five feet above average grade level. This requirement may be modified if the view of a substantial number of residences will not be obstructed, if permitted by the applicable provision of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is agricultural, water related or water dependent. The farmhouse does not exceed the 35 foot height limitation now nor will it after it is moved. The bridge height exceeds the 35 foot height limit, therefore the City has determined that a variance is required (per letter from Jack Pace to Chris Townsend, January 6, 2003). King County's 35 -foot height limitation is more restrictive than the underlying Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) zoning requirements. The zoning designations for the proposed bridge crossing are MIC/H north of the river and MIC /L south of the river. The zoning height requirements for these areas are 125 feet and 45 feet, respectively (TMC 18.38.080 and 1 8.36.080). According to KCC 25.08.240 height is measured from the average grade level to the highest point of the structure, not including appurtenances such as antennas and chimneys. Average grade level is defined as the average of the natural or existing topography at the center of all exterior walls of a building or structure...provided, that in the case of structures built over water, average grade level shall be the elevation of ordinary high water (KCC 25.08.040). The City and King County have concluded that the light rail overhead power lines and support structures are appurtenances and therefore not included the bridge height calculations. (Letter from Jack Pace to Chris Townsend dated May 20, 2003). The bridge height (the highest component of which is the hand rail) over land is approximately 31 feet above average grade level —well within the limits stated in KCC 25.26.030 (B). However, the bridge height over ordinary high water is 48 feet. The SMP allows for modification of this provision subject to the following three conditions: (1) If the structure does not obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences - The light rail bridge will be a relatively narrow (28 -foot wide) linear feature and will not obstruct views from nearby residences. The bridge is located in a commercial /industrial area and the closest residences are located east of East Marginal Way South on the south side of the river —more than 200 feet to the east of the proposed crossing. These residences are barely visible from the existing East Marginal Way South Bridge because there is a small stand of trees Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 \ rgdautgen counsel\Environmmul ContplianceLLinkkhtitial SegmenttTokwila penniuing\MASTERiukwila shoreline - criteria for projects subject to KC shoreline regadoc 1 3 of 10 between the houses and the roadway. These trees will likely block the view of the new bridge from the residential area. (2) If permitted by the applicable provision of the underlying zoning - The Tukwila zoning code (TMC 18.36.050 and TMC 18.38.050) allows mass = • transit facilities in areas zoned MIC /L and MIC/I -I pursuant to the requirements, 1— procedures, and conditions established by the Unclassified Use Permits chapter re 2 (TMC 18.66). Sound Transit is submitting an application for an unclassified use J v permit in conjunction with the shoreline substantial development permit (.) 0 application. The bridge is partially consistent with the height requirements of the u) i) us underlying zoning. As stated above, the bridge height over ordinary high water is 48 feet. This exceeds the 45 -foot height restriction for the MIC /L -zoned area w 11. on the south half of the river, but is well within the 125 -foot restriction for the w O MIC/H -zoned area on the north half of the river. The dividing line between the g two zoning designations is in the center of the river; therefore half of the bridge meets the height limit and half does not. d I H (3) If the proposed development is agricultural, water related or water z dependent - As noted above, the bridge crossing is a water - related use. z O uj Despite meeting these criteria, a shoreline variance is required for the bridge because it exceeds the height limit imposed by the SMP. The bridge is consistent with the variance 8 cn criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) as described in Attachment A. c H W W C. All development shall be required to comply with K.C.C. Chapter 9.04 to H control runoff and to provide adequate surface water and erosion and "-- z sediment control during the construction period. U) _ . For the light rail corridor in general, the stormwater management plan has been designed Z ~ to either provide stormwater management control facilities for flow control or to reduce the effective impervious area by eliminating point discharges to ground surfaces. Stormwater management facilities for flow control are being designed to meet King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) Level 2 flow control requirements, which are consistent with the Surface Runoff Policy KCC 9.04.2. Reduction of effective impervious area is being provided in accordance with the guidelines and principles of KCSWDM Sections 5.2 and 5.2 and Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume V, Section 5.3. In addition, construction of the bridge and the construction activities associated with the Carasino Farmstead will be conducted in accordance with the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the construction phase National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans are being prepared for the project consistent with the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. The project will not degrade the quality or quantity of the surface or ground water based on the following: S The impervious surfaces associated with the bridge are not subject to automobile traffic and are therefore not considered Pollution - Generating Impervious Surfaces Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July / 0, 2003 I'hgdotatgen counsrlEn•ironmrntal Compliance\Linktlnilial Srgnent \Tukuila perminingNIASTERlukeila shoreline • criteria for projects subject lo KC shoreline regs.doc Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations T!w %ot+.crTnaeoxr 4 of 10 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations (PGIS). Therefore, pollutants associated with stormwater runoff from typical transportation projects are not anticipated and water quality treatment is not required. • At various locations along the corridor where point discharges cannot be avoided, stormwater detention facilities will be constructed to detain runoff according to King County regulations as discussed above. However, the bridge is exempt from detention, based on exemptions allowed in King County and City of Tukwila regulations, because stormwater will enter an existing drainage system that discharges directly to the river. Based on coordination with the City of Tukwila, adverse impacts to the capacity of the existing drainage system are not likely due to the amount of existing impervious surfaces within the contributing basin. D. Development shall maintain the first fifty feet of property abutting a natural environment as required open space. The shoreline at the proposed crossing location is designated as "urban environment ". There are no natural environment areas abutting the project. Therefore, the bridge is not subject to this requirement. E. Parking facilities, except parking facilities associated with detached single - family and agricultural development, shall conform to the following minimum conditions: 1. Parking areas serving a water related or a non -water related use must be located beneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves. 2. Any outdoor parking area perimeter, excluding entrances and exits, must be maintained as a planting area with a minimum width of five feet. 3. One live tree with a minimum height of four feet shall be required for each thirty linear feet of planting areas. 4. One live shrub of one gallon container size or larger for each sixty linear inches of planting areas shall be required. 5. Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may be required, at the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen parking areas or when large parking areas are proposed. As noted above under C, the project will not degrade water quality. Sound Transit does not propose to construct parking, nor is parking required, for the bridge. Therefore, this requirement does not apply. F. Collection facilities to control and separate contaminants shall be required where stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would degrade or add to the pollution of recipient waters or adjacent properties. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 \Wgdata \gen counsep5nvuaune tal Comptim:etLinktInitial Segnent \Tukwila pannitting'MASTERtukeila shoreline - criteria for projects subject o KC shoreline reps doe 7111 'Rt 5 of 10 z CL w 00 J = H w o 2 g Q cn = a � Z = F— O ZF- w w U u) ON O F— w w u .. w • = O ~ z Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations The light rail facility is a non pollution - generating surface, and runoff from the bridge will not degrade water quality as described in C. above. G. The regulations of this chapter have been categorized in a number of sections; regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, all development must comply with all applicable regulations. The project complies with all of the general criteria of KCC 25.16. 030 and all other applicable regulations. The bridge is consistent with the policies of the state Shoreline Management Act because it: recognizes and protects the statewide interest over local interest; preserves the natural character of the shoreline; results in long term transportation benefits (over short term benefit); and protects the resources and ecology of the shoreline. Although the project does not directly increase recreational opportunities or access to publicly owned shoreline areas, it does not impede or detract from any existing recreational uses or access locations. The project is also consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the King County SMP, which states: "The purpose of designating the Urban Environment is to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas bytpehnitting intensive use and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains the shoreline of a multiplicity of urban uses. The Environment is designed to reflect a policy of increasing utilization and efficiency of urban areas, to promote a more intensive level of use through redevelopment of areas now under- utilized and to encourage multiple use of the shoreline if the major use is shoreline dependent." Consistency with the general policies of the urban environment are as follows: (1) Emphasis should be given to development within already developed areas — The bridge will be located just west of the exiting East Marginal Way S. bridge in a heavily developed commercial /industrial area. The relocation of the farmhouse will not change the overall character of the farmstead. (2) Priority should be given to shoreline dependent and water oriented uses over other uses. Uses which are neither shoreline dependent or water oriented should be discouraged except for residential — The bridge is a water related use, as described above. The relocation of the farmhouse is necessary to construct the light rail alignment and associated bridge. (3) Emphasis should be given to developing visual and physical access to the shoreline in the Urban Environment — Passengers on the light rail trains will have visual access to the shoreline area at the crossing location. (4) To enhance the waterfront and insure maximum public use, industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities consistent with public safety and security — The bridge is not an industrial or commercial use. It does not improve or detract from use of the shoreline for waterfront activities. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 \'h counscl■Eosiromnental CompliancrLLinkluitial Segment \Tukwila parniuinkblASTERtukuila shoreline - criteria for projects subject to KC shoreline regs doe +ncat.e -d 4 V " ..... � mF€ KM: '.'-fi>I?:.4mrµY�`t^+i, ,� . ?G55?1!'P'�+ 6 of 10 (5) Multiple use of the shoreline should be encouraged — Transportation is one of the uses of the urban environment that is encouraged through the SMP. (6) Redevelopment and renewal of substandard areas should be encouraged in order to accommodate future users and make maximum use of the shoreline — The new bridge is not a redevelopment project and does not involve substandard areas. This goal is not applicable to the project. (7) Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted by means of sign control regulations, architectural design standards, planned unit development standards, landscaping requirements and other such means — Planned unit development standards are not applicable to this project and the project does not require signs to be placed in the shoreline zone. A landscape plan is being prepared for City review and approval to address restoration and mitigation of clearing impacts. To the extent that the bridge is subject to the City's design review requirements under City Code 18.60., applicable design review criteria will be addressed in a separate application. (8) Development should not significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including water quality and air quality, nor create conditions, which would accentuate erosion, drainage problems or other adverse impacts on adjacent environments - The project will have minimal adverse effects on the shoreline environment and will not directly affect the river or any associated wetlands. There will be no new structures in the river channel, but bridge support piers will be built on the banks landward of OHWM. The project includes a mitigation planting plan to offset the temporary effects of vegetation clearing. The project also includes a stormwater management plan designed to meet KCSWDM Level 2 flow control requirements. Reduction of effective impervious area is being provided in accordance with the guidelines and principles of KCSWDM and Washington State Department of Ecology's Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume V, Section 5.3. The project will also be constructed and operated in accordance with the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the construction phase National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control plans are being prepared for the project consistent with the SWPPP and the NPDES permit. Therefore, the project will not degrade water quality. Air quality will not be adversely affected as a result of the project. Light rail cars are electric and because they help alleviate automobile traffic actually have a positive effect on air quality emissions. H. Development proposed in the shorelines of the state shall maintain setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to be constructed or public access to continue where: 1. There is a proposed trail in the King County trail system; or 2. Part of the site is presently being used and has historically been used for public access. The Duwamish/Green River Trail is located on the south bank of the river. A pier for the bridge structure would be placed near the trail (within 45 feet) and a short segment of the trail may need to be closed temporarily during construction. Disturbed areas in the Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 Vhgdato \goo counselEmironmetul Compliance LinkVnitial Sepnoot \Tukwila permittingNIASTERtuk%ila shoreline • criteria for projects subject to KC shoreline regs.doe Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations i�w:? �, i!-• � :S"S:f*r'C`Sr,V�{yt;a;!SYan�wa. 7 of 10 z w te JU U N w �w w g_ d = W z I— O z t— w ELI U D O N O 1-- W W U- O .. z w U = O ~ z Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations vicinity of the trail would be restored and reseeded following construction. The proposed bridge will not permanently affect the trail in any way. I. Along shorelines of the state on Lake Sammamish, no building shall be placed on lands below thirty -two and one half feet mean sea level. Not applicable. 3. Consistency with Excavation, Grading and Filling Requirements (KCC 25.16.190) Construction of the bridge support piers requires excavation and filling in the shoreline zone. Relocation of the Carosino farmhouse would require minor excavation to construct a new foundation and regrading of the original farmhouse site. Excavation, grading and filling may be permitted in an urban environment, only as part of an approved overall development plan not as an independent activity provided that the following criteria are met: A. Any fill or excavation regardless of size, shall be subject to the provisions of K.C.C. 16.82.100 Activities that disturb the shoreline zone will be provided with sediment and erosion control measures that meet King County standards. Sediment and erosion control plans will be implemented in accord with a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) approved by the Department of Ecology. No permanent cut or fill slopes are proposed in the shoreline zone. Excavation for pilings to support the light rail and for the Carosino farmhouse foundation will be carried out according to conditions required by KCC 16.82.100.B. B. Landfill may be permitted below the ordinary high water mark only when necessary for the operation of a water dependent or water related use, or when necessary to mitigate conditions which endanger public safety There is no land filling below OHWM associated with the bridge or Carosino farmstead relocation. C. Landfill or excavations shall be permitted only when technical information demonstrates water circulation, littoral drift, aquatic life and water quality will not be substantially impaired Construction of the bridge involves minimal fill in the shoreline zone and will not impair water circulation, littoral drift, aquatic life or water quality. The project does not involve any in -water work and will not have any measurable effects on aquatic life or water circulation patterns in the river. This section of the river shoreline is influenced by tidal action, but the banks are steep and armored in most places so there is minimal movement or deposition of littoral debris in this area. Furthermore, all of the earthwork will occur at least 35 feet back from the OHWM, so no measurable effects on littoral drift are expected. The ground disturbance at the pier locations will be relatively small (< 1,500 Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 1Ugdola1gen counsel\Environin.IA Compliance\ oh\lnitial Segmnnl\Tukssila permininpUlASTERlukssila shoreline - criteria for projects subject to KC shoreline reps der .11:4 +r K ',' 8 of 10 z w 6 J tJ O 0 tno J F-- • u w 2 LL Q . to = a z E- zt— w w U � O - 0 I— w ur H a- LL- w z — • I O 1' Z Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations sq. ft.) and appropriate measures will be implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The project has been designed in accordance with the technical criteria and standards of the applicable stormwater management requirements, as noted above, so water quality will not be impaired. D. Landfill or disposal of dredged material shall be prohibited within the floodway The project does not involve land filling or disposal of dredge material in the floodway. E. Wetlands such as marshes, swamps, and bogs shall not be disturbed or altered through excavation, filling, dredging, or disposal of dredged material... No wetlands (marshes, bogs, or swamps) will be disturbed as a result of the bridge construction or Carosino farmhouse relocation. F. Class I beaches shall not be covered by landfill except for approved beach feeding programs There are no Class 1 beaches at the crossing location. The project will not affect Class 1 beaches. G. Excavations on beaches shall include precautions to prevent the migration of fine grain sediments, disturbed by the excavation, onto adjacent beach areas and excavations on beaches shall be backfilled promptly using material of similar composition and similar or more coarse grain size There are no beaches at the bridge location. The project does not involve beach excavation. H. No refuse disposal sites, solid waste disposal sites, or sanitary fills of putrescible or non - putrescible material shall be permitted within the shorelines of the state Not applicable. 1. Excavation or dredging below the ordinary high water mark shall be permitted only... There is no excavation or dredging below OHWM associated with the project. J. Disposal of dredged material shall be done only in approved deep water disposal sites or approved contain upland disposal sites The project does not involve disposal of dredged material. K. Stockpiling of dredged material in or under water is prohibited Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 Wtgdau+gcn counsd\Emironmatul Compliance \U kW itial Segment \Tukwila pantininOIASTER1ukwila shoreline - criteria for projects subject to KC shoreline reps. doe 9 of 10 ;wr. -t - ter ^? +Kew'. t;?mgsex:+*'�ar;arr...,rr�m. �ae�ns�r4m•+.�vxwsm.+•*mr• »h rpr!ST!rOrri!,"' `YN . n. 1 Criteria For Projects Subject To King County Shoreline Regulations The project does not involve stockpiling of dredged material in the shoreline zone. L. Maintenance dredging not requiring a shoreline permit(s) shall conform to the requirements of this section The project does not involve maintenance dredging. M. Dredging shall be timed so that it does not interfere with aquatic life The project does not involve dredging. N. The county may impose reasonable conditions on dredging or disposal operations including but not limited to working seasons and provisions of buffer strips, including retention or replacement of existing vegetation, dikes, and settling basins to protect the public safety and shore users' lawful interests from unnecessary adverse impact The project does not involve dredging or disposal operations. 0. In order to insure that operations involving dredged material disposal and maintenance dredging are consistent with this program as required by RCW 90.58.140(1), no dredging may commence on shorelines without the responsible person having first obtained either a substantial development permit or a statement of exemption; PROVIDED, that no statement of exemption or shoreline permit is required for emergency dredging needed to protect property from imminent damage by the elements The project does not involve dredging or disposal operations. P. Operation and maintenance of any existing system of ditches, canals, or drains, or construction of irrigation reservoirs, for agricultural purposes are exempt from the shoreline permit requirement. Not applicable. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 \ ,gdataylen counsd\Envuonmattal CompliaoccLLinkVnitial Segment \Tukwila pennittingUTASTERekwila shoreline - aUeda for projects subject to KC shoreline regsdoc 10 of 10 � 1 M2011024 z w 6 - J U. U0 U LLi J CI II- H w _ . c = W I- _ z � 0 . Z I- LL! Lu p U o I- iu U Lt. O .z w U 0 H z 1. Introduction According to WAC 173 -27 -170, "the purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master . program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or :;., ;: configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in" RCW 90.58.020. 7 :The :; following section address consistency with the individual variance criteria set forth in WAC,, 173- 27 -170: A. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all; instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall; be shown _. and the public interest shall LI er'no substantial detrimental effect Attachment A Consistency with Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) m ccording,to RCW 90 58:020. It is the;policy of the :state to :provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses.;;: This:. policy is; designed to :insure'the development of these shorelines in a manner, which 'while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters; .will promote. and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting againstadverse'effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and e'waters of the' state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of avigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." It is the adopted policy of the state to plan and implement a high capacity transportation system within the state's most populous region. RCW 81.112.010. The voters within the three county area authorized construction of a regional transit system with the approval of Sound Move in 1996. The TFR is a critical component of the Sound Move system and the light rail bridge over the Green - Duwamish River is an essential part of the TFR. Construction of the light rail bridge is a reasonable and necessary public transit use that will serve the public's interest consistent with regional transportation plans, goals, and policies. The need for the variance is due to the extraordinary circumstances associated with the height of the bridge above ordinary high water. The height limit over OHW is 35 feet and the bridge height is 49.6 feet over the river. The elevation of the bridge structure and associated guideway is the minimum needed to maintain the required clearances (-6 feet) over access roads that cross under the structure and provide ingress and egress to properties on the west side of East Marginal Way. The bridge height is also designed to allow for boat passage and navigation, and accommodate use of the Green - Duwamish River trail. As a result, the height is based on the need to minimize impacts on property (i.e., property acquisition and access), maintain safety, and accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation as well as river navigation. Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) Further, the project will not have detrimental effects on the shoreline environment. The bridge crossing is a linear feature that does not result in significant development in the shoreline environment or cause impact to the quality and features that are being protected under the Shoreline Management Program. The bridge would not result in significant impacts to vegetation, wildlife, aquatic life, or public access, because of the limited footprint needed for the support piers. Furthermore, the piers will not be located in the river. To mitigate clearing and vegetation removal within the shoreline zone, Sound Transit will enhance a portion of the riparian zone along the south bank of the Green - Duwamish River. Sound Transit proposes to plant 10,000 ft of river bank with native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species along the Green - Duwamish riverbank downstream of the light rail bridge. The revegetation design is intended to enhance the riparian vegetation. No grading is proposed and no work is proposed below the OHWM. Above elevation 11 feet the banks would be planted with Sitka spruce and black cottonwood with shrubs in the understory. Live stakes consisting of native willows and dogwood would be planted on the bank below the trees and shrubs between elevation 9 and 11. Non - native species would be mowed and/selectively grubbed out to facilitate development of a native riparian plant community. Since the project will promote and enhance the publicinterest, while minimizing impacts ' on the shoreline environment, a variance permii should be granted. • B. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and /or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property. The performance standards state that the height limitation for structures in the shoreline environment is 35 feet. The bulk of the structure (piers, main deck, and side railing) would be below 35 feet on the landward side of the OHWM. The height limitation is exceeded only if measured waterward of OHWM. The only reasonable use the Sound Transit can make of the subject property is for a light rail crossing. If the height standards were imposed without the variance, the selected light rail alignment would likely be precluded. (2) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. The hardship described above is specifically related to the property/natural feature (the Green - Duwamish River), and not solely to the applicant's own actions. The hardship is based on the fact that the river is lower than the adjoining land surface. While the bridge Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 \hgdau\grn counsdavionmattal ComplianceLinkgnitial Segnent \Tukwila pamining\tIASTER utaclunent A_ doe i"..,*." [��5tt';rm*�'.m^H+.Y� ?�^� ,,n�57Y ; �w+ x •_+,..»v.t,.,w•.�...:^"'!"'_'°R ......:�P_r�..K.�R••r•_�,. nl � +� >{xn�^',,�:r; +m.•mi,.�..._. 2 of 5 meets the height standards over land, average height over water is greater than the allowable limit. The light rail project requires a crossing of the Green - Duwamish River and the crossing location was selected based on detailed studies that considered environmental impacts, transportation needs, community interests, and other factors. Other alignment options for the rail system were considered during the environmental review of the project as described in the 1999 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Central Link Light Rail Project, the 2001 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Freeway Route (FSEIS) and SEPA Addendum, and the 2002 NEPA Environmental Assessment for the Initial Segment. These analyses determined that the current alignment would best serve the interests of the public for a mass transit system and thus a crossing of the Green - Duwamish River was deemed necessary. The height of the bridge is based on the nature of the use (a light rail crossing) and the need to minimize impacts to the adjacent properties and the public at large. The light rail line is elevated to minimize impacts to property and access, and rises above the river to allow for boat passage and navigation, as well as traffic on the Duwamish/Green River trail. If the bridge were constructed at a lower height (for example, at the level of the E. Marginal Way Bridge), then access to adjacent properties would be impacted, and there would be operational and safety concerns. (3) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. The bridge structure would have minimal impact to the shoreline environment because: (1) only a small footprint is needed for the bridge piers and these would not be constructed in the water, (2) the bridge does not require a large areal extent within the shoreline (the bridge has a narrow alignment at 28 feet), (3) the bridge would not obstruct the views of residences, and (4) it minimizes the impact on property, traffic circulation, and safety. The bridge design would be similar to surrounding structures such as the E. Marginal Way S. Bridge (which parallels the light rail alignment in this location) and the SR 599/Pacific Highway interchange (i.e., the bridge would be constructed of concrete and steel). It would not disrupt residential areas located east of East Marginal Way S. and is compatible with the character and use of the general area. Transportation uses are compatible with land use plans in that these uses are not typically subject to comprehensive plan designations or zoning restrictions (i.e., they are an allowed use under any zoning designation). As noted in the environmental review documents for the project, the light rail crossing will not cause adverse effects on the environment because it requires minimal ground - disturbance, does not directly affect the river channel or any associated sensitive areas, does not result in degradation of air or water quality, and includes a mitigation planting plan to offset clearing and grading impacts and improve the riparian corridor. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 \Vtgdau \gat counscl\En ironmrntul Compliance \Link\initial Scpucnt \Tukwila paminingl.IASTI`Ranaclunrnl A_ doe Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) 3 of 5 Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) (4) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; The variance would not grant a special privilege, because other adjacent development already has access across the Green - Duwamish River via the East Marginal Way S. Bridge. (5) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and As described in the attached memorandum, the bridge crossing meets all criteria for compliance with the Shoreline Master Program, with the potential exception of the height limitation set forth in KCC25.16.030. The bridge height is based on the need to maintain access to adjoining properties; minimize impacts to trail use, prevent impacts on river navigation, and ensure safe and efficient operation of the light rail system. The only potential impact of the bridge height above the 35 -foot requirement is on views. It has been determined that residences located closest to the bridge would not be able to see the bridge or have their views obstructed by the bridge, because trees would screen the bridge from these residences. Other residences located on higher elevations to the west would have a view of the bridge. However, the bridge would not obstruct any views from these higher elevation locations. (6) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The light rail project is consistent with the existirig and planned shoreline uses and serves the public's interest by fulfilling regional transportation goals. The height of the bridge ensures that adverse impacts on access and navigation are avoided. As noted above, there will be minimal impact on views. Furthermore, the variance request would not preclude other uses of the property such as river navigation, travel along the Duwamish/Green River Trail, or wildlife use, or adversely impact the aesthetic character of the shoreline (because it is a narrow linear facility and is similar to adjacent transportation uses). Thus, the public interest in terms of the shoreline would not suffer detrimental effects. C. Variance permits for development and /or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; (2) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (1) of this section; and (3) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Items a and b are discussed above. The light rail bridge will not affect navigation (because the bridge height does not interfere with navigation) and does not require a Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 nugduu�gen counsehEnvi,onmanal ComplimceLLinkVnitiAl Segmau\Tukwih paniiningNIASTERatucluncut A_ doe ar. P '1 7' ...r " .,, M64.''YUtdt„j,==t.4nD!:M7P,I ts=r ?r #. tov.,s ennxv�vrz•,eesrrrr.,r- 4 of 5 Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) bridge permit from the U.S. Coast Guard (per letter from Austin Pratt to Chris Townsend May 5, 2003). The bridge also will not adversely affect use of the shoreline since it will not interfere with regional bike trail use or access, except potentially for a brief period during construction. D. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and /or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. It is unlikely that there would be requests for similar actions, since the light rail line will be a unique feature and the height requirements over the water are specific to this project at this location. The only other similar project is the proposed monorail line, which is not slated to occur in the City of Tukwila or cross the Duwamish River in the same area as this bridge - crossing request. Other types of development are not likely to require a river crossing since there are existing vehicle and pedestrian bridge crossings that serve other development in this area. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. The light rail bridge is consistent with the use provisions of the master program because it is considered a water related. use (per letter from Jack Pace to Chris Townsend, January 6, 2003). The only reason for the variance is because the bridge height exceeds the height limit allowed by the master program. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application Revised Draft - July 10, 2003 Nhgdau■gcn counscI\Ensirofmirnml Compliance\kinkdoitial Sepnent \Tukwila pmnittutg■IASTERauachment A_ doc 5 of 5 z _I I z ce 6 U 0 ' CO o W J 1— � LL w 2 u. cn I z � 1- Z 1— 111 a' C:1 O N s CI ui • U O .. w — • I 0~ Z Attachment A Consistency with Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) According to WAC 173 -27 -170, "the purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020." The following section address consistency with the individual variance criteria set forth in WAC 173- 27 -170: A. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 9038.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. According to RCW 90.58.020 "It is the policy of the state to provide for the management of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner, which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." It is the adopted policy of the state to plan and implement a high capacity transportation system within the state's most populous region. RCW 81.112.010. The voters within the three county area authorized construction of a regional transit system with the approval of Sound Move in 1996. The TER is a critical component of the Sound Move system and the light rail bridge over the Green - Duwamish River is an essential part of the TFR. Construction of the light rail bridge is a reasonable and necessary public transit use that will serve the public's interest consistent with regional transportation plans, goals, and policies. The need for the variance is due to the extraordinary circumstances associated with the height of the bridge above ordinary high water. The height limit over OHW is 35 feet and the bridge height is 48 feet over the river. The elevation of the bridge structure and associated guideway is the minimum needed to maintain the required clearances (— 16feet) over the access roads that cross under the structure and provide ingress and egress to properties on the west side of East Marginal Way. The bridge height is also designed to allow for boat passage and navigation, and accommodate use of the Green - Duwamish River Trail. As a result, the height is based on the need to minimize impacts on property (i.e., property acquisition and access), maintain safety, and accommodate pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation as well as river navigation. Further, the project will not have detrimental effects on the shoreline environment. The bridge crossing is a linear feature that does not result in significant development in the shoreline environment or cause impact to the quality and features that are being protected under the Shoreline Management Program. The bridge would not result in significant impacts to vegetation, wildlife, aquatic life, or public access, because of the limited footprint needed for the support piers. Furthermore, the piers will not be located in the river. To mitigate clearing and vegetation removal within the shoreline zone, Sound Transit will enhance a portion of the riparian zone along the south bank of the Green - Duwamish River. Sound Transit proposes to plant 10,000 ft2 of riverbank with native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species along the Green - Duwamish riverbank downstream of the light rail bridge. The revegetation design is intended to enhance the riparian vegetation. No grading is proposed and no work is proposed below the OHWM. Above elevation 11 feet the banks would be planted with Sitka spruce and black cottonwood with shrubs in the understory. Live stakes consisting of native willows and dogwood would be planted on the bank below the trees and shrubs between elevation 9 and 11. Non - native species would be mowed and selectively grubbed out to facilitate development of a native riparian plant community. An existing osprey nest, located on a Seattle City Light transmission tower will need to be removed to allow sufficient clearance of the light rail corridor below. To mitigate for this loss, a replacement nest platform will be constructed in the upland area of Cecil Moses Memorial Park, approximately 0.25 miles west of the existing nest within the shoreline area. The replacement nest platform may be as high as 75 -feet above grade, which exceeds the height limitation of 35 -feet in the shoreline zone. This activity would provide a nesting location for a native bird species that naturally uses shorelines for breeding and foraging; therefore it is consistent with the intent of the Shoreline Management Act. Since the project will promote and enhance the public interest, while minimizing impacts on the shoreline environment, a variance permit should be granted. B. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property. The performance standards state that the height limitation for structures in the shoreline environment is 35 feet. The bulk of the structure (piers and main deck and side railing) would be below 35 feet on the landward side of the OHWM. The height limitation is exceeded only if measured waterward of OHWM. The only reasonable use that Sound Transit can make of the subject property is for a light rail crossing. If the height standards were imposed without the variance, the selected light rail alignment would likely be precluded. The location for the replacement osprey nest platform is within Cecil Moses Memorial Park. The City Parks department has authorized this use; therefore it has been determined to be an appropriate use for the property. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application June 2004 LEniiircruncinalTennlulTukwila Shoreline Peemii - Madmen' A. Variance 64001.doe Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) Page 2 of 6 (2) That the hardship described in A of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The hardship described above is specifically related to the property /natural feature (the Green - Duwamish River), and not solely to the applicant's own actions. The hardship is based on the fact that the river is lower than the adjoining land surface. While the bridge meets the height standards over land, average height over water is greater than the allowable limit. The light rail project requires a crossing of the Green - Duwamish River and the crossing location was selected based on detailed studies that considered environmental impacts, transportation needs, community interests, and other factors. Other alignment options for the rail system were considered during the environmental review of the project as described in the 1999 Final Environmental Impact State for the Central Link Light Rail Project, the 2001 Final Supplement Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Freeway Route (FSEIS) and SEPA Addendum, and 2002 NEPA Environmental Assessment for the Initial Segment. These analyses determined that the current alignment would best serve the interests of the public for a mass transit system and thus a crossing of the Green - Duwamish River was deemed necessary. The height of the bridge is based on the nature of the use (a light rail crossing) and the need to minimize impacts to the adjacent properties and the public at large. The light rail line is elevated to minimize impacts to property and access, and rises above the river to allow for boat passage and navigation, as well as traffic on the Duwamish /Green River Trail. If the bridge were constructed a lower height, (for example, at the level of the E. Marginal Way Bridge), then access to adjacent properties would be impacted, and there would be operational and safety concerns. The hardship associated with replacing the osprey nest is that these birds often build their nests on man -made structures. Transmission lines, power poles, and pilings mimic natural nesting structures that the birds typically use such as broken treetops and snags. Because there is a lack of these natural nesting locations along the developed shoreline of the Duwamish River, the osprey is forced to use existing man -made feature. (3) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment; The bridge structure would have minimal impact to the shoreline environment because: (1) only a small footprint is needed for the bridge piers and these would not be constructed in the water, (2) the bridge does not require a large areal extent within the shoreline (the bridge has a narrow alignment at 26.5 feet), (3) the bridge would not obstruct the views of residences, and (4) it minimizes the impact on property, traffic circulation, and safety. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application June 2004 L•lEnyvonmennlWermh$ Tuk'.ila Shoreline Permit • Avachmenl A•Vviance 6.200e.doc Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) Page 3 of 6 The bridge design would be similar to surrounding structures such as the E. Marginal Way Bridge S. (which parallels the light rail alignment in this location) and the SR 599/Pacific Highway interchange (i.e., the bridge would be constructed of concrete and steel). It would not disrupt residential areas located east of East Marginal Way S. and is compatible with the character and use of the general area. Transportation uses are compatible with land use plans in that these uses are not typically subject to .1— w comprehensive plan designations or zoning restrictions (i.e., they are an allowed use re 2 under any zoning designation). 6 U UO As noted in the environmental review documents for the project, the light rail crossing u) (.1) w will not cause adverse effects on the environment because it requires minimal ground - disturbance, does not directly affect the river channel or any associated sensitive areas, N u - does not result in degradation of air or water quality, and includes a mitigation planting W O plan to offset clearing and grading impacts and improve the riparian corridor. lL Q The design of the replacement osprey nest platform is also consistent with other = structures within the shoreline. The 75 -foot pole on which the nest platform will be l— _ attached to would be similar to other telephone poles, transmission lines, and other z I-- structures within and adjacent to the replacement nest platform. Z O (4) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; p N 0 1- The variance would not grant a special privilege, because other adjacent development = W already has access across the Green - Duwamish River via the East Marginal Way S. Bridge. Additionally, other structures similar to the nest platform are located in the u. O z shoreline zone along the Duwamish River. U F-= (5) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and O As described in the attached memorandum, the bridge crossing meets all criteria for compliance with the Shoreline Master Program with the potential exception of the height limitation set forth in KCC25.16.030. The bridge height is based on the need to maintain access to adjoining properties; minimize impacts to trail use, prevent impacts on river navigation, and ensure safe and efficient operation of the light rail system. The only potential impact of the bridge height above the 35 -foot requirement is on views. It has been determined that residences located closest to the bridge would not be able to see the bridge or have their views obstructed by the bridge, because trees would screen the bridge from these residences. Other residences located on higher elevations to the west would have a view of the bridge. However, the bridge would not obstruct any views from these higher elevation locations. Replacement osprey nest platforms are typically built anywhere between 30 and 75 feet above the ground surface. In order to be attractive as a nest site, Sound Transit has coordinated with Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the staff at Cecil Moses Memorial Park to design a platform to be an appropriate structure in an attractive location to the birds. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application June 2004 L•1Eariru mauaAPermii Tukwila Sbnrrline Prnnil - Attachment A•Variance 6-2004 doe Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) Page 4 of 6 Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) (6) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The light rail project is consistent with the existing and planned shoreline uses and serves the public's interest by fulfilling regional transportation goals. The height of the bridge ensures that adverse impacts on access and navigation are avoided. As noted above, there will be minimal impact on views. Furthermore, the variance request would not preclude other uses of the property such as river navigation, travel along the Duwamish /Green River Trail, or wildlife use, or adversely impact the aesthetic character of the shoreline (because it is a narrow linear facility and is similar to adjacent transportation uses). Thus, the public interest in terms of the shoreline would not suffer detrimental effects. By providing a replacement nest structure for the osprey in a park setting, it will likely provide a public educational experience and not result in a detrimental effect to the public. C. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (1) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; (2) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection B (1) through (6) (of this section; and (3) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Items a and b are discussed above. The light rail bridge will not affect navigation (because the bridge height does not interfere with navigation) and does not require a bridge permit from the U.S. Coast Guard (per letter from Austin Pratt to Chris Townsend, May 5, 2003). The bridge also will not adversely affect use of the shoreline since it will not interfere with regional bike trail use or access, except potentially for a brief period during construction. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. It is unlikely that there would be requests for similar actions, since the light rail line will be a unique feature and the height requirements over the water are specific to this project at this location. The only other similar project is the proposed monorail line, which is not slated to occur in the City of Tukwila or cross the Duwamish River in the same area as this bridge- crossing request. Other types of development are not likely to require a river Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application June 2004 L :lEnvironmenWlPermjiATukwila Shoreline Permit • Atuehmen! A•Varian a 4:0M.AOo Page 5 of 6 crossing since there are existing vehicle and pedestrian bridge crossings that serve other development in this area. If additional projects were to install additional osprey nest platforms in the area, it would be a benefit to the osprey population, and likely result in positive effects to the shoreline environment. (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. The light rail bridge is consistent with the use provisions of the master program because it is considered a water related use (per letter from Jack Pace to Chris Townsend, January 6, 2003. The only reason for the variance is that the bridge height exceeds the height limit allowed by the master program. The intent of the master program is to accommodate the existence of natural features within the built environment. Replacing the osprey nest platform allows for the osprey population to continue to exist within a developed shoreline. Sound Transit — Link Light Rail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Application June 2004 L•lEn, na,IaN umiulTuk, In Shoreline PamU - Attachment A- Vmianw 6-2004 .doc Attachment A Variance Criteria (WAC 173 -27 -170) Page 6 of 6 July 2, 2003 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Union Station 401 S. Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104 -2826 Attention: Isam Awad, P.E. Project Manager Subject: Technical Memorandum 17, Revision 2 Recommended Right of Way Takes for Ground Improvement D 755 Link Light Rail Elevated Guideway Procurement No. RTA/LR 106 -98 Dear Isam: As discussed in our April 11 meeting, in our April 29 Geotechnical / Structural Interface meeting with HMM, and subsequent weekly meetings, we recommend the following areas of the site be considered for ground improvements outside of the elevated guideway foundation footprint. Additional recommendations for right of way acquisition for at -grade areas (easements for slopes and soil nails) are discussed in our Technical Memorandum 3. Case 1 Bents adjacent to the Duwamish River. There is a potential for lateral spreading of ground adjacent to the Duwamish River during strong ground shaking. This appears to be a concern for Bents A44 and A45. Based on our analyses, we would consider treatment to at least the anticipated 50 -foot depth of liquefaction. Since the river level is about 20 feet lower than the surrounding uplands, we would consider treatment to 70 feet below the upland ground surface at Bents A44 and A45. We recommend the ground treatment extend laterally by a minimum of 15 feet beyond the footing perimeter on the river side of the pier, 30 feet on the side opposite the river, and 10 feet along the west side of each foundation. Due to the proximity to the East Marginal Way bridge foundation and several underground utilities, no ground treatment is required on the east side of the guideway piers. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 N.E. 122 Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034 Tel (425) 820 -4669 Fax (425) 821 -3914 vww.amec.com W:1 Projects \14000s114550 Sound TransiI Correspondence\right of way lakes recommendation rev 1.doc ' �! M1LCrit�t t�{+ TM1!UyLV•liPS?eTK�!�SRit1TIaR)^y Pagel i. Z Z w 6 J 00 U) u- w 0 2 � w = Z � 1— 0 Z 1— w W U � o 1- w I— H � O w z U = Z Sound Transit July 2, 2003 Case 2. Bents adjacent to potentially unstable embankment slopes The following bents are located either above, on, or below embankment slopes that could potentially be unstable under earthquake loading: B29 to B35, and B39 to B46 - mid slope to toe of slope, 20 to 30 foot high embankment, potential liquefaction 15 to 50 feet, underlain by very soft to soft clay layer. Under MDE loading, the slope is found to be unstable due to a liquefiable upper sand layer, as well as a deeper soft clay layer. For each of these piers, we recommend installation of six to eight tieback anchors, extending about 100 feet to the east (below the SR 599 roadway embankment) to resist the lateral load that would be imposed by slope failure under MDE loading. This design concept needs to be reviewed by the project structural engineer. Case 4. Bents adjacent to potentially unstable slopes: rage z 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 2 C10, C11 - toe of slope, 25 foot high unstable slope (non - liquefiable below). The slope was created by a private developer pushing a wedge of fill out to create a level pad. There is already evidence of slope movement at this location. Mitigation of this unstable slope would likely require removing soil back to a 2H:1V or flatter slope (a distance of about 75 feet west from the center of each drilled shaft). Alternatively, if less real estate acquisition is desired, this would likely require construction of a retaining wall at the toe of slope. W:1 Projects 14000s114550 Sound TransitlCorrespondence■right of way takes recommendation rev 1.doc TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF BENTS ADJACENT TO POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE GROUND FOR WHICH GROUND IMPROVEMENT MAY BE REQUIRED Location Site Hazard Proposed Mitigation Zone Requiring Treatment Bents A44 to A45 Liquefaction — induced lateral spreading Stone columns 10- to 30 -foot zone outside the outer edge of the pile cap (see text) Bents B29 to B35 and Bents B39 to B46 MDE — induced deep- seated slope movement Tieback Anchors 6 to 8 anchors each extending about 100 feet eastward below the SR 599 roadway embankment Bents C10, C11 Unstable Slope Slope Flattening or retaining Wall 75 feet to west of shafts Sound Transit July 2, 2003 Sincerely, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. James S. Dransfield, P.E. Principal 44Gt..ati.�ti�i3y.'SYAIc ii.?�3. Jc1� SUMMARY The following table summarizes our recommended areas for right of way takes. This is a conservative estimate; we will be performing additional analyses in the coming weeks to refine these assumptions. W:\ Projects \14000s \14550 Sound Transit\CorrespondenceVight of way takes recommendation rev 1.doc 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 3 ra ea April 29, 2003 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Union Station 401 S. Jackson Street Seattle, Washington 98104 -2826 Attention: Dr. Isam Awad, Ph.D., P.E. Dear Isam: Subject: Technical Memorandum 2, Revision 1 Bents A 43 to A 46 (Duwamish River Crossing) Central Link Light Rail Project Procurement No. RTA/LR 106 -98 ra e . l ' Attached please find our revised interim design recommendations for the above referenced portion of the project. These findings, when finalized, will be presented in our final geotechnical report. AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034 Tel (425) 820 -4669 Fax (425) 821 -3914 www.amec.com Curtis Mathis / PanGEO Jon Rehkopf, AMEC Bob Kimmerling / PanGEO Jim Dransfield, AMEC Paul Grant, PanGEO JP Singh, JP Singh Associates Analysis by Review by W:\ ProJects\14000s \14550 Sound Transit \Technical Memos\Tech Memo 2 \Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc Sound Transit 2-91M-14550-0 April 29, 2003 Page 2 Sincerely, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. James S. Dransfield, P.E. Project Manager JSD/clt PanGEO, Inc W. Paul Grant, P.E. Technical Director W: Projects114000s114550 Sound Transit1Technical Memos \Tech Memo 2 \Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc .1 ‘k " '. :1 - 2A. ' algiatifIVI , 44!.a Nape 2 -• _.__.. _ ._ _ __. _ _ _ __ ...__ Rage. Sound Transit April 29, 2003 Enclosures: cc: Tony Purdon / Hatch Mott McDonald Chris Hall / International Bridge Technologies 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 3 Figure 1 — ODE Surface Response Spectra — Station 575 — Rock at 270 feet Figure 2 — MDE Surface Response Spectra — Station 575 — Rock at 270 feet Figure 3 — Liquefaction Evaluation AB -17 Figure 4 — Liquefaction Evaluation AB -18 Figure 5 — Liquefaction Evaluation AB -19 Figure 6 — Liquefaction Evaluation AB -20 Figure 7 — Piers A43 and A46, Non - Liquefied MDE Lateral Response, 2 ft diameter Pipe Piles Figure 8 — Piers A43 and A46, Liquefied MDE Lateral Response, 2 ft diameter Pipe Piles Figure 9 — Liquefaction Evaluation AB -16A W:\ Projects \14000s114550 Sound Transil\TechnIcal Memos \Tech Memo 2 1Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc Sound Transit April 29, 2003 Station 584 +50 to 594 +00 (Piers A -43 through A-46) This technical memorandum provides preliminary design recommendations for piers between Stations 584 +50 to 594 +00 (piers A -43 through A -46) at the Duwamish River crossing. Based on our understanding of the project, pile supported footings are the anticipated foundation alternative for piers A -43 through A -46. Large span lengths and high earthquake overturning loads likely prohibit pier support on single shafts. Shaft groups would likely require cap footings of similar dimensions to pile supported footings and pile supported footings are considered likely to be less expensive. A spread footing alternate, while technically feasible, is not considered as a foundation alternative since the overturning loads would require very large footing dimensions. Load Cases and Conventions On the basis of recent meetings and conversations with HMM /IBT, the aerial guideway foundations will be designed using a limit state approach. Although the loads and specific design considerations do not exactly match the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD; AASHTO, 1998), the terminology with respect to limit states will generally be followed. We understand the following four load cases are important for foundation design. For clarity, we developed the following (load case - associated) terminology to express the recommended foundation design parameters. Service Limit State This is analogous to the AASHTO Service I Limit State (AASHTO, 1998). The recommended foundation design parameters will be termed "nominal service" for this load case (e.g., nominal service bearing resistance for spread footings, or nominal service shaft axial resistance). Since the track will be leveled to operational tolerances after all significant dead loads are applied, settlement sensitivity for this load case is limited to live load considerations. However, excessive leveling of the tracks will not be desirable. Therefore foundations should be designed for less than about 3 inches of settlement under structure dead load. Settlement under live load (post construction settlement) should not exceed 1 inch unless otherwise approved (per HMM /IBT displacement criteria). Differential settlement between adjacent columns under live load should not exceed 6/L = 1/1200. For 120 -foot spans this is about 1% inch. Strength Limit State This is the AASHTO ultimate loading condition that considers maximum live loading (i.e., simultaneous trains, maximum load factors). There is no ride - ability consideration, but total pier deflections (settlement) will be kept to 2 inches or less under the maximum live load (post- ., Pape 4 N W: \ Projects\14000s \14550 Sound Transit \Technical Memos \Tech Memo 2 \Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 4 : tc�nrrt• necu ..s',�r•.r�r�'Z "sr,R ^..'�t!H.Y. 51,RO Yr? "d4.R1. Sound Transit April 29, 2003 Soil Profile Type ODE Seismic Load Case (Extreme Limit State Case I) MDE Seismic Load Case (Extreme Limit State Case II) 2-91M-14550-0 Page 5 construction settlement). The recommended foundation design parameters will always be termed "nominal strength" for this load case (e.g., nominal strength bearing resistance for spread footings, or nominal strength shaft axial resistance). This load case is defined by the Design Criteria Manual (STDC, 2001). The foundation design parameters will always be termed "nominal ODE" for this load case (e.g., nominal ODE bearing resistance for spread footings, or nominal ODE shaft axial resistance). The recommended design parameters will be developed to ensure operational status after the design ODE event. Pier settlement criteria are the same as for the Service Limit State as described above. This load case is defined by the Design Criteria Manual (STDC, 2001). The foundation design parameters will always be termed "nominal MDE" for this load case (e.g., nominal MDE bearing resistance for spread footings, or nominal MDE pile axial resistance). The parameters will be further delineated for both the "peak, nominal MDE" and "post- liquefied, nominal MDE" in the case where liquefaction is expected to occur. The recommended design parameters will be developed to prevent structural collapse during or after the design MDE event. Preliminary site - specific response analyses were conducted for this segment (Figures 1 and 2) and are recommended in lieu of the Sound Transit generalized criteria for the ODE and MDE. Liquefaction Potential and Ground Improvement Liquefaction of saturated sands occurs when the sands are subject to cyclic loading. The cyclic loading causes the water pressure to increase in the sand, reducing the intergranular stresses. As the intergranular stresses are reduced, the shearing resistance of the sand decreases. If pore pressures develop to the point where the effective stresses acting between the grains become zero, the soil will behave like a viscous fluid. Under this condition soil flow is possible. The effect of liquefaction can range from reduced shear strength to viscous fluid behavior. The potential for liquefaction was assessed using the procedure originally developed by Seed and modified in 1996 and 1998 NCEER /NSF workshops (Youd et al., 2001) for the available subsurface information and the characterizations provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Design Report (Shannon and Wilson, 2002) for the Operating Design Earthquake (ODE) (i.e. M =7.5 and PGA= 0.18g) and Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) (i.e. M =7.5 and PGA = 0.77g). The characterizations for the level of ground motion for the ODE and MDE may be changed in our final analyses, but these changes are not expected to result in differing -'xr `:r "` ;;-t Or W:\ Projects \14000x\14550 Sound Transit \Technical Memos \Tech Memo 2 \Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc ' u�kYA yy�Y A?ptt Sound Transit April 29, 2003 conclusions regarding the liquefaction potential or the design parameters associated with the shaft design. The resulting calculated factors of safety to resist liquefaction at each SPT sample location from the site borings are summarized on Figures 3 through 6. The factors of safety were computed assuming saturation of the soils below a depth of 10 feet. There does not appear to be potential for large seasonal fluctuations in the ground water level. The ground water level will likely be influenced by the elevation of the water in the Duwamish River, but again, this variation is not expected to be large, and the ground water level assumed for the liquefaction analyses is conservatively high (i.e., river level fluctuations are expected to be generally below the depth assumed for the analyses). The liquefaction potential was not evaluated for materials with corrected SPT blow counts higher than 30, because SPT values above 30 fall outside of the range where liquefaction has been observed, regardless of the computed cyclic stress ratio of the earthquake. As can be seen on Figures 3 through 6, liquefaction was found to be likely under the ODE at depths ranging from about 10 to 25 feet below grade, and in thin layers below a depth of 25 feet. Under the MDE, widespread liquefaction is predicted to depths of at least 50 feet. The potential for lateral spreading under liquefied conditions for both the ODE and MDE event is considered high for this section of structure because of the liquefaction potential and the slope break at the channel of the Duwamish River. We recommend mitigating the potential for lateral spreading and possible damage to the main span piers by improving (densifying) the ground around the piers. Because construction access will be difficult or not possible on the river side of the pier, the ground improvement zone should extend in a horseshoe -shape around the side of the pier away from the river. This approach would allow the ground to fail away from the pier on the river side, but the pier and stabilized soil mass behind the pier would be protected from excessive movement. Ground improvement should be oriented toward increasing the relative density of the liquefaction susceptible soils. The ground improvement should be obtained using a performance construction specification that requires that the selected densification method achieves Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blowcounts, corrected for atmospheric pressure and hammer efficiency, (N16o), of 30 or greater. Densification should be verified by post- treatment SPT testing between densification points. The treatment area may preliminarily be assumed to include a 30 -foot zone beyond the perimeter of the pile cap, in a horseshoe -shape extending along both transverse sides of the footing and around the side of the footing away from the river. The depth of densification should extend a minimum of 50 feet below the ground surface. Preliminary analyses indicate that it is only necessary to densify the soils around the main span piers immediately adjacent to the river. The back span piers are located sufficiently far from the slope break at the river to be affected by free -field lateral spreading that may occur up and downstream of the elevated guideway. Foundation Alternatives and Recommended Pile Type 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 6 W:\ Projects \14000s \14550 Sound Transit \Technical Memos\Tech Memo 2\Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc Page Ei tt Ise Sound Transit 2-91M-14550-0 April 29, 2003 Page 7 Due to the large span lengths, the earthquake overturning loads are likely too high to consider pier support on single shafts. Shaft groups would likely require cap footings of similar dimensions to a pile supported footing, and since piles are likely Tess expensive, we generally concur with the choice of piles for these piers. Spread footings, while theoretically feasible if ground improvement is provided, would likely be very large (50 feet or greater) since the overturning Toads are more than twice as high as the "typical" segments north and south of the Duwamish River. In our original technical memorandum for this segment (Tech Memo 2, Rev 0), we initially recommended considering 36 -inch diameter closed -end pipe piles filled with reinforced concrete. This conclusion did not include consideration of the effects of ground improvement for mitigation of lateral spreading potential under liquefied conditions. After consideration of the improved lateral response provided by the densified ground, we recommend considering 24- inch diameter piles as the preferred pile type for all four piers of the Duwamish River long span crossing. Pile Axial Load Capacity We expect 24 -inch diameter, closed- ended, cast -in -place concrete piles will be the best choice for all the Duwamish long span piers. Pile capacities were estimated using pile dynamic measurements and CAPWAP results from the First Avenue South new bridge and rehabilitation projects. Ultimate pile capacities (for use with any load case except service Toad design) in the range of 1,000 kips should be feasible. The estimated tip elevations at each pier are summarized in Table 1, along with nominal resistances and resistance factors for the various limit states. Pile spacing should be at least 3 times the diameter. There will be no axial capacity group effects for piles at this spacing or greater. P Mc —+ A preliminary check of n 1 was made for a pile group of 4 x 5, 24 -inch diameter piles spaced at 3D (long direction is transverse) for each pier. In this configuration and using the preliminary MDE loads on the pier at bottom of column provided by HMM /IBT, an ultimate pile capacity of 1,000 kips appears conceptually feasible. Construction Considerations Due to the presence of the medium dense sand layer in the depth range of 25 to 70 feet below the ground surface of the soil profile in this section, pile drivability will need to be considered. A pile wall thickness of 0.5 -inch and Grade II steel (fy = 36 ksi) may be preliminarily assumed, although other sections may also be feasible. A pile drivability analysis should be performed before finalizing pile driving specifications for establishing minimum hammer energy requirements. The resistance factors recommended in Table 1 assume that pile driving acceptance criteria will include pile driving analyzer (PDA) measurements and CAPWAP analysis performed on at least W:\ Projects \140005114550 Sound TransiI Technical Memos\Tech Memo 21Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PILE FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 24 -inch CONCRETE - FILLED STEEL PIPE PILES Load Case Nominal Resistance Resistance Factor Estimated Tip Elevation (feet) End Pier A -43 (Sta. 585 +00) Service 400 kips 1.0 -120 Strength 1,000 kips 0.6 -120 ODE 800 kips 1.0 -120 MDE (peak or post- liquefaction) 1,000 kips 1.0 -120 Main Span Piers, A -44 & 45 (Sta. 587 +50 and 591 +00) Service 400 kips 1.0 -130 (north)/ -150 (south) Strength 1,000 kips 0.6 -130 (north) / -150 (south) ODE 800 kips 1.0 -130 (north) / -150 (south) MDE (peak or post- liquefaction) 1,000 kips 1.0 -130 (north) / -150 (south) End Pier A -46 (Sta. 593 +50) Service 400 kips 1.0 -130 Strength 1,000 kips 0.6 -130 ODE 800 kips 1.0 -130 MDE (peak or post- liquefaction) 1,000 kips 1.0 -130 Sound Transit April 29, 2003 one test pile in each pier. Non - liquefied Individual Pile Lateral Response 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 8 Provided pile caps (footings) are no deeper than about elevation +8 to 10 feet dewatering and seals should not be necessary. Advisory specifications should alert contractors to the potential need for dewatering and /or seals depending on the water level in the Duwamish River at time of construction. With ground improvement recommended for the main span piers, this case is only applicable to the end -span piers (Piers 43 and 46, Stations 585 +00.5 and 593 +50.5). W:\ Projects114000s \14550 Sound Transit\Technical Memos\Tech Memo 2\Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc Page 81 Sound Transit April 29, 2003 A preliminary analysis of the lateral response of an individual 24 -inch diameter pile was modeled using AU-Pile, Version 5. The deflections, moments and shears for the anticipated MDE applied shear load only at the top of the pile are summarized in Figure 7. No consideration for development of a cracked section was assumed. A composite section modulus, E, of 6,975 kip /inch2 was used in the analysis, which includes the steel shell and 0.5% reinforcement in the cast -in -place concrete. The boundary condition assumed was a fixed head. These calculations did not consider the stiffness that may be provided by the pile cap (footing). Group effects were considered in the analysis in accordance with the WSDOT Bridge Design Manual (i.e., for pile spacing of 3D, a group efficiency factor of 0.5 was applied to the strength and stiffness soil parameters in the All -Pile analysis). Potentially Liquefied Individual Pile Lateral Response With ground improvement recommended for the main span piers, this case is only applicable to the end -span piers (Piers 43 and 46, Stations 585 +00.5 and 593 +50.5). A preliminary analysis of the lateral response of an individual pile was modeled using All -Pile, Version 5. The deflections, moments and shears for the anticipated MDE applied shear load only at the top of the pile are summarized in Figure 8. All other conditions and assumptions of the analysis were as stated above for the non - liquefied case. Individual Pile Lateral Response with Ground Improvement This case is only applicable to piers with ground improvement (e.g., main span piers 44 and 45, Stations 587 +50.5 and 591 +00.5). A preliminary analysis of the lateral response of an individual pile was modeled using All -Pile, Version 5. The deflections, moments and shears for the anticipated MDE applied shear load only at the top of the pile are summarized in Figure 9. All other conditions and assumptions of the analysis were as stated above for the non - liquefied case. W:\ Projects 14000s\14550 Sound Transit\Technical Memos\Tech Memo 2 \Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc Page 9 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 9 Sound Transit April 29, 2003 References AASHTO, 1998 (with interims). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2nd edition, (with 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 interims), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Shannon & Wilson, 2002. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations Report, S. Boeing Access Rd. to S. 154'h St. Contract No. D755. STDC, 2001. Sound Transit Design Criteria Manual, including Seismic Appendix, Sound Transit Youd, T.L. et al., 2001, "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER /NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils ", Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 10, p. 817 -833. W:\ Protects \14000s \14550 Sound Transit \Technical Memos \Tech Memo 2\Tech Memo 2 Rev 1.doc 2 -91 M- 14550 -0 Page 10 Page 1U i 4 10 ..• . e surt,il 0 a � • , . -�� . 1 1 r.3. 1 pi a .`�RE Eh_�: AI NI I MNIE V4 •�, vimri OLYS86w.1a PAW .• ►,�.��• . ..ytiv ► + �0:� � —Kobe NS .17 PAW i!1�w'i. : „h:NS 1. ,`�►r•► `� C3 r1 + ill. , i ■ ,, ♦ � t . o . ..�i . t ►�. . i w rawsw...pt .-.4.4amirLarieim Asoolorkimprirtitribrigsbi 0.5 ■ Alai. NEENI ►�0.. 1 : ',I I4. 1 r t k4 P i r i e,„,. 4•WAfilarAblIPOWS.44ENPAOrd AMilir4 W7 '4 AlAW°iiggir "A 1 A1"4Ak92N6' vipAp4;904■ Nor 7444 N .11 490 0.01 `�wra.�:.v.. ■■ ,..��..� - i t..1... 2 001 0.05 0.1 0.5 t F 10 0.05 Period (seconds) 1. Spectra correspond to free field motions at tie foundation level for 5 %damping 2. Vertical motions correspond to 2/3 of the horizontal values. eine& Sound Transit Light Rail DS755 Piers A -33 to A-42 ODE Surf ace Response Spectra Sta 575 - Rock @ 270' P ect Nn 02 I Fvure Na F;. atYi'. �9°. �C� !��i5+'.�1•!Yw�R�3�.J..�i7iY l ..i i_.n�` : t...- �YES'r't 10 5 1 0.5 0 0.05 0.01 .4. Cf. b1a.0 . ri.��I- av2ia�� ∎ MEMI y 1 �I / /i!I� WAN O S uchil 0.34 rILIAI M �M WAIT •�► U \I, C ;f0JINS�� OLYS66W . 34 ram •1 ► � s, � $ p i.��Irah _ � EM r.Z , 7w`au+,vmr...a� y 4 i♦ r �• Kobe � ��,�,�.�,� n • .. I P Lnsilt `� Kobe EW .55 I 4�► 1 /ia' �ri��r g/ r,-ri, Kobe N.70 r �v 1,7 7,-c 1s.`: 66 h 7 r .. !: iii 97UBCZ3 -SD �, !/� �; � `!�4X,l� \ ��t ` j 4 ' . 7 i'► ♦ .4x0 1 � , � . nr.:4r.w .r.. Iowa._. �. . � : ov4 .a 4-4 , 4 0 - , � ' , � �-i�o - ` R.��.Q ►AA:w4 / . Ili 11 I 41 ��,fai.,_. of �. ► ►��.►�!a�/ r!a Zv ii 7 ,,. , ,, .... „,....',. ,„: .�C.' tttttttttt„� ,,......... .�i , !� v I SO \ I '�O`' . ��.�a,lk► "•'�� n � iC 'fir itairaMMii3011 ∎ . �, ' /.viiA. .! . NiO►.:m.$1. ±� ∎ =1 I ∎ � +;.;�:Y 00 ∎4 - *wine” '' 44g r p,, ∎∎v kolCli ►./.1 . t tA;i C ti 0.01 0.05 0.1 Sound Transit Light Rail DS 755 Piers A -33 to A-42 Period (seconds) 0.5 1. Spectra correspond to free field motions at the foundation level for 5 %damping 2. Vertical motions correspond to 213 of the horizontal values. Project No. MDESurface Response Spectra Sta 575 - Rock @ 270' 02 -088 re3tre No. 5 2 10 J 5 1 15 20 25 30 f o. 35 v 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Factor of Safety 0 0.5 1 1 .5 2 0 I 1 1 I I I I I • 0 s • • • • • V Assured GVVr - 0 = - 0 0 • o • • 0 0 I I I I i 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 O Liquefaction FS (ODE) NL Not Liquefiable (ODE) • Liquefaction FS (NDE) NL Not Liquefiable (UDE) 0- M. h3. • Fa. 0- • t� Notes: 1) The Operating Design Earthquake (ODE) is a Iv1=7.5 event, with a PGA of 0.18g. 2) The Maximum Design Earthquake (NDE) is a M=7.5 event, with a PGA of 0.77g. 3) Samples with conputed (N ,) values greater than 30, fines contents greater than 50%, or conputed factors of safety greater than 2.0 were considered not liquefiable. Sound Transit Light Rail DS 755 Piers A43 to A-42 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION BORING AB -17 Project No. 02-066 Figure No. 434;`,r 4 oti= cL ifi;c.SAcrotCWfs3z. -&1.44:4i4d" acidw'- roaia +.d.U'iLL.tcri.'3'� r� s Pope4 ' —_ 5 10 15 20 25 30 *s 35 � 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 O O Factor ofSafety 0.5 1 1.S 2 . .. - - _ _ - - - - • a • • • • • • • p � q p p . .. .|. .. .| / ' . lit 1 w 0- m Liquefaction FS(}oE) NL Not Liquefiable (]oE) • Liquefaction FS (fV1J NL Not Liquefiable (NEE) 1) The Operating Design Earthquake (OCE) is a A@7.5 event, Wth a PGA of 0.18g. 2) The Maxirrurn Design Earthquake (WE) is a AV7.5 event, Wth a PGA of 0.77g. 3) Sarrples Wth corrputed (N ) values greater than 30, fines contents greater than 50%, or corrputed factors of safety greater than 2.0 vere considered not liquefiable. Sound Transit Llght Rail DS 755 Piers A-omA-m LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION BORING AB-18 ?rciect No. Rgure No. 4 Nage 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 a 35 a, 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 Factor of Safety 0.5 1 1 .5 2 I v Assurred GW • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • I t 0 • o 0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 • o 0 O 0 • o I I I I O Liquefaction FS (ODE) NL Not Liquefiable (ODE) a Liquefaction FS (NEE) NL Not Liquefiable (NEE) Notes: 1) The Operating Design Earthquake (ODE) is a M=7.5 event, Wth a PGA of 0.18g. 2) The Maxinum Design Earthquake (NEE) is a M=7.5 event, Wth a PGA of 0.77g. 3) Sarrples Wth computed (N r ) , values greater than 30, fines contents greater than 50 %, or computed factors of safety greater than 2.0 vere considered not liquefiable. Sound Transit Light Rail DS 755 Piers A -33 to A-42 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION BORING AB -19 arol ect No. 'Figure No. 02086 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 a� 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 0.5 Factor of Safety 1 1 .5 2 I V Assurred GWr - - Lab Data for Boring AB Not Available O Liquefaction FS (ODE) NI. Not Liquefiable (ODE) • Liquefaction FS (NEE) NL Not Liquefiable (NEE) Notes: 1) The Operating Design Earthquake (ODE) Is a M=7.5 event, vtiith a PGA of 0.18g. 2) The Maximum Cesign Earthquake (NEE) is a W7.5 event, vuth a PGA of 0.77g. 3) Sarrples Wth corrputed (N ,) f values greater than 30, fines contents greater than 50%, or corrputed factors of safety greater than 2.0 %ere considered not liquefiable. Sound Transit Light Rail DS 755 Piers A-33 to A-42 LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION BORING AB-20 Project No. Aguie rb. 02-086 6 3 44A: ut 't;tak5oai`ti.11FL"Sr'wit . u'CiSd(Gt ..ressMiwl6+Ltt0.Qni..lMAtlYIMA II l �ne+M , 3'�¢ Na e til 150 ammo CO Figure 7 Non-Liquefied MDE Lateral Response for Piers A-43 and A-46 Sta. 585+00.5 and 593+50.5 2-Foot Diameter Plies (4 x 5 Pile Group) COLE/ On'IIM r t,”•■■■••^V. ,•• • • ••"••••-••••••••••ort ..-c .• yO0 0(041 610 :Cr = Pl •' 0 — Navaho 1.1o. W5.d2*.054 blOoD4.1.1•14 Sound Transit Light Rail: DS755 ELM Applied Load (Fixed Head) Per shear: 2,150 kips shear / pile: 108 kips 0 COO 715 C0o20 .0 0 725 2* 000 0 J5V—s r 21 es - - n - me ens so M I2* e • COO—. Or• 123 .- Ox•I =ood 5 .... , Car — El • 1. MS koht VOnom6313 Stoo•1011 0 GR.0 150 ,ac - nwrrrwev +T�++.<'rnw -nom Flo Ka YAW Pl. Tp 10 1KTOM7+M — 13CE.e1 Mac. 0410:11:n. 0 Figure 8 Liquefied MDE Lateral Response for Piers A-43 and A-46 Sta. 585 +00.5 and 593 +50.5 2 -Foot Diameter Piles (4 x 5 Pile Group) e.or 32011 Yae /.Y bN r Wlr.1• V •2® im 0 70 +++1i1++ Sound Transit Light Rail: DS755 --� -_ - I'age J I Applied Load (Fixed Head) Pier Shear 2,150 kips Shear 1 File: 108 kips a te no Cti6t 1•16,7 y6 J 1 » 600 n• IS • -w 1r 61515 a� 50 - 00 YM b 440 • ,OD -ea- ,Ti 0• ,n - 123 Yv+OPS-- EI.1.70E.7000M • -- •• AWL ibrr � /•1321.7 1.r. St•1060 pFq Z I= C 00 to ❑ W= . J i— ts) LL VJ IO W I— 0 Z I— ❑ • ❑ U o W W I=— U L- O .. Z UW O ~. Z ,,r . . ��.. v- ..:i.•Ys- i.:5b.f:.%%x:'.a.eae a: e4, A+:} u54 4:4 , 4.:iv , a4,4:31400«F.^l:wt.'r1'i i"W.44V+. ,:ii., i+nki..L1[cic.5' slMd2liliiJ.4�+d1:i1�" - ••s+`'� ae .t..N::J ,•. •,. :. s: <fi+:.�i;ir... sJ..._..L+1.._ _r v ..k w... ^�_a.. u Z �:.. s,, �,i::+r•:,iri:dr.wa.�. ,.�,� <:�.wt:'.. KLI10105: De PM Hutt 41 - W1• Plc 1p Figure 9 Lateral Response with Improved G round for P sets A-44 and A-45 Sta. 587+ 50.5 and 591+00.5 2 -Foot Diameter Piles (4 x 5 P ile Group) DBLC10nr/b 00,090,111 40.1 Sound Transit Light Rail: DS755 Bents A-44 to A47 Duwamish Longspan Heed 5hr.1500 1M. Sls•11Q0 gage y -as Applied Load (Fixed Head) Pier Shear. 3,130 kips Shear/ Pile: 160 kips O etl PSI CMNC 10115 00 115 115 000 100 — 71 r dEM - 173 - • - 7r' '000' 75 — stow - ir vile gym nr ®141 - w - - .1r ..0 - -�-- rMe 0 � 75 100 175 El • 1.14 E•0 311p412 - CRF.05 ISO - , k` - ",+.z x3 „i4S1&�rL`.Y.•ri4;- (£+c.k . Xs " Li �,ta a�w }:ft i . 1n , �1: [;7:4;a: >.:1:! »:ht 1.'.ur�YS.rq 6d a1� +i�:.ti!:aa.COU:.xii.'.1 ni:Ll ti4Z,Z∎ t,:a.z, IT SOUNDTRANSIT Date July 9, 2003 TO: Jack Pace, Deputy Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila FROM: James Irish, Environmental Manager Link Light Rail SUBJECT: Shoreline Permit, Geologic and Archaeological Sensitive Areas Sound Transit review of the Tukwila segment of the Central Link Light Rail Project under NEPA/SEPA and Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act indicates there are no known archaeological sites in the project vicinity. This review is documented in the Central Link Light Rail Transit Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Freeway Route, November 2001, and the Historic Archaeological Resources and Geoarchaeological Resources Assessments for the Central Link Light Rail Project (attached). However, the reports indicate the Central Link Light Rail project has moderate to high probability for paleontological and prehistoric archaeological resources and moderate to low probability for historic archaeological resources in the area of the requested shoreline permit on the north and south banks of the Duwamish River at the Marginal Way crossing. The attached maps depict the Archaeological and Paleontological High and Moderate Probability Areas (HMPA). Because the Ray - Carosino Farmstead has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, archaeological deposits associated could also be eligible. Therefore, two probes were placed at the farmstead, but no buried historic archaeological deposits were found. However, because the route in the vicinity of the Farmstead traverses territory that was included in the area's earliest Euroamerican claims in the Duwamish floodplain, the Farmstead area retains the moderate probability that some early historic remains may be present. Sound Transit entered into a Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding development of the Central Link Light Rail transit project (attached). Pursuant to that agreement, Sound Transit will monitor construction of the project in the HMPAs according to the methodology outlined in the Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment (ARMT) plan. The ARMT will be provided to the City for review prior to construction. The applicable federal and state regulations are listed in the ARMT: Chapters 27.34, 27.53, 27.44, 79.01, and 79.09 RCW, and Chapter 25.43 WAC. The ARMT provides monitoring procedures including techniques, resource identification, stop work orders, and steps if human remains are found; requires Sound Transit to notify the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and affected Tribes; outlines communication procedures with the contractor affected Tribes, and agencies; identifies areas of potential archaeological significance; and specifies development of supplemental treatment plans for eligible properties discovered during construction. The ARMT states that any Supplemental Treatment Plan will be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation (48FR 44734 - 44737) and ACHP's Treatment of Archaeological MEMO Fa • e • ;rte..,., Lr SOUNDTRANSIT MEMO Properties and include research design, methodologies for investigation and data analysis, and curation of materials and records. Finally, the ARMT states that monitoring staff will meet the National Park Service qualifications for professional archaeologists, the U.S. Department of the Interior qualifications for professional archaeologists set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 48, No. 190:44739, and the Register of Professional Archaeologists guidelines identifying professional archaeologists with specialties in fieldwork, collections analysis, and archival work. Contract Documents The contract documents for construction will include a special provision that requires the contractor to comply with the requirements of Chapter 27.53 RCW — Archaeological Sites and Resources and to immediately notify Sound Transit if any artifacts, skeletal remains, or other archaeological resources (as defined under RCW 27.53.040) are unearthed during excavation or otherwise discovered on the site. The provision will further state that the contractor will immediately suspend any construction activity that would be in violation of Chapter 27.53 RCW and that the suspension of work will remain in effect until permission to proceed has been obtained by Sound Transit from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The discovery of human remains or burial sites will be explicitly addressed in the special provision, directing adherence to the procedures of Chapter 27.44 WAC in the event that a Native American burial is encountered. The special provision will also define the roles of the contractor and the project archaeologist in implementing the Archaeological Resources Monitoring and Treatment (ARMT) plan. kilLteEtki Page 2 • State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanaci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I C ►'1(t t I ei Wr\S - en (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on CC (\-. 18 Zoo3 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were po on the property located at E. AlAro: ,... k wa y Cuss;,, „k 4L 9a" to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number L o3— 041 I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose the sign owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice s Signature On this day personally appeared before me Ch S Towvt S«1') to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 0 3 day of /LPG c NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the te of Washi : on residing at V e V -- _ My commission expires on 1 TERESA J. LAPET NO NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 20; 2005 3 - 1 J-oi o S J 2043 Z W 6 U o0 CO • LLI J H • w W O LL. ?. • d = W Z I— ZI- W U� O 2 O 1— W W I I— �'O Z W O ~' Z FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -SHORE Planner: File Number: Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: Name: Signatur Address: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us SHORELINE PERMIT NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: Link Light Rail - Design Segment 755 (?) LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and ); subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL 10 DIGIT PARCEL NUMBERS. River Mile 7 on the Duwamish River immediately downstream and adjacent to the East Marginal Way Bridge. Parcel numbers 1023049060, 1023049055, 1023049071, 1023049011, 1023049057, 1023049076 Quarter: NE Section: 10 Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Chris Townsend 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104 1 %1'hone: 206 39 35 rt•�� w ....�n a W i.w�a .��cunai wr• nor mull= FAX: 206 398 -5222 Date: / f 03 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH BRIDGE (SOUTHBOUND LANE) 553- 2530- 003!06(02) 2/04 (K) SOUND RAN I T Figure 4 Schematic Detail of Ductbank Location Under E. Marginal Way S. Bridge, Cross Section, TFR 111 r I II Blue Lights over the Duwamish A series of curved pipe rail extentions that terminate in a 6" long cluster of saphire blue LEDs. The Lights turn on for 1 minute as the trains approch and pass. Lights will be active the hours the trains are in operation. Figure 5 Bridge Public Art, TFR NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. F.Ure7 Os • re . Nest Location , v • NtFnvirnmmamal SeamenlTuke4la\Osorey nest mitioationWesl tocatlon1.mxd kit 6/3/04 Cecil Moses Memorial Park 200' Shoreline Buffer - - - Green River Trail —f--H Tukwila Freeway Route Parcels 0 300 SUVA :DTMNs:r Feet SOUND TRANSIT /2004 No guarantee of any implied. including accuracy. completeness. or fitness for use. NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. N'1Fnviranmpntat Cmmnkance\Link\Initial Seament\Tukwila\Osorey nest mitioation\Nest_locationt.mxd kjl 6/3/04 11 2 -- mg —}---] Tukwila Freeway Route NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR FLAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Cecil Moses Memorial Park 200' Shoreline Buffer Green River Trail Parcels 0 300 Feet SOUNDT.WISIT SOUND TRANSIT /2004 No guarantee of any implied. including accuracy. completeness, or fitness for use. \‘, • N.. --- Blue Lights over the Duwamish A series of curved pipe rail extentions that terminate in a 6" long cluster of saphire blue LEDs. The Lights turn on for 1 minute as the trains approch and pass. Lights will be active the hours the trains are in operation. SOUNDTRANSIT , .. ,, ■ - • • Figure 5 Bridge Public Art, TFR NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR1HAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. BRIDGE COMPONENT HEIGHT ABOVE 04184 TOP OF 00S POLE EL 78.40' 69.9 FTFT TOP OF HANDRAIL EL 5680 48.1 FEET TOP OF LRT RAILS El 53.40 44.9 FEET BRIDGE COMPONENT HEIGHT ABOVE AVG. GRADE TOP OF OCS POLE 53.2 FEET TOP OF HANDRAIL 31.4 FEET TOP OF IRE RAILS 28.2 FEET DORA ISH BRIDGE OVER RIVER (OHNL -El. 8.5') DIATAMISH BRIDGE OVER LAND (AVERAGE GRADE - EL 27.0') 553- 2535 - 003106!02 3104 (K) -SOUNDTI L1!' JSIT / -100 YEAR FLOOD EL 1193' n 350' OMWA415H RIVER 7 TOP OF OCS POLE El. 78.40' TOP OF HANDRAIL EL 56.60' TOP OF LRT RAILS EL. 53.40' U/S BRIDGE EL. 45.2 AVERAGE GRADE El. 27.0 • ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHW4) �_ MARK EL 8.5' ---1_ TOP OF 005 POLE EL 80.20' TOP OF HANORAIL EL 58.40' TOP OF LRT RAILS EL 55.20' NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Figure 3 Proposed Bridge at Green - Duwamish River Cross Section Link Light Rail •••5 :111 I2•YS 11NIa3d ay 6v. , ONIS50213 2I3AI El HS 1 71118 8 0- 313 3 210 IV 3301 He 11 V21 111011 804 1N31Y3A02ldry 1 ONOOHO ONY NO 11V3O13a 3SflOH1@N4 'ON IONf1081083ONf1 A11'11111 5,9070905 1611 Wad 8781 0341130 801103373 01071 35118 39171 31105 311 9111M 7718 5110I11N11301(709 S36 NI 5/80330 OW 60111113711 19 33171 3111 .11 57117710.6 3111 XBYn 1111!1 5101Y71 NOM( 19 11.317 3111 871 1631 711277 31Y1S AOlONINTrM 3111 SI 831*51 657111 41681010 9311015 711011 V Jr 331110111,0 11100 10 11831 031615 311 8111118 53011 1010 776 19 37706 3391360 80 N991111 311 SI 111311 3111171 77011 3111 804 11831 513131131103600 Waal! 311 51 1131011 81131 8'317 370118 311 111 (.771) 071 l * 31011613036 A 33117 3W 11118 1110 Wb9Y NI 01* 177W6 76011 3N111 Ao+n Y3f 3136/0 A0146•373 3111 97111 83117111 1333 00 SI 1171111 .8316* 117 1 31 6 63111. 8173 (11771) 071 19 83/11/373 NY $3631669030 59003915 6110 7911 YI1803NI 3708* 3111 30113015101 1013789.7 Y 38 cu 81131111 JON 500 (173217 8168 X/119) 371771801( 16711 771177)Y2N39 711012 Xi OW 300188 N10910 891104773 37 *985 NI 3710871310 ON 09103 5N311 *6373 MOWN61 77n15 33815 376013.310.0 1003 3W 3311 3113 311167 379687/d 310 801110 T • • 117131 121137602031090 NY 11118 131/L3701 1116 6873.71 380,363 - 06 NO 7794111 *9 140331 7NV1610N39 71011 161 60*1170 3W 11 .8331171 1 1 131 1017111 61*36. 1X7! N3010 0171 X 8911073733111 *mu •3/17111 1334 CI 0316 77 3 1 +3081 N0111 833019 /77+ I 5111 3304205 13168 03856316 0731! 371 3Y0 36605 3111 NO 151 16110171 lV (877M) CI .9 3011 10/31 870319 Y 0313)338.6378111 3011 311 7002 • 18*7036 NO 151 0,94001 tV 9385•38 5*• 710108 WAIN 16/10*01113 1113175 AYM 7Y11108*11 15*3 3111 lV (177 621 JO 6311114373 3064875 83101 - - T 1334 NI 37035 09 02 0 S7 O9 (11,3I13S6.3 1A110781SAW N0Ii.XI81SAOJ 111117 JlOUlOY•I11 175320 0»X(1 1 . 00 N011YA313 ,17 10 84071 j0 101 135 111VA 13N0d 9 *91 *07 00/50/27 LSI 3 MI5 500409 •110 5 •P11 mad .Of- .1 ••05 1 =PO 11SNYVION1105 1231 .0103111608 71117153864* 3118 9*81165 /6117Y070 Jr* 09001NMWYl 37961 3011 7877530118098Y111 WON 11080 532010 3011 53111910311 330(80 83618 16111Y113 3111 lV VW AB $00116433 0313185 07311 910710311 TOO: 77 180*8* NO 5874485 0117 19 99 -061131 01 0311 07311 56'M 3/81101139 76011 30 •761.221 30171)31471530 ;177.1r 3 .767 3/1i1O8 •01531116118 711*1 3/2915 7/11915 300* 3110) 81118 76/n0M/70. 30*160139 78011 26- 8015011600l (5^..075•) 500//Y20N NOW 87731 NI 53•33 3011 03/517•7/ 919710111 111•27♦ •11LUNIONEL= '%111931 7'•:011: 9 ��.��Y.T7I.t.IaIIY l�1 E.fYS. X••I:np %'tom trey. • �a�1♦�/]01•�n `fR5.T1 003 ✓:I (1916/I) 1.01164373 09073 3769.. 62 -07331 99-111YN 017761 5.8713011 IOU *4ID703`191 01*� bIN 709741020 31176 1333315 03111191080 a.•0A6*I 111 3•070 a71.2 )IF UHL S .0144 7YNI0NY11 3 01911139 A108190- 233X15 •1511 11100510 101 /8 NSIMIONO 168* 3311 8360 770189 3/1W5 108 7 NI58YI* 1503 311 1573 070/60110 30* 538'11 3011 A 37971 00180.01 3611 34011 9907 311081r (8770,) IZl 3331151130, 51911Y4373 311 7131/13679 7110/1 111rt70 300 3130 3111 IV 0*0 300 /0916131810 IV 0,000 IV 0463690 3834 5101Y3373 306185 131** 5103401 3170$ 77307 LL 380O997 AO 770189 3111 811 81/1116373 87168 10/11 11130, 3311 011/4 01 37I.YNNL7Y NY SY 3357 5*11 87116A37137YR175 83101 510.3017•15 V 300189 3111 19 0,11381511 80 *•0639 7110/1 ON SYM 383111 33111$ 7t1/05 37136* 3110 1* X8885'63'0 31011 50N/8*90 313 A IY381511 537111 /034/817 0319707 SI 370189 WOOS 1*11 711111081$ 1503 3111 7 19111 A 33117 3/11 873 010146w) 077 05 (877*) 0 11011V6373301183411 NY 0731A 01 0331/91107 5111109 XIS 3134 SA0110007 019 16 5766119 31109 NO 1011Y13034 19 33117 3111 0.78573n 861173 -73017 10113 •9320N1 $0081960017 1.33 001 0/311 Malta 3141 .9 3703 1530 30111.334713a 5801111707 3371311 111 X011• 13018.10 101 O1 X6•• 1137 A 001 0083 038511317 3838 $0911335 - 5509 81118 03030875 07311 alms 1199 110.IM SV 90)40433 )*1113. p 311)7 p59 .M7 ••17.711701070 02315•/11 0 i / 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t ) 3.5 5i- 10 61910180.55 3.5 - " ' -5-2 71OO 70 S 90110•373 .51 80014 40 101 135 17n *A 738 9.91.2( .r-z100 I 3/1175282060 '8 39 98040011 NY 151810111 '8 3 9 92.11219 0NY1170dVN 7` AB 0011.[ 31015181011 •8 39 0.9•05 .77r. aaJono 1 -(0" 4000,311 ® alms 3$91n0t war" "snv• 0333 201/rum l.Wlb - 00 -- 11/v9) 40,.0. -) - mind c:9vmcol 34385.8/ 19149001 718.00 Ad. N 1g1137815N07 .30 111117 8193701 -- -21 - -- tw. 0033171 7107 A. P pals S.v0f111 woo. 0 98/0711• 3801 8 2011•73177 ,0 SOD 11390 N•1• 1009 w110K 371 OS S swu..1 C 11 •9 ' 1 )50T3977 8207 0r.. _ 620658 • II71*0 1 01 *0 /573108* 89337861 8* 0961 6.34110 97)184 1173lany 3110031 990.1171 All eV .03/1.4 7830,*1 33175 03119903 3.00 7*81103 £1159181 0•05) 51116166669 49 5311131101007 35330 17/11797 8391 515 158)1 (171377.1=1. 3 13110075 109)1 CS6 40/ 3100106707 317100/11518 31/1 Of 1836603 01 5931/1510 031080 0305Y310 /67539109 OW (1737136717d 3*71 *0 7,007 .7*•1837. 51150991 0805 01 0336383338 38* 531*11/3503 03001 031[001 9000 3 42 91190139® 01V10111 WON 310 5111•11141 34766 0191)10, 150 - Old •s'1/ C 0, 0411 8 � 1071. 1079 I71•77e O (9100 Sr) E. 09•1830( 2019 Tad 7117)31 .770111371J-0- 01310( 203490011851 31 111[5 X:= 0 111.10 Ot 01911910 wl .7..7 010 1.077 ♦. 71.4105..10 90 0176 Sh 0 NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT 1S DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. -5 • • 9 • z S55_G57_GGL., —LAG o - o > C —t C - o 0 cn rn PO 0 CO —I Z :: m C: P3 CD > * C") — <. m — > 0 0 0 m C) o co II z _ rn z w ...... co r- = > —1 in 0 m --i 71 — 0 0 > < cn —I Z c m m (/) - i Ln x r - —I — --t r , I 0 cp m = 73 xi --1 I > 70 Z > CJI N 0 0 • 0--C 7.1 Z z� 0 > —I z a cn — — m r 100' STREAM BUFFER 200 SHORELINE ZONE ( GROUND L I N E AT CENTERLINE OF AERIAL STRUCTURE P I L E CAPS 30X36 (TYP) 200' SHORELINE ZONE 0 II'-0"X13'-4" 100' STREAM BUFFER PLAN SCALE: 1". TOP OF 100 YEAR FLOOD BANK EL. 12.9' 0 350-0" ORDINARY H I G H WATER MARK EL 8.50 LRT BRIDGE ELEVAT I ON SCALE: 1"=80' 0 : I t P I L E CAPS 30X361 (TYP) AVERAGE GRADE EL 27.0— 100' STREAM BUFFER (.4 cr) 100' STREAM BUFFER ( 200' SHORELINE ZONE cn 200' SHORELINE ZONE TOP OF RA IL TOP OF GIRDER SELECTED FILL MATERIAL NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. • (f 0 • rz' If l r i1 r r[_. )l �fICI,r,IP.,! p 1)1 I 1:1 . 111T11iI Ii 1 111!II1i 1111111 I11111,1 r Inch 1 /18. �! L.'tl�UI y • ,,•c :. • • t+ �... E.6 1; E W 1111.11111 1.11.>1.1_ 1.l. 111 11ii1Ilu. Iluii 1111111i11I�1�1.I1111I-1i111i:111 14111ii �1�IIi111 .t1.111111I 11111lliill it l;iiii.ifIllI P.111111Il 111111i11O [_ E Cr) a) ca n ........ ...... cis ---.----,.._ +a ea o s =CB C • ' ... '3 )L Y' .. :. ; :t �.� )f y t 'Ett L n r,. zs �� .. .• .. 3ti 7 4 1 1gj 0. x- L :14-0.. K; ^ ti �Yt�r y. S S a d�"�S ! l W � ' t its L ,�, } / +c a `Z+ ii l 14 ty � • +. `" rr��, L r , .,�� /" 444 'woo „ ~ • . , , ' ` .._. _ 1. r � .1 •'.; �', . 1 `I it T . .. . " ;14 , I ( S [ 1 : { . ". Sl' t i„'. . 3((A S i q TM-- ,• a; }f } p t ilb a1 , :tt .t? {�:y.il2 i , 1 .. `�. � :� I S' . \ .fi I � '- SC .' J1 tr + t . 1` .s4ch' -' � r{ . i r . ' ' �3r7f 7 ;tn_lir4yj s> >, �1�1G { �T -,.. vl 'obi r:'.`,`i} 5 iTj t 1 { "� i`� ., , t '' ff ��•S '1 L ,{7 ' 4 A � , in ) ; cE Al' CC r �. �r • trti� _ ___ - • • ._ _____ I t jEZS�ii `M. _ .. , I ... . D J -' .. y i'ti< � ... S " C !! 1 l r i1 r r[_. )l �fICI,r,IP.,! p 1)1 I 1:1 . 111T11iI Ii 1 111!II1i 1111111 I11111,1 r Inch 1 /18. �! L.'tl�UI y • ,,•c :. • • t+ �... E.6 1; E W 1111.11111 1.11.>1.1_ 1.l. 111 11ii1Ilu. Iluii 1111111i11I�1�1.I1111I-1i111i:111 14111ii �1�IIi111 .t1.111111I 11111lliill it l;iiii.ifIllI P.111111Il 111111i11O [_ TIDE PLANS AKLW NAYD -B! NCYD -29 x . ra. . ,., x . r.: a . M/7111/111 INIIITa Err= mum mesa It d.viCro- :.:aar.-•:a 7 R,.:111111•111111 ,.: ,rgrilimmow tr'fa am= a . IF IMa_ r' ' :ti,i:,a a i: a /.t, . allINININII111771111 ,a,ar . =R' I♦ orris arum en ∎,..,,,,t • ,. ., r l rr , sums � � swirm e!'''la!', %1,r .• .;[71�a L TSCALE l -I 5 Na. P..,.,, " i l i f ram eaee� �sn� -- - -- TRANSIT'S I• lid — , MIIIIMItaIB�L�MIAR nPau 7i/%711/1v // Akl/ IIICi � - :f �`1 :t Pi �f/ q' �+± ��' 11!!.+l / 7lr.T/S � - yam — r �� — _ 'S= Mil ' iii SA l 9 :. — swim si✓ 0 . 1) ` + I I � ' 1 ^ 7 � �Ir €:utiic(ri�: r. Ct 69000( MIX &'MARGINAL WAY S TIGHT LIFE TO DUSTING CATCH BASIN DOME a .1111•1 i — • I�I�fIIL NIBIR COORDINATES ARE RETERONGED 70 saw saw 'CENTRAL" LOCAL DATUM PLANE RIP) MD REPRESENT MEASURED GROIN DISTANCES TO CONVERT, TO JP WASHINGTON COORDINATE • SYSTEM O. 1983 (1991 SLPERNET AD.RSTUENT) FIRST SUBTRACT' 204000 FROM BOTH THE NORTHING AND FASTING SHOWN HEWER PEN MLCTIFLY THESE COORDINATES BY 9999979745 (310LIID IOW CENTRAL 2O COMBINED SCALE FACTOR). • 1eaTLARAI NAVA", NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM INC • SEE TABLE FOR CONVERSION TO TUKWILA DATUM - NGV029 • LAM �VM ITIE S W •1213 • • • O BAS NE= ORR OIMNENTAL . TIN • Y am* me mum= ICI" D CAYCII BASIN SO . STOW DRAIN SS SAN /T.'JV NKR R000011 . Sc MOW ELEVATION i .. PS BNTS HIM . 50—STOW STOW MAIN •: -nay ovular meow WISITAT /ON •Od whirr ma x -DYQ .. slat • O/KC/pct$ ryzE (AS NO1w) DIEZ (AS NOID) P KRAAL FLAG T PTV – POST INDICATOR VALID 06/03/04 Date M OHoL VISIT Den. Chk. NOM App. 'Weans Ma AM 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 —f. - -- CONTOUR • Goo MAR 11.000 UC D PK Riff or MAY (AER /AL UMW LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT weir) . OM IND IMO FIRE LANE RELOCATION PROPOSAL I (TEMPORARY LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION cotismucriav • • • • BUILDING OVERNMIC EXISTING RTaT O' WAY — LOT Lint RLTA/NlNO WALL. Designed By. Drown B Checked By. Approved By. f'IELD 3LRYEYED AVER Q4QSS- SECTIONS. NEW MEARtRED FROM TOP OF LEFT BANW TO TOP OF RIGHT BMW AT THREE LOCATIONS BETNEEN THE NEST EDGE OF RE BRIDGE AND /00 FEET DONWSTREAN WK CROSS - SECTION REARMED THE LINE OF VEGETATION OM BOTH AN AVERAGE ELEVATION Or 110 SI W) N OR (A I�VD81) FOR THE LINE OF VEGETATION TOTAL - 2600 CY'. YONtNr OF MATFRIAI nitro from FIRE Wei: TOTAL - 800 Cy I I I I I I{ I ITrII - [n . Inch ' ,. 1110 Submitted: PSTC Ammilk 2 PE EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH BRIDGE IS LOCATED33 RIVER MILES LPSTREAU OF 17E NOAA/INOS TIDAL BEVOWARK AT 11171 AWAKE SOMA SINCE THERE WAS NO TIDAL BENCHMARK LPSTREAll LP THE BRIDGE; A SIMLETAAEOS WATER SAVAGE ELEVATION WAS USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO FIND APE MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION FOR THE .BRIDGE: ON JANUARY 27, 209; SIMLLTANECUS WATER SURFACE TH ELEVATIONS HERE OBSERVED AT Il:00AM AT E OUWAMISN BRIDGE AHD AT THE 81H AVE7NLE SOUTH TIDAL B'.7NLTMARIK • ME ELEVATIONS MEASLNED. 124 (AI LW) AT.DOMH LOCATIONS THE" FOLLOWING TABLE OF TIDE PLANES ARE PROVIDED` FOR THE EAST GE' MARGINAL WAY SOUTH BRIDGE THE DUWAMISN RIVER AT SOUTH ?ISM T. . Oath Approved: .. a.. WETLAND 1O4 INDICATES RELISHED TIDE FLAWS IN MLLW FROM NOAA/NOS (USCACS) WASHINGTON -92 TIDAL BENCWARK INIVAMISH RIVER (8111 AVENUE SOUTH), SOUTH PAR!( WASHINGTO '32 L NORTH LATITUDE 47/;• WEST LONGITUDE I22'IDJ: THE TIDAL BENCHMARK WAS FIELD TIED TO NAVEL -88 BY BHA SURVEYORS ON JANUARY 27. 20O INDICATES FIELD SURVEYED ELEVATIONS BY DNA AT THE OIWAMISH RIPER BRIDGE INDICATES TIDE PLANES FROM NOM, (HARBORTIDESCOM), TIDE TABLE; JANUARY 2003 AT OLAYAMISH WATERWAY, 8111 AVE'ME SOUTH, WASHINGTON SOUNOTRANSIT rate: a' i!I I: t II;IILIIL III( II . IILII . IIIIIIIIlI III ...` :.. : :£t. .. W II flhI InIIIUiii.u��II111.iII. t�u1.t it liiiItn jiil.Ii1II� l IfljI lil�nLi�� II1111,11,i1 HIiIn' �inl�JI1! !�II�III!unllln Scale: Date:: I - 30' Filename: ST I0B 30.dwg Contract No.: 01/24/03 LIMIT OF 1.. OO'VSTRG:TlOV Y ION PROPOSED JO'x 36' BRIDGE COLONY FOUNDATION PMOSED FIRS LAAE 30 15 0 .30 A SCALE IN FEET 60 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION OF 124 (*LW) AT THE EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH OUWAMISN.RIVER BRIDGE; WAS WARRED AT 1Q07AM PST ON 11.3 (a t W) A OT nor TABLE PREDICTED A PST ON RE SAME DAY. HIGHER THE FIELD I T REARM WATER SURFACE WAS 1.1 FEET NIGHER THAN PREDICTED. MD L3 FEET NIGHER TIM 77$ ELEVATION OF 11.10 LIVEN FOR MEAN HIGHER NIGH WATER AT THE DUWAMISH TIDAL BENCHMARK ARJK HEAVY RAINFALL ON AND BEFORE JANUARY 9711 TOGETHER WITH AN ABOVE AVERAGE HORN HIGH TIDE CONDITION ARE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE OE FOOT OF DIFFERENCE SINGE SIMLLTMEOCS UEVAT /LIMB FBIIC NO DIFFERENCE IN SAVAGE ELEVATION AT,D07N BRIDGE NO THE TIDAL BDYC:MUYOC RIVER NYD RACAL lCS (BARK WATER EFFECT) DOES NOr APPEAR TO BE A COVCEEN4 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE INFORMATION: DMA SURVEYORS RECOMMENDS AN ELEVATION Cr 11.0 (M.LN FOR MEAN HIGH WATER ERICH IS 9a FEET NIGER THAN RTE' ELEVATION GIVEN FOR MHW AT THE TIDAL DENOWARIL AND IN AGREEMENT WITH AIE LINE OF VEGiETATIGW AT 11.0 (IMLLW) AT THE BRIDGE AEAN HIGH WATER IS THE FEDERAL COVEIM TENTS TERMM FOR THE TIDAL PLANE THAT IS THE MEIN OR AVERAGE VALLE OF ALL HIGH rives WITHIN THE STATED TERM Or DATA GATHERING AT A TIDAL STATIOL ORDINARY HIGH WATER IS THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGAL TERM FUR THE MEAN Or HIGH WATERS THAT MARK THE MORELINES AT THE EDGE OF VEGETATION AND DEBRIS IN MOST CASES' BOTH DEFINITIONS WILL MARK THE SAME PLANE BASF FLOOD ELEVATION DERIVED FROM PEIMA MAP 53G33C0(45 LIGHT RAIL BRIDGE AT THE GREEN — DUWAMISH RIVER CROSSING AND PROPOSED RELOCATED FIRE LANE Drawing No.: ST— I 08 Sheet No.: Rev.: • S5$_LS)_ S55157_CC, I S5J_LS7_C7 555.157_11, 5SS_0S7 -SP SAS -LS7Je t/Yeedle� • SS.S- L57-t6 S55_N71 CT SSSJta - -tiS LTSCAtt I-, n No. Dote Den. Chk. App. Revisions 1 ------ l I 1/ I• I !I t , '200' SHOREL 1 ZONE . ,., C0WIRACTCR `,;";;; STAGING AREA } PROPERTY I BOUNDARY �";� I I I I T— 1 1 I ? 1 1 ii1 1 I Designed By. Drown By Checked By. Approved By. R/w NOJUC- 020.1) ( 102J010067 .) Submitted: FOR ENLARGED PLAN, SEE ST— I 08 Date: (Approved: 'Dote: _ 1 — : —. - -, L 1 ' 1 ij X I / , h, PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT SOUNDTftANSR Date: H 06/03/04 Scale: I" -100' Filename: SA— I08- 30.dwg Contract No.: / CONTRACTOR STAGING AREA I E MARGINAL WAY S SCALE IN FEET 100 50 0 100 200 Drawing No.: SA— 108 Sheet No.; Rev.: 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 o 0 0 0 0 0 ;o • 0 o c n 1 • on 6~ I I I I I I I'I' TI I I "1 1 � 1 111` 1;11 1 111 'I I,1 I I I.� I I1I I L I 11 I Inch 1 /18. " {:cn. VSr!c'n • •91. PII £ Zl. .11 I l •11116 11.11.161(LI1 liiild I l l LL1.1 Illll l 1 I I 1 1 111. 011.1 11.1 111 II [.111 I I I LL! I! 1 1111 1011( 111( 111. I' 1I111I =llliiilT r ., 4 5 • , • ^ 'wt r . • • " "c; 9 1 3s 5 £ , • Z WO II► I I L I IL l u1 . LI 1.J 1111 lniilil nll.).111 (i . . . PLANT SCHEDULE'. : . • . . . • PLANTING AREA • SCIEN1If7C NAME - . COMMON CONDITION i SIZE SPACING' TREES PLANTING AREA C, ABOVE ELEV..11' PICEA STCHENSIS • • . . , ., SITKA SPRUCE ' ' • 6.-8.•TALL 10'.0.C.. PLANTING AREA C. ABOVE ELEV. 11 • POPULUS TRICHOCARPA SSP.. 43ALSANIFERA BLACK COTTONWOOD • 2.5" CALIPER • . 70' O.C. • SHRUBS PLANTING AREA C. ABOVE ELEV. 9•W CORNUS SERICEA SSP. • SERICEA •RED—OSIEK DOGWOOD. 14"' DIA. 4. LONG LIVE STAKE • ' 3 . • 0.C. PLANTING AREAS A • ANDS GAULTHERIA - SHALL ON SALAL • '1 GAL. • . ' • .3' 0.C. . PLANTING AREA B MAHONIA AOUIFOUUM • . TALL OREGON GRAPE. 2 CAL 24" TALL 4' O.C. • ••.•.• PLANTING AREA • C, ABOVE arv. 11 • ' MALUS FUSCA • . PACIFIC CRABAPPLE . 2 CAL. 4'• HIGH 5' -0.C. PLANTING AREAS A. 'AND 'El • POLYSI7CHUM MUNITUM SWORD• FERN .* . . • 1 GAL. • • • 3' O.C. PLANTING AREA C, ELEV. 9'—/1' • SAUX HOOKERIANA .. HOOKER'S WILLOW . • Ti" DIA. 4' LONG LIVE STAKE ' • 3' O.C. • • . PLANTING AREA B; PLANTING AREA C, . ABOVE ELEV. 11' • SYAIPHORICARPOS ALBUS . • . SNOKIERRY S . 24" - TALL . • . . .. • 5' . O.C. . . DISTURBED AREAS AND PLANTING ' AREAS A. AND B . • ' . . .. . .HYDROSEED MIX: AGROSflS TENUIS (COLONIAL • BENTGRASS) 10X FESTUCA 'RUBRA (RED .FESCUE) 40X LOUUM PERENNE (PERENNIAL RYE) 4DX TRIFOLIUM ' REPENS PRE—INOCULATED (MITE. DUTCH CLOVER)' 10X PERCENTAGES ARE BY ' WEIGHT • • - • ,' . . .. • . . ... . • ' . • .. • . . 8 . . Kirkland . • ' .5 mow hogs • siot Loki Winh • • kinked Salidin. •...(11Adi,111-. 9O33 • / Plu.pt5) 822-5550 , . ' • • Fan 425) 559 • innv.paramatrineam .EXISTING BENCH A . . . . . • . . • . orn . ' • '.'rr. • S — — S --- / GREEN—DIJ,WAMISH—TRAIL - in • • SILT CURTAIN SEE • DETAIL r DAN rt - ... PLANTING : AREA V" SEE PLANTING .DETAILS , . . • . . . . 1 L. ELUS • outAgm B. HOLT . .• IZNEMGN2MEI, TWO INCHES AT FULL SCALE IF NOT SCALE ACCORDINGLY "GM • '1 -30 • DUWAMISH RIVER ea.! as.• STRUCTURE S. Q(0 LIMIT OF • REXIEMSAITINNG .71? • EES • tt0 1 ■■ :14.:.s:19.11"' 81 PLANTING AREA 1 ? SEE DETAIL (9 -1 1\D \ ISTUR8ANCE • 'SILT LIRTAIN ' 1 . - MIMI i COI.LCIN . 41' nr SION , • . - O'NfOrklanc 0, , • • • PROJECT NOME DUWAMISH RIVER BRIDGE LANDSCAPE PUN" JOS NO. I FM 274-3164-001-811-1W4 I K3154001P811T1V141.01 NOTES: 1. GRADES TO BE RESTORED TO PRE—PROXCT CONDITIONS. 2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE HYDROSEEDED. DUWAMISH RIVER BRIDGE LANDSCAPE PLAN • • • _. S. :IIIVA1111 PAMINC ." • • • • • • • , 1 • • • , • • • • • • . ' .• • . . . . • • .. . . . • . . . . . , ....,.........'. • ___..........-•,="74., 7_ .. ......:■.:■,,...-"•-•,-...;...........-.■■■............. • : ...,...., • ......S, • = ,7 .," -.,,... - • ........-,Na..1.z -.............'--. - . . . • . ' • ( : .. . ■ • • ' • . ' .. : • . , , , ,..., • . . T.r.ri 0 1 r.!1 1 liv 1 till 1 I I] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.111 ITT 1 iffirri 1 1 ifin 1 1 1 1 1 ill 1 1 1 1 01 1 • / Inch 1/18 II ' • • .'?,!• I . ...,",,,,,_„„__ :41 i 51 , 4‘7:;'::::::'::':<';'/ . ,..!;-.;!:,, . , ', r , , ,,. , , .. , , ; :.,,,, v t..,!R.U1 i f;' •;; .. . , / • —I. : • • • .,••, - -Th • 1 .11.611—£11 ./ 1 I 1 I 313 „II MI 011..1.1 1.11 114111.111illitill.11011 111 11111iiii 161 111111111 _ • . EXTENTOF AERIAL • •5 OM ALI: IE-EL05, • • • • . • .• . ' tn . . tot ta. I • E---- , tgl :1111 . • 2 I • 55 5 : t o as;1!i I I 1 : " \ C011 \\ • 1?i PLANTIN RE3" G AA "1 • t 115 — count w caws IIC N01101 ( • I' T s • S • 0 LEGEND: S t SCALE IN FEET .30 60 — PLANTING AREAS • --- LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE — TEMPORARY SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL SILT CURTAIN — : PROPERTY LINE SHRUB PLANTING S • SNOIWIERRY sat SALAL . . SF 'SWORD FERN OREGON GRAPE a • • •• • .• • • :• • • • , 11=1,=11=v1=tir- • 3 * DEEP -x 24" DIA.. MULCH RING • ZENDIMILiME' 2111B2LIMME • &PK Sitka Spruce 0 BagulajagigoggOrg sop Idgbigsigg Block Cottonwood 5allx hookeriong D Corms 'trim sip Wag Pacific Crabapple • Swnohoricaroas dims 'Snowberry •=-11=4. =II= tRfc.. Cr; II =I I II II II 11=11=11=11=11- I I FINISH GRADE su ROOTEIAU. KITH PLANTING ON SLOPES DETAIL NO SCALE — REMOVE PORTION -'4 STAKE IF DAMAGED DURING PLACEMENT GRADE • • .NATIIC SOIL . - BACKFILL NITH POSTING SOIL. MIXED 3:1 SOIL M 2X ORGANIC COMPOST. TYPICAL LIVE STAKE DETAIL • NO SCALE — • MOM Hookers Willow . Red—osier Dogwood TYPICAL RIVER BANK 'PLANTING DETAIL ( r-io. 1 ..143EL 'REFER TO PLANTING •. . DETAILS .2 AND 4 FOR INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO • WEE AND SHRUB • WATERING BASIN • • (NOT REQUIRED 111774 . • AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION) INSTALL :NEED BARRIER • . GREEN — DUWAMISH " REGIONAL TRAIL ' OHNIA • LI VE STAKE: • 36*-443' HEIGHT 1/2" — • 1' DIA. DRIVE STAKE TO 12" MIN. DEPTH DATE ly ELUS g ! IA A wan atabz -'• ' " • • . arc atzwatiaa) ti. V-13' high 2.5" caliper live stake, 1/2" dla. 4' long live stake, 1/2" dia 4' long • 2 gal., 4• high 24" high FINISH GRADE 3" DEEP x 24" DIA MULCH RING, KEEP HYDROSEEDING OFF ANY MULCH • BACKFTU• KITH EXISTING 'S,L. MIXED 3:1 SOIL. TO ORGANIC COMPOST. BREAK UP SIDES AND BOTTOMS OF PLANTING PIT TO ALLOW FOR ROOT PENETRATION COMPACT SUBGRADE BELOW ROOT BALL TO ENSURE ROOTBALL WDTH THAT ROOT FLARE BILL NOT SETTLE BELOW GROUND UNE. TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE — 20' ME PLANTING NWROYED 10' O.C. 10' 0.C. 3 0.C. 3' 0.C. 5 0.0. 5 0.C. ZONE qP4' I,k5 a ■ $14 ‘ elf./ 3 DEEP it 24" DIA MULCH •• . RING KEEP. HYDROSEEDING ' • OFF ANY MULCH BACKFILL NTH EXISTING SOL MIXED 3:1 SOIL TO ORGANIC COMPOST 2X DIA. ROOTSPREAD • 2.5:1 'SLOPE RIVERBANK. DRAFT/ 'CROSS SECTION • NO SCALE 1 - :TYPICAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL NO SCALE — (1) CD (1) COMPACT SOIL UNDER ROCITZONE . SCARIFY SOIL INTERFACE • NATIVE SOIL TRIANGULAR SHRUB SPACING DETAIL NO SCALE — , NO LESS THAN 2.0' AS DETERMINED IN THE FIELD NOTES: . 1. TREE PIT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN (2) TIMES ROOT BALL DIA. SHRUBS PLANTED IN' SOIL NITHOMT AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE PLANTED IN PITS 3 TIMES THE MTH OF THE ROOT BALL. 2. FOR. BALLED AND BURLAP PLANTS, CUT AND REMOVE ALL TIES AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM UPPER 1/3 Cr ROOT .3. REMOVE ALL PLASTIC, PARE. AND .TINNE. 4. SPREAD ROOTS IN PLANTING" HOLE FOR BARE' ROOT PLANTS. NO 'V ROOTS. 5, WATER THOROUGHLY AFTER PLANTING.' ROOT FLARE SHALL BE LOCATED ABOVE GROUND. LINE J WATERING BASIN 0 1;;;;23z!mt TWO INCHES AT FULL SCALE IF NOT SCALE ACCORDINGLY scut • AS NOTED DAN Itiklend „ mold Pork MOS' Lad* Waildatool IrapIrld SonS .1.4 IL L "' w an ' I Mal Rh wimparamotrld.corn MOM= • Sorrow, Sank MorrItt.Pordai Team Timm° AlwrIlltPerclUI Ilismerke 01,npla Di. ,.o Gal" ' Kalaced • DOOM ABMS Portland Mardian . COMING NOTES: ALL SHRUB SPACING SHALL BE EQUIDISTANT UNLESS OTHERNISE SPECIFIED. • . DISTANCE (D) ON 'CENTER AS INDICATED ,IN PLANT SCHEDULE. START FIRST ROW OF 'PLANTING AT 1/2 THE PERPENDICULAR SPACING BETVEEN ROWS . .. 2.0' EDGE OF PLANTING AREA NOTE: 1. INSTALL SILT CURTAIN APPROXIMATELY 0.5' ABOVE THE .ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK (OHNSI) OR EDGE OF EXISTING VEGETATION. MUT WM DUWAMISH RIVER BRIDGE 'LANDSCAPE PLAN JOM.040. 1 kb 274-3164-001-1311-1W4 I K31134001P1311TTW41.02 I. BEFORE STARTING -WORK IN PLANTING AREA C, NOTIFY --.PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT VIORK WU' OCCUR ADJACENT TO THE TRAIL. 2., INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. PRESERVE AND • PROTECT. ALL EXISTING VEGETATION NOT DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL PROVIDE, "' ERECT AND MAINTAIN BARRICADES .NECESSARY 70 PREVENT ACCESS TO AREA WHIN DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES. . • • 3. MOW. PLANTING AREA C AND REMOVE NEEDS. 4. GRUB OUT EXISTING BLACKBERRY ROOTS, CANES AND 6' OF UNDERLYING SOIL. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF MATERIAL OFF—STE. 5. OLTIVATE SOIL IN CLEARED AND GRADED AREAS IN PLANTING AREAS A AND B' 10 A MIN. DEPTH OF 12" BY HARRONING, SCARIFYING, OWING, RIPPING OR OTHER METHODS. O. AMEND SOIL IN CLEARED AND GRADED AREAS IN PLANTING AREAS A AND NTH 4 OF DECOMPOSED ORGANIC COMPOST. COMPOST SHALL BE THOROUGHLY TILLED INTO CULTIVATED SUBGRADE TO PROVIDE A ANN. AMENDED SOIL. DEPTH OF 8". AMENDED SOIL SHALL HAVE A LOOSE, CONSISTENT TEXTURE.. DO NOT AMEND SOIL NITHIN DRIPUNE OF REMAINING EXIST TREES EXCEPT AS NOTED IN DETAILS. 7, HMROSEED GRADED AREAS NM SPECIFIED SEED MIX. 8. PRIOR TO PLANTING, ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT CULTIVATED, AMENDED SL FOR DEPTH, AMOUNT OF COMPOST, AND THOROUGHNESS OF CULTIVATION AND TIWNG. NOTIFY ENGINEER A ANN OF 48 HOURS BEFORE PROCEEDING 4, NTH SOIL CULTIVATION/AMEtIOMENT INVECTION. 9; AFTER ENGINEER HAS APPROVED AMENDED SOIL, NO VEHICLES, CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. OR'STACKING OR STORING OF MATERIALS SHALL BE ALLOWED IN PLANTING AREA& LIMIT FOOT TRAFF7C. SOIL COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE RE—CULTIVATED PER THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 10. ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT PLANTS AT SITE NOTIFY ENGINEER A MINIMUM OF 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF DATE OF PLANT INSPECTION. • 11. INSTALL' 24' DIA, 3' DEEP MULCH RINGS AROUND ALL 'SHRUBS AND TREES. USE FINELY—SHREDDED BARK MULCH. 12. .PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED A MIN. OF 1' PER NEEK THE ' • OWNING SEASON (JUNE — SEPT) FOR THE SPECIFIED MAINTENANCE PERIOD. . WATER SHALL BE DELIVERED IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT ERODE SOL • WATERING BASINS SHAU. BE MAINTAINED AS SHOW IN SLOPE PLANTING DETAL 13. REMOVE REED CANARY GRASS, BLACKBERRY PLANTS, SCOTS BROOM AND ALL OTHER NEED SPECIES 4 TIMES PER GRONING SEASON. SANDBAGS 0.5' x 1.0' OHNN &5' \-4MPERWOUS, TEAR AND PUNCTURE RESISTANT GEOTEXTILE FABRIC No SCALE 1 IMPERVIOUS, TEAR AND PUNCTURE RESISTANT GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WE MESH FENCE 1.5' NO LESS THAN 2.0' AS DETERMINED IN THE FIELD METAL POST.VATH IMRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE SECTION A SILT 'CURTAIN. INSTALLATION DETAIL (5 DUWAMISH RIVER BRIDGE PLANTING DETAILS i friffirrn-I-1171-711171111111111111'1111111111111111111111T111111,111 - 1111111M1111111 - 111111110[11 Inch 1/16 1 4 ' ' 51 ' 1 1 " 6 • • . k7.,t.JII I ,, , • 4 • 4. '"• !.• • z + irt. g • , I I vuo I , i . I l l l l l l llll l llllllll l lllll)lll l lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l lllll 11 111111111 TIDE PLANES MLLW HAYD -M NG7'D -29 as , /a MrT11111.1rill. • 111111N' rrirEIT:Thr7griliiiIMINNOMNITT1111 I , 7 111 —11111F1111111 oa " ., 1♦ 1• MT= ..BASE FLOW ELEVATION (1/9/os) 15.4 129 ; 9.4 /lOR/7OVTAt DARN. • COORDINATES ARE REFERENCED TO SOUND TRANSIT'S VENTRAL' • LOCAL DATUM RAVE (LDP) AND REPRESENT MEASURED GREAND DISTANCES TO CONVERT To THE WASH /NOTCH COORDINATE SYSTEM Or 1983 (1991 SLPERNET ADJUSTMENT) FIRST SUBTRACT 200.000'FROM' 80 •flIE NORTHING AND LASTING SHOW HEREON, THEN MULTIPLY 7?ESE COQWINATES BY 4999979745 (SOUSO TRANSIT'S CENTRAL ZONE COMBINED SCALE. FACTOR). YFRTIGI• DATA: NAVD88 NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATU/ 1988 SEE TABLE FOR CONVERSION TO TL (WILA DAM! NCV029 LOUR dMILOALUMS O Gs METER `• CULVERT p GTC/ DAS/N =cc RDGIORY p WATER. • FADE mew 0 ODUTY POLE •D• s,Qt ` Q , D CIDUOUS r1E£ (As NOTED) wor 7tl£ (As NOTED) P __ _ "II »[7uho MO T PIV - POST IIprGTLR VALVE I l C YIIDEC S TREE ICING REMOVED V 57(! E OECIOOOf6 THEr SE/NC WPM 553.2535.003/06/02 3/04 (K) E - SOUNDTRANSIT ui i 1117 ..*, t i j'Arlikt■ ---"w4 "4....... — Prrod.fiil V . - P - 5, 1111111; : ' : '11 . :: : :: 17 .1. 1" :4. 1 kd it i 1 1 ) 00, * 1 5 s3 00 ' • C 1I) f • 4'C 2- c ,>r� • ..: 1`,. �( , * • 1,14 4 5 C 24 � / I // j 1 / /,i I 1 002 -4'C ORD INARI' NICK WATER , L/GNT RAIL IRIDDE 2-5 2 -5 • IDD'STREAN t n " OMNI 2 -4■C 2 -5 2 -5 JO* STOW LENIN CW GERM TALL DEC OE'CIDlous SD STO M'CP.AIN 7P1 TOE 11'- TLM • A SANITARY BLUER IE IN ERT ELEVATION T • SD x t C 3. A I' t 7371 GROUND /MM•IEOVEMLENT . SOW DRAIN. MOE Cr VEGETATION RUMOUR OYEIRMIl . EXISTING RICHT Or MAY LOT LINK' RETAINING MALL CONTOUL. •- _.._._.... AItIDICED gpVTio f RCN TEAR ROW PLAIN E- AGM AND CONDUIT LIMIT QF CONSTRUCTION AR ON . GCNOTAL LOCATION cr FARNNOLLS( SEDIMENT NINE : " • • __ _ __ C/IrrWAY DISPERSION B 66Xe • U s7tAr MULE•RMRIOH ® O QC OALI A-- Nvrarcorot swALE DRUM IMMIER I2x16x8 PANEL VAULT SET TOP OF FLOOR 15' ELEVATION %0.1' • N : it I I 'III i r I ITIT Inch 1/16 .. V L3! Ul il' 9 I1. H I a "zL II ,� II )IIiitij ii. iliiIllliIj.11lIi.1 illi.iLllliIit II I STEEP SLOPE g101NARY NCO/ WATER AND LINE OF 1EE'ETATION ELEVATION i3' NA • RASH DANNER l FIELD"SLRVEYEO RIVER CROSS- SECTIONS WERE WARPED FROM TOP OF LEFT BANK TO TOW OF RIGHT BANC AT THREE LOCATIWIS BETWEEN THE. ' WEST EOOE'OF THE BRIDGE AND 100 FEET DOWNSTREAM THEREOF. EACH CROSS- SECTION MEASURED THE LINE Or VEGETATION ON BOTH BANKS AT SIX LOCATIONS THE SIX POINTS COMBINED TO YIELD AN AVERAGE ELEVATION OF ILO (MLLW) OR QS (NAVD88) FOR THE LINE EF VEGETATION. ' . 2 , PE EAST MARGINAL WAY SOWN BRIDGE IS LOCATED .0 RIVER MILES LPS/REAM.CM' RTE NOAA/NOS TIDAL BWICIYLARIC -AT 87N AVENGE SCUM SINLL'7NERE WAS. NO TICK BENCHMARK UPSTREAM O" THE ' BRIDGE: A SIMULTANEOUS "WATER SURFACE. ELEVATION WAS USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO FIND ME MEAN NIGH WATER ELEVATION FOR THE ORIOLE . OV JANUARY 27,• 2004 SIMULTANEOUS :WATER SLRFACT: ELEVATIONS WERE OBSERVED AT LEONE AT TH DUWANIR? BRIDLE AND AT THE Bill AVEME SOUTH TIDAL BENCHMARK '. THE ELEVATIONS MEASURED I24'(MLLW) AT BOTH LOCATIONS"THE • FO.LOWINC TABLE OF TIDE PLANES ARE PROVIDED FOR PE EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH BRIDGE OVER THE DUYAMISH RIVER AT SOUTH • 1107N STREET.: ' . l Ti • ii1 •iII a• BRUSH STEC SLOPE r • ORDINARY NICK WATER ND LINE Or VECETAT /DN ELEVATION QS' NAVE= WETLAND 104 • 51 I I I I I i I I I I I !'I I 61 Tab — 10x16x8 PANEL VAULT SET TOP OF FLOOR AT 14' "ELEVATION ,cO.I 7YxAC mow MI(PROYEMrEHT INDICATES ' FUR 15HED TIDE PLANES IN MLLW MOM NO A/MO$ (USG . WASNINCT4V -92 TIDAL BENCHMARK YNIWAMISN RIVER (8TH AVENGE SOUTH). SOWN PARK WASHINGTON NORTH LATITUDE 47'3,I;' •NEST LQVCITU9E I22'19.J: THE TIDAL BENCHMARK WAS FIELD TIED TO NAVD -B8 BY DHA SURVEYORS ON .JANUARY 27. 200E ' I . • INO IC BES FIELD D SURVEYED ELEVATIONS BY MA•AT TIE vAMISN • INDICATES TIDE PLANES FROM NOAA. (HARBORTIDE`.£CL1A►), THE ' TABLE: JANUARY 2003 AT DUWAMNSH WATERWAY. BEN AMORE SOUTH, WASHINGTON.. (11! IILI I IIII11lI lI 1 1 30 15 0 . LIMIT ION CIEMPORAR CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT) 30 SCALE :1 N FEET 60 WATER SERFAGE ELEVATION OF 124 OALW) AT TIE EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH OUWAMISH RIVER BRIDGE WAS MEASURED AT Jft07AM PST ON JANUARY 9 2003 ME TIDE TABLE PREDICTED A HIGAER HIGH TIDE Or 11.3 (MUW) AT 10:07AM PST ON THE SAME DAY. TIE FIELD MEASURED WATER SURFACE WAS 1.1 FEET HIGHER THAN PREDICTED. AND 1.3 FEET HIGHER »MN'TIE ELEVATION OF 11.10 GIVEN FOR'MFAN NIGER HIGH WATER' AT THE OUWAMISH TIDAL BENCHMARK HEAVY RAINFALL ON.ANHD • BEFORE JANUARY 97N TOGETHER WITH AN ABOVE AVERAGE HIGHER HIGH TIDE CONDITION ARE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR TNT OE FOOT Qr DIFFERENCE SINCE SIMULTANEOUS ELEVATIONS FOUND NO DIFFERENCE IN SULFACE ELEVATION AT 907)1 BRIDGE MO RE TIDAL BENCHMARK RIVER HYDRALLICS (BACK WATER EFFECT) DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A CONCERN. . CONSIDERING ME ABOVE INFORMATION, DNA SURVEYORS RECOMMENDS AN ELEVATION OF ILO (MLLW) FOR 'MEAN HIGH WATER' WHICH IS 48 FEET HIGHER THAN ENE ELEVATION GIVEN FOR MHW AT THE TIDAL BENCHMARK, ANO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LINE OF VEGETATION AT ILO (MLLW) AT THE BRIDGE MEAN NIGH WATER IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS TERM FOR THE TIDAL PLANE THAT IS THE MEAN OR AVERAGE VALUE OF ALL HIGI•T /DES WITHIN THE STATED TERM OF DATA GATHERING AT A TIOAL srATIOL ORDINARY HIGH WATER IS THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGAL TERM FOR THE MEAN OF HIGH WATERS THAT MARK THE SNCREL/AIES AT THE.EDOE.OF VEGETATION AND DEBRIS IN MOST CASES BOTH .DEFINITIONS WILL MARK THE SAME PLANE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION DERIVED FROM FNMA MAP. 53033C0645 Figure 1 Utility Undergrounding, Farmhouse Relocation and ,Griu ment for Light,Rail Bridge.a ,the. nDmishRiver Crossin ; TFR :.• : `•_;a tir .t .3��y y ° s b »:�,sl.;:.<„r,- :?i.?J'�; �• ;ti7v :r ` • ?;T,a -:. Allit - 10:1111•11127.2i3o-T .s. i ii•IGNIII43 NWT f71 I 'gnarl r,40 xRn RURIVEIRREIRWIVWFALAILli WEI77 'mimosa mo I ry WNW; 3 Eti III• —11...11111111111111111110111101"31111111E1Willatil.OWIIIMMINIMIIIMII.:WJIlidEMIIIT1111 if ,1-....SKLER01101001=11011111=011R, l Ika" " ' ' 1 ' ••••••,,;:-;,• • : 1 1 1 \ -- 1 1 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 1 1 doRIYONTAL CARD • COORDINATES ARE REIERDICED 'TO SOUND IMANSIrS "CORRAL' ' • LOCAL .DATIN PLAAE aco A 0 .REPRESENT WARRED GROUND • • OWN/MS, TO CONVERT:M.1HE WASHINGTON COORDINATE • : • - SYSTEM Cr 19B3 (1991 ADJUSTMENT) FIRST SUITRACT . '• 204000 MON*B0171 ME NORTHING AND. EASTING SNOW IEREO1L PEN MULTIPLY ma COORDINATES BY 0999979745 (SOUVO • • TRANSITS COMM ZONE GOIMINED SCALE FACTO*. • VrAYTHW • LIAT ' NORTNLANERICMI VERTICAL DATUM 1988 -DEE FOR CONVERSION TO TINWILA DATUM •• HOVERS . SEE TA ' • : AMOR AINIEVUZI00 LitEXESS CAN WIN avoissm. • MX DIONYSOS 0 CAMS &WIN SO STOW DRAIN 0003 ROT. IC INVERT 11AVAISO4 *we ilarN .1 +Am. wows • ursisrr pow Soo • oiscoxkus nix (As mom MIN ma (AS *NCO) .. 1 . I1W -! POST OCICATOR YAK 'iltSTINYW WAY, . 553-2536-003111/04 6/04 1K) diSOUNDTRANSIT .•• •••'•• : •••,, • is • • S • -2 • • • • • LIMIT OF CONSIRUCTION - (1DIPORARY CONSTRUCTION EAST) ss swirAwr sin ROSY MAIN smear wurrAncti l suavity °yawn COSMO NNW Or WAY A1TAININV irAti • camR , swam= COMM* ,/ 100 YEAR new Aux / RICHT Cf WAY AERIAL EASOIDO LIT MIMIC WAY) A 11 IT i: : :1 11 l i I 4 t I ; 1 I IT r I T I T F I T I T Y I • 11)) f, I. ' - Inch 1/18 : , . • ' • • P 6,417114.1. 11 STEEP SLOPE:. PROPOSED / L I GHT RAU ••• BRIDGE' / • I. FIELD SURVEYEDRIVER CROSS-SECTIOILS WERE MEASURED WM TOP CW LEFT BAER TO • T OF RIGHT BANK AT. TIM LOCATIONS BETIVIEY' THE 11E17 EDGE CF THE BRIDGE' AND 100 PEET DOWNSTREAM TIMM ■ • EACH CliOSS-.SECTIOII MEASURED PE LINE OF VEGETATION CI, BOTH . BANKS AT SIX LOCATIONS THE SIX POINTS COMBINED TO YIELD AN AVERAGE ELEVATION OF 11.0 (MUW) 0? 8.5 (NAME) FOR DIE LINE' LF VEGETATIOM • 2. THE EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH BRIDGE IS LOCATED 13 RIVER MILES LPS7REAM OF THE NOAA/MOS TIDAL BENCHMARK AraTH AVENUE SWIM SINCE THERE WAS NO TIDAL BENCHMARK UPSTREMI OF DE • BRIDGE A SIMULTMEOUS WATER SUREACE ELEVATION WAS USED AS • AN ALTERNATIVE TO FIND THE ACM HIGH,WATER ELEVAT1CN FOR THE BRIDGE • ON RINUARY 27 200.1 SIMULTAAEOLS WATER SLIEACE ELEVATIONS vote OBSERVED AT. 11:00M AT THE DUSAN'S, BRIDGE • ANO AT THE STH AVENLE SOUTH TIDAL DENO/MARK RE ELEVATIONS AEASLIIED 124 (MLLW) AT BOTH LOCATIONS THE FOLLOWINC TABLE OF TIDE PLANES ARE PROVIDED FCR nor EAST MARGINAL WAY SOU111 BRIDGE OVER PE DUWAMISH RIVER AT SOUTH MATERIAL EXCAVATED- TOTAL • .:21500 CY : ".•••.. • . . ye, tairnr ijt FI I (fix rixr I TOTAL -'eoci Cr • . . • I. • 'I STEE° SLO/E • •,/ • • .1 I I [ Havitg •••• ''••• WETLAND 104 8I I 1 3 11 I 11 40WV,OW rii"TAt4401.4 _ TIDE PLANES MON .NAVO-88 It-29 orrrau imirrram morns Illr771/7717717175711=1111111111= 111/TTINCIIMEM1111 Ems e77717171171111MMINNIIIIINIIIIMMII MIKTTAMI Irma rrzurn-matoisimaim own= MIMI= wrrai r: at, 41 A1111111111111•111f771111111Err= liffr17111 rill7nrir777C• 7(:1111■1111111171111 warms NMI 11T7.17.77771;r17117 .777.11111/711111111111M1111 ER= 11"577/771117.rilill N11/71F1111 ...1111F1111P.511A11111M01 "Erma .' • • ' WEST LONGITUDE 12219.3: THE TIDAL BENCHMARK WASPIELD TIE 0 WASHINGTON-92 TIDAL BENOWARK 'DIJWAMISH RIWR (BIN A .• fINDICAIES PIMISHED TIDE' PLANES III MAW FROM NOA.4/1405 TO NAVO BY MA SURVEYORS ON JANUARY 27..200.1 ' - • • SOUTH). SWOUPARE WASHINGTO MARIN LATITUDE•471.121 :.. • ,"- . • . .. ' INDICATES FIELD 'SLAVERED ELEVATIONS BY MIA AT THEDUWAMISH ' RIVE? BRIDGE . .- . , . ____. ••• ,INDICArEs TIDE PLANES MOM NOAA, (HARBORTIDEECCIVI ripe • TABLE JANUARY 2003 AT DINIAMISH WATERWAY. 8TH AVENLE SOUR • WASHINOTOR • . . . . 3-Awyd ;•, • )1 1 1 1 .0.1 RI 1 I 11 11 1 !) 1 I 1 • ■■"C:'1 1 , 1 ' • ' • v401; , , ‘; Jill. [ill 111111111.1.11.1111.111.11.1.11111 1111 I WI 1111111.11.1.11110 01.4111111111 1111_.- 1 LIMIT OF CGWS,MUCTION (TEMPORARY CONS1RLCTION - EASEMENT) 30 15 0 30 SCALE 1 N FEET 60 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION OF 124 (JIU.W) AT THE EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH DUVIMISH ROYER BRIDGE WAS MEASLRED AT I*07AM PST ON JANUARY It 2001 THE TIDE TAX PREDICTED A Niel" HIGH TIDE OF I (*LW) AT Ilt07AM PST ON THE SMC DAY. 1E FIELD MEASURED WATER REFACE WAS 1.1 EMT HIRER THAN PROMOTED, MO 1.3 FEET HIGHER THAN ME ELEVATION OF 11.10 GIVEN FOR WAN HIRER HIGH WATER" AT DE DUWAMISH TIDAL BDIONARIC. HEAVY RAINFALL ON Al BEFORE JANUARY OTH TOGETHER MIDI AN ABOVE AVERAGE NIGHER HIGH TIDE CONDITION ME PRCOABLE CAE FOR INE OTIE FOOT OF 011F SINCE' simarAreous ELEVATICRS FOLIO NO DIFFERENCE IN SURFACE ELEVATION AT BOTH BRIDGE MD THE TIDAL BENOIMARIL RIVER HVVRALLICS (BACK WATER EFFECT) DIES NOT APPEAR TO BE A CONCERN. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MWOURATICX4 DHA SURVEYORS RECOMMENDS AN ELEVATION OF ILO V2W) FOR WAN HIGH WATER WHICH IS ai FEET HIGHER DM THE ELEVATION GIVEN FOR INYI AT THE TIDAL BENOIMARIL AM IN AGREDIENT WITH THE LINE OF VEGETATION AT 11.0 (mum) AT THE BRIDGE MEAN HIGH WATER IS DE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS IIRM FOR ME TIDAL PLANE NAT IS THE MEAN OR AVERAGE VALLE OF ALL HIGH TIDES WITHIN NE STATED TERM OF DATA GA1HERING AT A TIDAL STATICTE ORDINARY HIGH WATER IS THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGAL TERM FOR THE MEW OF mat WATERS THAT MARK THE SHORELINES AT THE ma OF VEVETATION AND DEBRIS IN MOST CASES BON DEFINITIONS WILL MARK PE sue PLANE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION DERIVED FROM MIA MAP 53a33cos45 Figure 2 Light Rail Bridge at the Green-Duwamish River Crossing and Proposed Relocated Fire Lane CITY OF T1f(WILA .PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT I • 5512535.003/11/04 FAA 4K) 11 17 SOUNDTRANSIT ■ . • „ • It ./ __; ; . • / • 77 7 "•••■••• -"••••■ ::11. I •. r 11 • I 11. • •••••••■ :TiTijil1 I I 1 , 1 . 1 I I1 9 rill I I I I 1,11:11 1 : 1 III" ITriT 1 1 1 I I 01 1 I I I I I I I I I 1, f i , g g g I Inch 1 /16 '.7%;4.:7rH1 5 • I 1 14; 1 • • " II 1111 111 1.01 1.111 1.111.111)111 ill 1111 1111111 All 1111 1111 11111111 1_111 1111 1 1111111ipiluvimmo.ioniiiiiiimIL. V 0.0 100 50 0 E MARGINAL WAY & 100 SCALE IN FEET 200 Figure 6 Contractor Staging Area •