Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 83-21-SMP - WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) - I-405 AND HWY 167 INTERCHANGE SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT83-21-smp wsdot green river interchange WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) - I-405 AND HWY 167 INTERCHANGE SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT :71 Dear Mr. Beeler: PDM /hl Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 Office of District Administrator 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 206.764.4141 Duane Berentson, Secretary Mr. Rick Beeler, City Planner City •of Tukwila 6200 Sou i:iicenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Seal of the Great State of Washington September 18, 1986 Interstate 405 Tukwila to SR 167 Interchange Transit /Carpool Improvements. L -6166 This letter is to correct an error contained in our letter to you dated September 16, 1986 concerning an extension for Shoreline Management Permit, Number N 590 -14 -3221 (83 -21). The correct dates for the construction period is, from March, 1987 through December, 1989. The September 16 letter erroneously stated the dates as March, 1986 through December, 1988. Sin erely, it RIC ARD F. JOHNSON., P.E. District Environmental. and Special Services Engineer ` s � p 221988 J l... � 1J �1 S C I 'i O F 1 i...1i1, nLd Washington State •, Department of Transportation District 1 Office of District Administrator 6431 Corson Avenue South #C -81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 206 764.4141 Mr. Rick Beeler, City Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: Thank you. PDM /hl C S EP ? 8 1986 CITY Y Of- "i Li iviv i L •l C l PLANNING DEPT. Interstate 405 Tukwila to SR 167 Interchange. Transit /Carpool Improvements L -6166 The Washington State Department of Transportation is requesting an extension for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Number N 590 -14 -3221 (83 -21) issued through the City of Tukwila on January 12, 1984. Due to funding constraints the construction dates have been delayed from the original period of March 1984 through December 1986 to the period of March 1986 through December 1988. The project design for the Green River overcrossing, in the Shoreline Management zone, is the same as was submitted with the original October 14, 1983 application. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Pat McGuire at 236 -4413. RICHARD F. JOHNSON, P. E. District Environmental and Special Services Engineer Duane Seventeen Secretary of Transportation September 16, 1986 JAMES A. MURPHY• JOHN D. WALLACE DOUGLAS E. ALBRIGHT LEE CORKRUM•• WAYNE D. TANAKA G. GEOFFREY GIBBSI LARRY C. MARTIN ROBERT G. ANDRE* MICHAEL G. WICKSTEAD OF COUNSEL RAYMOND D. OGDEN. JR. RAYMOND D. OGDEN 11876.1972) RONALD A. MURPHY 11930.19831 Mr. Rick Beeler Assistant City Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Rick: WSS:jt Enclosure LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 62 .2g9j _ • May 23 1984.•.. • ; : ,•,.,, 4 1984 (.11Y 1.. 1U I�L�;i'; +`!^ DE•P'r. Enclosed please find a memo which I prepared at Larry Martin's request concerning your dispute with the State of Washington and the Department of Transportation. My review confirms the opinion originally forwarded to you by Larry in his letter of May 8, 1984. Based upon your existing Master Plan and state law reviewed in the memo, Tukwila cannot at the present time subject the DOT to the review of the Board of Architectural Review. Please note my conclusion in my final paragraph that Tukwila should either delete BAR review of shoreline manage- ment act permits or submit Section 18.60.030(2) to the Depart- ment of Ecology for approval as an amendment to the Shoreline Management Act Master Plan. Architectural review of construc- tion within the shoreline substantial development permit area is certainly a proper subject for inclusion in your plan. If I can provide any further information in this regard please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY W. Scott Ruder • MARK A. EAMES R. MARK ALLEN STEVEN A. REISLER LAURA C. INVEEN CHRISTOPHER A. WASHINGTON JAMES E. HANEY ROSEMARY P. BORDLEMAY SUE E. FREEBORN • ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA •• ALSO ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUM.IA ALSO ADMITTED IN MONTANA 3 ALSO ADMITTED IN COLORADO, NEW TDEA AND NEW JERSEY °ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN Infra, p. 613. MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Martin FROM: Scott RE: Tukwila DOT /BAR Dispute DATE: May 18., 1984 I have reviewed the materials which you forwarded; the Shorelines Management Act and a variety of case law in the preparation of this memo. The law cited in the Assistant Attorney General's letter is still good law with respect to the narrow situation that it covers, but it may not be applicable to the situation at hand. As you have probably noted from the letter it is five years old and is probably carried around by the DOT in their back pocket for use when cities attempt to limit or prohibit the construction of state projects by zoning or building codes. As that memo states, local enactments and amendments of the state building code are applicable to state construction projects, however, a local.. government may not require the state or its agencies to comply with local zoning restrictions. In my experience, Assistant Attorney Generals pay more attention to opinions of the Attorney General than they do the case law, and this gentleman's letter was no exception. These general rules were not affected_ by the Supreme Court's ruling in Edmonds Edmonds v. Mountlake Terrace, 77 Wn.2d 609 (1970). That case dealt with two political subdivisions. in the State of Washington and focused on interpretations of their powers under the Constitution and state statute in order to harmonize their respective powers. Its holding is summed up in this quote: It [the State of Washington] has left subordinate municipalities free to regulate each other in those activities which traditionally are thought to be within their particular competence and are more proximate to their respective functions. There is dicta within the opinion that makes it clear that the court would have reached the opposite result had the case involved the state or a state agency rather than another municipal subdivision. This conclusion is confirmed by the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II in State v. Hutch, 30 Memorandum May 18,. 1984 Page 2 Wn. App. 28 (1981) (footnote 9). The issue which you raise in your memo concerning planning and zoning powers granted under the State Constitution, would probably not be controlling in a case such as this. Where grants of broad power are made under the Constitution to the state or expressly granted to a state agency, local zoning ordinances cannot be used as a defense or a bar to the exercise by the state of such inherent or specified powers. South Hill Sewer District v. Pierce County, 22 Wn. App. 738' (1979) and State v. Hutch, infra. While the state may bar a local legislative act by pre- emption, it may also delegate power to local government to exercise powers even with respect to its own state agencies. Leschi'v. Highway Commission, 84 Wn.2d 271 (1974). Actions taken under the Shorelines Management Act RCW 90.58 would be an area in which the local government in the exercise of those powers could limit or prohibit activities of State agencies. The SMA provides for ". . . planned, rational and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state and local governments . . ." RCW 90.58.020. The Shorelines Management Act provides for a cooperative program between local government and the state: "Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating and administering the regulatory programs of this Chapter." RCW 90.58.050. Finally, the persons covered and subject to the regulation of the Shoreline Management Act include agencies of the state. RCW 90.58.030.1(d). Referring back now to the Attorney General's opinion, it is obvious that if the purported action of Tukwila is taken pursuant to actions authorized by the SMA those actions are analogous to the building code provisions authorized by the state building code. Therefore the Attorney General's position should support Tukwila's claims, not inhibit them. The key then is whether or not the review of the Board of Architectural Review is a part of the Shoreline Management Act's process. The SMA provides that the local government is to. exercise its powers only pursuant to approved master pro- grams. These master programs are to be submitted to the state for approval. RCW 90.58.090. These programs are to be reviewed by the Department of Ecology to determine whether or ' not they comply with rules established by the Department. RCW 90.58.140(3). Finally, any amendments to the Master Plan must be submitted and approved in order to be effective. The key then is whether the BAR review procedures now contained in 18.60.030(2)(a) Tukwila Municipal Code. Review of the Tukwila Master Plan, as approved by the Department of Ecology, establishes that the BAR review was neither Memorandum May 18,. 1984 Page 3 originally submitted to the Department of Ecology nor later approved as an amendment. The statement of procedures, Appendix A, does not include BAR review as a part of the process and the BAR review section is not included among the city code sections in Appendix C. Tukwila itself appears to have recognized that the BAR review is not part of the SMA process; BAR review is not among the conditions listed on the permit (issued in January 1984). Tukwila should either delete BAR review of SMA permits, . or submit 18.60.030(2) to the Department of Ecology for approval as an amendment to the SMA Master Plan. WSS : j t JAMES A. MURPHY JOHN D. WALLACE DOUGLAS E. ALBRIGHT LEE CORKRUM•• WAYNE D. TANAKA G. GEOFFREY GIBBSt LARRY C. MARTIN ROBERT G. ANDRES MICHAEL G. WICKSTEAD OF COUNSEL RAYMOND D. OGDEN. JR. RAYMOND D. OGDEN (1876.19721 RONALD A. MURPHY (1930.19831 Rick Beeler Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Rick: LAW OFFICES OF OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY 2300 WESTIN BUILDING 2001 SIXTH AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 622.2991 May 8, 1984 Re: 1-405 Transit /Carpool Improvements - Tukwila Shoreline Management Permit MARK A. EAMES R. MARK ALLEN STEVEN A. REISLER LAURA C. INVEEN CHRISTOPHER A. WASHINGTON JAMES E. HANEY ROSEMARY P. BORDLEMAY SUE E. FREEBORN • ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA •• ALSO ADMITTED IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA t ALSO ADMITTED IN MONTANA t ALSO ADMITTED IN COLORADO, NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN I am writing to respond to your request for advice con- cerning the Washington State Department of Transportation project referenced above. As you know, the City has issued a Substantial Development Permit under the Shoreline Management Act for the project. However, after issuance of the permit it was discovered that Section 18.60.030(2)(A) of the Tukwila. Municipal Code requires Board of Architectural review and approval of the development. Although the State has been directed to initiate the process for this review, it has not done so to date. In response to your correspondence, the State has sub- mitted several sources of authority for the proposition that it does not need to comply with the requirement of BAR re- view. My initial response is that I concur, although please regard this response as tentative because we are doing addi- tional research to verify the authority submitted. The reason that I say at this point I tentatively concur with the State's position that they do not need to obtain BAR review is that the general rule of law which applies is that the State must comply with local building code regulations in carrying out public projects within local communities, but need not comply with zoning and other general land use regu- Rick Beeler May 8, 1984 Page 2 LCM:jry lations. One qualification to this rule is that the State Shoreline Management Act expressly provides that State pro - jects must comply with the Act and local regulations adopted pursuant to the Act. Unfortunately, the requirement for BAR review does not appear to stem from the City's Shoreline Management Act or Chapter 18.44 of the TMC which is a revision to and supple- ment of the Shoreline Management Act. Instead, the require- ment for BAR review is contained in Chapter 18.60, a compo- nent of the City's general land use regulations and zoning code. (Please note that I have formulated this tentative opinion without the opportunity to review the City's local Shoreline Master Program. I have requested that a copy of this be made available to our office. I understand Brad Collins is following up on it. I would appreciate it if you would be sure that a copy is made available in the near fu- ture. However, to the best of Brad's knowledge, there is no requirement in the Shoreline Master Program relating to BAR review). We are going to work on this issue by updating the auth- orities provided to us by the Washington State Department. of Transportation. I will get back to you with a follow -up opinion as soon as we have had the opportunity to confirm whether the law cited by DOT is currently correct. cc: Brad Collins Very truly yours, OGDEN „ OGDEN & MURPHY Larr/C. Martin JOHN SPELLMAN Governor STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~-- - - Office of District Administrator • D-1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C-81410 • Seattle, a shi ' I Y OF tb 9si�1 1: ? i . r 0: � t�I� }� C t L � f Rick Beeler Pt �, , E ,........._........:::...„,.......„..,,::::_2'.. , 1f.i Acting Planning Director City of Tukwila 620 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: In your letter dated February 28, 1984, you state that the Department of Transportation has not complied with the requirements of the Shoreline Management Permit Application because you inadvertently neglected to gain approval by the Board of Architectural Review as required by the City's Zoning Code. You further state that your City Attorney has confirmed that this approval is a necessary condition of the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit. The Department disagrees with this interpretation of state and federal law. The Attorney General's Office holds that we must obtain permits from local agencies only when there is specific state or federal enabling legislation requiring state agency compliance with local regulations. The legislature has mandated that state agencies must comply with the Shoreline Management Act; however, this does not include compliance with local zoning ordinances. In the attached correspondence to Brian Cary, the Attorney General notes that "local zoning and land use ordinances do not apply to state facilities being used for governmental purposes ". This is reiterated in the Attorney General's legal opinion 1976 No. 72, the Attorney General's legal opinion 1974 No. 206 and the additional attachments. We feel, therefore, that we have complied with the applicable requirements of the Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit as issued, and there is no need for further approval required by the City's zoning code. We would like to continue the close coordination between the Department of Transportation and the City of Tukwila during the development of this project. If you have any design or environmental questions regarding this or other projects, please contact me at 233 -2306. Any questions regarding the state's legal position should be directed through your City Attorney to Michael A. Nicefaro, Jr., in the State Attorney General's office. MAJ /hl Attachments cc Michael A. Nicefaro, Jr. March 27, 1984 Sincerely, Interstate 405 Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvements Shoreline Management Permit L -6166 Richard F. Johnson Ri , District Design Engineer DUANE BERENTSON Secretary NNW November 30, 1979 Brian Cary Issaquah Project Office Department of Transportation 1295 N. W. Mall Issaquah, WA _ 98027 Dear Mr. .Cary: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL • SLADE GORTON . ATTORNEY GENERAL TEMPLE OF JUSTLCE OLYMPIA', WASHINGTON 98504 • By previous communication with our office, you requested us to review the question of whether the department or its contractors must comply with local ordinances in the construction of such facilities as park- : and-ride lots. Our response is as follows: -As .a basic premise, a locality: has no authority to compel the state to - mke state facilities comply with:lbca1 building ordinances, 1913 Attorney General's Opinions p..199. .In 1974 the State: Legisia passed .the State . Building.. Code ':.Act;. now .codified as - chapter - 19.27_ `RCW. The act establishes Aa• state building -.-code, consisting of -several previously -existing - codes, 'RCW 19'.27.030, which may be amended by cities, towns,.and counties, RCW 19.27.040. The code is generally applicable to state -owned buildings and structures, RCW 19.27.060(2). The code is administered-and enforced by local authorities, RCW 19.27.050. As originally passed, localities could not revise the fee . schedules of the uniform codes listed in RCW 19.27.030. See 1974 AGLO No. 45 (April 15, 1974). This was changed by the enactment in 1975 of what is now RCW 19.27.100: -. Nothing in this chapter prohibit .. city, town, or county of the state from imposing .fees - different . :from .those set forth in the state building code. The intent-of. this :: amendment was- to allow localities to charge fees. sufficient to pay for an adequate inspection program, in some cases the minimum.fees.in the various building codes being too low.. 1975 • Senate Journal p. 202 -03. The intent was jot . - allow the fees to .become a revenue-raising measure for local 'government. 1975 .Senate - Journal p. -221. t3 Cary Uovember 30, 1979 ' Page two Accordingly, pursuant' the State-Building Code-Act,_unless exempted by local ordinances or otherwise, the construction of state - owned' buildings must comply_ with the act, as emended by the city, town, or county involved. The locality can charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs of administering. and. enforcing the code. A It should be noted - .that the State Building. Code relates to "construction materials standards in construction process itself "; that is how the building,is to be built. 1974 AGLO No. 45 (April. 15, 1974) , at p. ..6.. - It does not relate to local ordinances involving whether the building may be built. Again, as a rule, local zoning and land use ordinances do not apply to state being ;u : sed for governmental purposes. 1945 -46 Attorney-General's Opinions: p. 511.. The State Building erode Act does not change this. We do note RcW 19..27.090, which_provides: Local land use and zoning requirements, building setbacks .side and rear -yard requirements, site development, property. line requirements, subdivision requirements, and local fire zones are specifically reserved to local jurisdictions notwithstanding any other provision of this 1974 act. ' • This section• .was. ::considered in 1974 AGLO No :106 (December 30,' 1974), - in - which the :Attorney :General concluded, at.page 7: Zn light''of the fact - that'S'9 " 1RCW::19.27:;09.0] = to be nothing more than .an attempt on. the : part of ..the . to _ preserve the .status quo: with -respect to zoning, etc., and since it does not specifically make'' the .state subject to local zoning,- etc., it is_ our opinion that "the legislature should not be • presumed, by that act, to have placed state government under the control of local governments with respect to the activities set forth therein. . The general question was again considered in 1974 AGLO No. 56 (December 12, 1977); which concluded that:a city, town or county may not amend the state - building code as:: it applies within its jurisdiction so_as to require state agencies to comply with local zoning or other .land use controls as :i condition precedent to receiving a local building permit. _Accordingly, the is not obligated . to. comply with local land "- use, zoning,' .building set -back, fire, or.. similar ordinances pursuant to the. State Building Code,. Act, or to obtain permits under such ordinances.' It is our understanding that.as a policy the department does confer . with_localities and : _attempts to conform to ..such ' - :-ordinances. : from State :Building Code, we are unaware of any general . statute requiring the state to comply with provisions of local zoning codes or similar ordinances. The rule that the state does not have to comply was reaffirmed in 1976 AGLO No. 72 (November 24, 1976) . • �. • Ur i an Cary •November 30, 1979. Page three • • SWD:CS • Enc. cs 'V. W. Korf Very truly . Yoprs , FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPENCER W. DANIELS Assistant Attorney General • -We trust this will -of assistance to .y4 u in your'future dealing !with local authorities -. Copies' -of most the 'Attorney .General's .,, Opinions referred to are enclosed:: Please Advise .:us Should any specific questions develop. .: • • • • • • , . ' • ;..it.; . ! SLA?)E GC)I TOv T:.ORNE G Y ,.NE AL 4 . \• .-r 1 TEMPLZ OF JUST:CF. OLYMPIA. WAS'[::GTO .633:1: H. AUSTIN 1t :c,:ney General • .. Iloncrable Ralph W. -,arson _ -. •Director,.Department.of Game - 600:Borth Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98504 - . •Dear • • OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ''' . *ANALYSIS • I o' -ez er : 24, ..1976.4. . a. • Cite as: AGL0.1976 No. 72 • . _ By recent letter you have request 4 our on a question which.: m.paraphrase as follows: Is a state agency., in using state- owned_land for a given project falling within the -scope of its legal • authority, required to comply with the.. provisions of a local (county or city) zoning code? • ' isle answer this question in the for the reasons set forth*.in our analysis. • _ 123 Ky. 767, 97 S.W. 402. (190b), "Any ccunty„ city, town or township may .hake and enforce within its limits all such local police, 'sanitary and other regulations, as are not in conflict with general -laws." Both - counties and cities _under the ; .authority . granted to . them by Article' XI,. §1.1 of. our ..statc.,..constitutionl and such statutes as • those *contained fa .chapters 35.63 and 36.70 RCW, may enact local land use regulations or zoning codes. - See, AGLO 1973: No. 103, copy enclosed. It has, how- ever, been the consistent position of this �:bffice for many - years that in the absence of a statute to `the contrary, such codes are not applicable to the state itself or to the law- ful uses made by the state of its own lands. As explained• in .3n opinion dated February. 28, 1947, to _the state auditor, a copy or.: .Which you will also :. find enclosed; quoting from the oft -cited case of Kentucky Institution for - Blind v. Louisvii •' , • "* * * The principle is._: :.the state, _when -creating municipal governments,:-does not cede to them any control of the state's property. - situated within. them, nor over any property - • • owied lands subject to particular local regulations. .7 - . Thus,A7.28.of_the Shorelines Management Act of 1971 - (chapter 90.58 RCW) expressly state that: _,- ,,. . - "The provisions of this chapter local regulations adopted.thereunder],shall' be applicable to all agencies of state.... government, :counties, and public and. muni- cipal corporations and to all 'shorelines of ;the state owned oradministered.by_them." • • . . . .� c:��vr�u3.e Ralph W. .irson ., • • • • • A tto • • t Nove^�er 4 '1976 Likewise,. ac. _recently notes? in ACID 1974 Nc. 106, ropy inclosed,• local buildin, codes. (as distinguished on zoning tout ^.$) ..enacted .,pursua•_'nt to 'chapter 9 L,�� -' 'I •3974, E::. - Secs. (the state building code.act )�, }have•.." erxpress 1y been made applicable. by the legislature ' �o st to building projects. • But, as' we : ,.then further: ex- • p:! aincd in that opinion, at pp. 6•-7, .the :legislature .refrained in that 1974 law frO •' similar providing - in • .. ,::the case Of land use regulations or : zoni.ng,' codes . • Therefore, .`a t . this time we adhere to our previous ,,. opinions on the subject and, •based thereon, we answer our present question, as above paraphrased,- fn=the ' negative. We trust that the foregoing will be of sortie as- sistance to you. ` . SLADE GORTON Ce•eral a..A JST eputy At . .Gel z 1 =e'' .• • • ., • • *. • , •r . . �._ 7 _ 4 FP ICE F THE l. TO: INEY C.2NEflAL ., 7 ' .0 SLADE GORTON ATTORNEY GENERAL i : .*:* * : TEMPLE 0 JL S;'iC:. OLYMPIA, :': y,i:i \GTO:: ^.1504 •:.,. ''" December 30, 1974 lirnc�rrble A. Angier -• director, : De.partr,►ertt of .•General. °..Administration . 218 Ceneral' Administration Bui.lding :01ym4ia, Washington 93504 "'Dear-Sir: • • "Projects which are between the desi and contract bidding.phase?_. "Projects •which are''isi •the - lidding process? "Projects for which contracts have been awarded but for which construction has net yet begun? "Projects which are in the construction phase ?" Question (2): "Is the state subject to compliance t:ith all local zoning ordinances under the provision of Section 9 of this act ?" _ :. Cite. as:" AGLO 1974 No. 106 . • By letter previously" `acknowledged you have requested.an opinion of•this•office with'regard to the responsibilities .ot. he • state under_ or by of chanter 96, Laws of. ::1974., Ex. - Sess....Your'• -first question; regarding the effective date of this..act, has previously • been. answered • in our acknowledgnert letter. • Your. other :three questions, correspondingly_ renumbered areas • follows: :s . • i.; - • r uestion (1) • `. .• •what stage of -project development." does- . . the state become subject •to •:complance 'With . .•the provisions : 7af specifically es. - ..; - . regards . _ •.. w. • ' �"Pro3ects 'which have bean appropriated, but which are not yet . 3.h design ? - "Pro' ects: %Bich b eve been .appropriat • and which are in design? , . honorable Keith ACNngicr • • • • • •. de. — "0) Uniform Building Code and Related Standards, 1973 edition, published by the International Conference. of Building Officials; • • e _ • De.cc( er 30,:1974 • owner, to prepare Environmental Impact Statements, or does that responsibility rest with the local governmental unit involved?" • • We answer questions (1). and (3) in the .manner set forth in our, analysis and -question (2)..in the negative. • ANALYSIS - - . . •.-- By its enactment of chapter 96, Laws c;f1.974 ; E. "-Sess., the legislaturd;:adopted a "state building code" to. .- be aPplicableas;.of' January - 1, 1975, to buildings and con- stt-uction cities -- tcywns - and counties of state. .• • •' "(2) Uniform Me chanicaftode';' 1973 edition, .•! including Chapter '22, - Piping, .., B, Pu bli s h e d:, by the International • Conforence of Building Officials and the .. International A s s oc iation• - of_ Plumbing and Mechanical OfficialS; "(3) ''The Unifoi • thereto, 1973 edition, publ 'shed by the International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chiefs Asso- . . . • - - elation; "(4) The Uniform Plumbing Code, 1973 edition, published by the International Asso- • ciation of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials: • PROVIDED, Th,:t chapter 11.of such code is not . • adopted: PROVIDED (FURTHER], That notwith- -1 standing any wording in this code, nothing in --!•::this code shall apply to the installation of :.any gas piping, water heaters, or vents :for • • • :4:•vater heaters; and (5) The American National. -. • • Standard Specifications :.for • and Facilities Accessible:To, and. Usable Zy, The Physically' Handicapped, published by American National Standards institute;Inc., Document ANSI A117.1-1961 (reaffirmed 1971). except as pro by §i- 4 .and 6, noted below. This code,• as .defined irr § 3 of the act, .is not expres417;set .forth • - therein but, •Instead, is to • - . • • • • - •- II. • consist of the following codes • - • which are hereby adopted'by reference: ••••,•. :•• • • Atto`T' General of the State of Wa ngton INTER - OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE Date: May 24, 1973 H. W. Bumphres/ "J. 'W. Jasper .. William 'G..Boland/ Michael E. - Stevenson 3 Contract 940X- . SR 'S, 284th St. N..W to. Conway Hill Ly memorandum dated tray 14, 1973 you have requested our opinion *• an to whether Snohomish County can require the state to obtain • . a conditional use permit for the operation of.. :•state owned•pit • which is being used in conjunction with highway construction. This. question arose: because Pit Site D-28 is in an area zoned . "Rural Use ". This type. of zoning classification•' nct'al�o4r. the operation of a pit site without .a .'conditional- nsk ,. _p` t. .. _ .r' b ... • • While we, have notjound any Washington decisions directly in point on this question, our research has disclosed that theeneral 1 is that zoning regulations do not apply to governmental projects where the public agency is acting in its governmental • capacity. • 61 A.L.R.2d 970... :.Ann Arbor Township v. United States, . (D. C. Mich. 1950) 93 F.. •Supp. 341; North Mi:.'i v. Grant- =s'Iol:: Construction Co.:, '(D..' C. Fla.) 237 F. Supp.. 3; Lloyd- IIt. for v. ._ .,uuntington, 4._ 24.:.Y.2d.282,..173. 553, 11...E.2(17.56;.;•' rbs1and v. Vecchiolla, 59 Misc. :2d •965,.•302 N.Y.S.2d - 75; Village ' . ' n The. Hill, Inc. v. Mass. Turnpike Authority, '202 .N.E.2d 602 (Mass.) . :,ther states have :held that zoning ..ordinances do not apply to the construction of ai`project for which :the governmental agency could acquire property by eminer.t domain... .:Scottsdale v. Municipal Court o.. Tempe, (Ariz.) .368 P.2 637; State ex rel. Askew v. Kopp, (No.) .330 S.W.2d 882; Mayor of_ . :vannah v. Collins, (Ga.) 84 S.E.2d 454; . State ex rel. Helsel v. Ard of County Comrs., (Ohio) .79 N.E.2d 698; State ex rel. Ohio '1'!trnpike Commission v. Allen, (Ohio) 107 :1.E.2d 345; Balduff v. Turnpike Commission, 344 U.S. 865, 97 L. Ed. 611, 73 S.C. 107. . RCN 47.12.010 authorizes the Highway Commission to acquire property for pit sites by eminent domain. This statute also indicates that the acquisition of .a pit site for highway construction is a :governmental use. Consequently under the rules previously stated, ._the_.Snohomish County zoning. ordinance should not apply to..a state . pit`site used in conjuntion with highway construction. In addition has also been recognized that where a governmental ...body . is. exempt _from . local ..la - s 'and a private corporation : is acting . '_,-•t; der authority - gran t ed to it by- governmental body,` the corporation • enjoys the same • immunity that the _ _ .agency has. 58 Am.. Jur., :- Sec. • 120,'" • .p 167 ( 1972 , 9upp.) . .In a similar vein .the. Attorney :.General • . ' : lias ruled #hat a county may not prohibit the holder of a state 1. **tuiit issued by the Board of Natural' Resources from engaging ▪ •in surface : in accordance with the terms of the permit. • . ; 1970, Vo. 23, the Attorney General •said: ' This is not to say, of course,:that the board of natural resources may not prcerly take into considera- tion the nature and: extent of local regulation of land. 'use in those areas. in which:a prospective state permittee • is seeking authorization to engage in surface mining; it • : . is• to say, however, that if the board, in the exercise ..of its discretion in accordance with.lthe standards laid • . down in the act, sees • fit to grant a permit for the . .z-proposed operation, the operator • to whom the permit. is • . • -. ` • - :':thus - granted will be free to proceed with • his operations • :,. z otwithstanding.. the terms of any .such local land apse• -.regulations governing ..the . area..in • question. • :::%- zn.• suaimary; - would _be our �opini.on -that= the: 'zoni ng of Snohomish County should not bar ..the operation.. of ._the state . - • pit site in conjunction with highway :construction.:• - ,t. W• Numphres/ J. W. Jasper Riau 24, 1973 - i:4je 1RGB:MES: je • • • • • • • • Perm 24411 • • • • • To: Larry Blackerby = -.. From: • R. M. McIntosh,* . 'RMM:cs cc. V. W. Rorf Attorney General of the State of Washington INTER - OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE :Date „June . 4. 1979 .S je :. ' -LSB• :,- ...Stevens :D.rive..tO..Thayer.:.Drive, Pit.S.ite R -59 r. have examined the-materials which you sent me concerning the dispute which has arisen vitiethe City of Richland pit site R -59. ' :I - believe your 'first :question relating to materials was whether _or :' ..the subject parcel is. owned by the State of .Washington. The "easement.quit clainr - deed" which you furnished :•tn..aee the State of Washington is not the -fee :timer of :the. :landg question. Instead, it has - only - an easement such` :lands for the: operation and maintenance of a gravel pit.. ..However;•while.it appears tome the State of Washington is n o t - t h e owner'-of lairds in question, it does not appear from this 'deed , hat the City. of Richland is either. The owner appears.. to be the United:States of Amer ica,,acting by and through. the Anited States. Atomic. Energy Commission. ::I believe your second question was 'whether..the State of Washington . s subject. to- compliance with. local zoning - ordinances: This;quesition' been answered«in by numeront attorney general' opinions, .aost ..recently., ' L believe in AGIA 197 No..106, as copy of.; which is • ' enclosed herewith.. _. I hope ,:the . above:_information . is of assistance . to you. ,w:: i 1;,79 • • '1909 4 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: CITY AT_T,ORNEY FROM: RiE gielar-- DATE: March 21, 1984 SUBJECT: Washington State Departm of Transportation - 83- 21 -SMP The Shoreline Management Permit for this project was issued January 27, 1984. Inadvertently the City did not process the application through the Board of Architectural Review before issuing the permit. Upon raising the issue verbally with WSDOT disagreement aroze regarding City jurisdiction over the project relative to design review. Per their request the attached letter of February 28, 1984, was sent to the District Design Engineer. Having received no response in almost a month, the matter is hereby turned over to your office. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at 433 -1847. RB /blk 4)‘- L A j, u4 0 1908 February 28, 1984 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor G.L. GILBERT, P.E. District Design Engineer Department of Transportation D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. S. C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 RE: Shoreline Management Permit -Green River Interchange 83- 21 -SMP Dear Mr. Gilbert: Ralph Nichols of your environmental division requested that I contact you regarding the City's concerns following issuance by the City of the Shoreline Management Permit for the .T -line bridge and I -405 Green River crossing. On February 9, 1984, the City Public Works Department and myself, representing the City's Planning Department, met with members of your staff including Dave Dye and Harold Morgan. At that meeting I discussed with your staff the need for additional design review to occur by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. I stated that.the City of Tukwila had issued the Shoreline Management Permit inadvertently without the required step of gaining approval of the Board of Architectural Review which approval is required'under the City's Zoning Code. Due to the potential impact upon your project this raised concerns of everybody involved, and in the intervening time since that meeting some confusion arose concerning who would do what research and when in order to resolve the situation. Unfortunately, considerable time has passed since this meeting, therefore, per agreement with Mr. Nichols I am sending this letter in order to provide the necessary information for your evaluation. The City Attorney has confirmed that Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.60.030(2)(A) requires Board of Architectural Review approval of your proposed development contained in the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit. Condition number 5 of the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit issued by the City on January 12, 1984, stipulates compliance with the City "shoreline zone" requirements, which Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44.110(9) stipulates that all necessary permits of the City shall be obtained. One of the necessary permits is approval by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. Normally, this review is accomplished concurrent with processing of the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, however, in this instance this required review inadvertently did not occur. Page -2- G..L. GILBERT, P.E. • District Design Engi er Department of Transportation February 28, 1984 To correct the situation, the City has two basic options of 1) withdrawing the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit, or 2) having the Department of Transportation fulfill condition number 5 of the permit by proceeding through the Board of Architectural Review for final approval of the design of the pro- ject pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.60. The City's preference and election is for the latter. Therefore, tentatively we have scheduled review of your proposal before the Board of Architectural Review on March 22, 1984, at .8:00 p.m. here in the City Council Chambers. This is predicated upon an appli- cation and a $60.00 filing fee being submitted to the City by March 6, 1984. The next available meeting date with the Board of Architectural Review would be April 26, 1984, which appears to be a delay counter - productive to the pro- ject. Today it was noted that the plans filed for the Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit omitted details of the earth structural wall and roadway revision on the south side of the proposed T -line bridge. These details should be submitted and placed in the file. These details do not represent substantial design plans warranting requirement of an additional Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit. Should you have any questions regarding any of the above please do not hesitate to contact me at 433 -1845. Respectful1 Rick Beeler Acting Planning Director Rb /bl.k February 14, 1984 Herman Huggins N.W. Regional Office Department of Ecology 4350 - 150th Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 a.swis0 G.E. WANNAMAKER, P.E. Development Review Section Surface Water Management Division GEW:WJP:njm Enclosure King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director RE: State Flood Control Zone Application #2 -1550 WA DOT Dear Mr. Huggins: We have reviewed the application by the State Department of Transportation to modify Interstate 405 and have the following comments: 1. The plan is compatible with the comprehensive drainage plan for the Green River Watershed. 2. The plan for the "P -1" channel construction has been approved by our Green River Project Engineer. 3. The addition of the "support piers" in conjunction with construction of the "Green River crossing" will require re- establishment of the riverbank protection (to King County standards) 30 feet upstream and 30 feet downstream of the project. We recommend issuance of this permit (with comment #3 above being a condition of the final approval). If you have any questions, please contact Bill Pleas of this office at 344 -3874. Sincerely, cc: City of Renton City of Tukwila Molly Johnson, WA State DOT, 6431 Corson S., Seattle, WA 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344.2517 FFB2 2 19841 CITY OF TLi.:.:iLA PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA Notice of Public Meeting of the Tukwila Planning Commission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the 23rd day of February, 1984 at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for A. DR -2 -84: King County Road Engineer, requesting approval of Foster Bridge replacement at 52nd Ave. S. and Interurban Ave. S. B. DR -3 -84: Washington State Department of Transportation, request for appro- val of rebuilding of Christensen Road overpass and widen I -405 for exclusive lanes for transit /carpool. Any and all interested persons are invited to attend. Published: Record. Chronicle, February 12, 1984 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Public Works Department 433 -1850 Mr. John A. K1 asel l , P.E. District State Aid Engineer ATTEN: Dale Wirkkala 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, Washington - 98108 Dear Mr. Klasell: RE: City of Tukwila CS 1743 SR -405 'H0V Lanes L -6166 1. Page K -5: It is noted that notations stating, "sanitary manhole to be relocated by others" has two leader lines going to both the sanitary sewer manhole and to the storm drain manhole in thb_48 " "stor.m main. Recommended is that the leader line to the storm manhole be taken off.the reference note.. Reguarding the 48" storm manhole, it appears that this manhole will have to be rebuilt as part of the HOV construction. Its location in the middle of the HOV lane, as proposed, raises concern as to accessbility. Will this manhole afford adequate acccess to the 48" main and state interceptor trunkline? Currently, the City may.:: not intend to construct the 48" flapgate and manhole structure in the vicinity of Tukwila Parkway and Adover Park West, as proposed last year, which would have provided an alternate access to this storm facility. Additional notations requested include by note "sanitary manhole to be relocated by others" on K -5 are as follows: A. Surveys for the relocation will be provided by State. B. Timing of relocation by City to be coordinated with City, and allowed for in Contractor's Schedule. .C. Allowances in specifications for both contractors working on site.(limitations, etd.) Request that city's plans for sewer relocation be included or referenced . c February 9, 1984 Public Works has reviewed your plan submittal for the HOV Project through the City of Tukwila and has the following comments: C Si -2- 2. K -5, K -6: Request easements be shown for 12" sanitary sewer main and 12" water main crossing I -405. 3. P -6: Requested, indicate proposed Tukwila trail system under I -405 and over relocated T -Line Bridge. (For added information, refer to Don Williams, Recreation director (433 -1843) 4. K -6: Only adjustment of valve boxes will be carried out as part of modifications to the city's 12" water main for the HOV construction. Apparently, no relocation of the water main is needed as part of this construction. In the construction plans for the T -Line Bridge Replacement, it is anticipated that accomodation for the relocation of this 12" main will be provided through block outs in the super structure of the new T -Line Bridge. 5. K -6: Location of the existing and proposed footings, piers, and columns of theT -Line Bridge suggested shown on the NOV plan drawings. 6. J -3 through J -7: City's review indicated no detours will be created on Tukwila's local streets resulting from this construction. Also, the on —ramp from Tukwila Parkway will remain open throughout construction. Requested, the City be included in approvals of locations of construction shack /materials storage /equipment storage facilities, if they are to be with in City Limits. If any blockages to I -405 or local streets during construction, for extended period of time (over one hour) these blockages not occur during the holiday season, or during peak traffic hours. 7. Requested Seattle Water Transmission Line easements be shown and limitations (per Seattle Water Dept.) for construction activities be noted on the plans. 8. Refer to Tukwila Planning Department, Rick Beeler (433 - 1847), for permit and Land Use BAR processes. If you have any questions reguarding these matters please do not hesitate to contact meat 433 -1856. hil Fraser Senior Engineer cc. PWD Planning • File IOHN SPELLMAN Governor February 1, 1984 Wn. State Department of Transportation Attn: G.L. Gilbert District Design Engineer D-1 6431 Corson AveEue S. C-81410 Seattle, WA 98108 Dear Mr. Gilbert: Re: Sincerely, Linda S. Rankin ' Permit Coordinator Shorelands Division cc: City of Tukwila ECY 050-1-28(a) Rev. 11/81 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 2 Faruivin 1FEB G 1984] CIT OF TLWLA DEPT. COUNTY: King/Tukwila APPLICANT: Wn. State Department of Transportation SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT #N 590-14-3221 (83-21) The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit was received by this office on January 27, 1984 . The review period by the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office will terminate 30 days from the above date. If no notice of appeal is received, construction pursuant to the permit may commence following expiration of the review period, provided that all other federal, state, and local laws regulating such construction have been complied with. Your proposal appears to be in a Flood Control Zone, and may require a Flood Control Zone Permit. Please contact King County for further assistance. DONALD W. MOOS Director 4 City of Tukwila 1 9 08 RB /blk • January 17, 1984 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor EMILY RAY Shoreline Management Permit Division Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 RE: Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit No. 83- 21 -SMP Dear Ms. Ray: Enclosed is the substantial development permit for the Department of Transportation widening of I -405 in Tukwila. If you have any quesitons or require additional information, call me at 433 -1845. Respecgyl 1 is — .-e er Associate Planner NOTE - THIS PAGE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT Type of Action [l Substantial Development Permit E1 Conditional Use (l Variance Pursuant to RCW 90.58, a permit is hereby granted to: Washington State Department of Transportation (name of applicant) widen I -405 for exclusive lanes for transit /carpool Application No.83- 21 -SMP Administering Agency City of Tukwila Approved X Denied Date January 12, 1984 to undertake the following development: Rebuild Christensen Road overpass and (be specific) upon the following property: Green River Interchange (legal description, i.e., section, NE* SE* Section 22, Township 23, Range 4 WM and NW* SW* Section 24, Township 23, township, range) Range 4 WM. within Green River and /or its associated wetlands. (name of water area) The project will be within shorelines of statewide significance (be /not be) (RCW 90.58.030). The project will be located within an urban (environment) designation. The following master program provisions are applicable to this development Chapter 4 pp. 4.1, 4.4, 4.6. (state the master program sections or page numbers Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the follow- ing terms and conditions Compliance with 1.) State landfill requirements and specifications; 2.) State landscaping requirements and specifications to be . compatible with existing landscaping in the area; 3.) Department of Ecology erosion control plans; 4.) Christensen Trail Enhancement; 5.) City Shore- line Zone requirements. This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and nothing in this permit shall excuse the application 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 per - mittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof. CONSTUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND WAC 173 -14 -090, OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.140(5) :a)(b)(c). January 13, 198 (date) Director, artment THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT. Date received by the department Approved Denied This conditional use /variance permit is approved /denied by the department pur- suant to chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shal be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and conditions: (date) (Signature of Authorized Department Official) FORM FOR FINAL DECLARATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE Name of Proposal: • Interstate 405 Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvements Description of Proposal: This project proposes improving 2.97 miles of Interstate 405 by widening northbound and southbound lanes by 12 feet to provide an exclusive lane for transit /carpool use. Construction items include concrete and asphalt paving, grading, drainage, structure widening, safety improvements, illumination, signing, paint striping and other work. Proponent Washington State Department of Transportation Location of Proposal: This project is located an Interstate 405, in the cities of Tukwila to Renton, from mile post 0.00 to milepost 2.97, in King County. Lead Agency: Washington State Department of Transportation This proposal has been determined to not have a significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW 43.2I C. -030(2) (C). This decision was mode after review of a completed environmental assessment and other information on file with the Department of Transportation. Responsible Official: Dan Tranum, P. E. PaaitianfTitie: Public Transportation and Planing Engineer CITY OF TUKWILA Notice of Public Meeting of the Tukwila Planning Commission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the 23rd day of February, 1984 at 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and place for A. DR -2 -84: King County Road Engineer, requesting approval of Foster Bridge replacement at 52nd Ave. S. and Interurban Ave. S. c/ OR -3 -84: Washington State Department of Transportation, request for appro- val of rebuilding of Christensen Road overpass and widen I -405 for exclusive lanes for transit /carpool. Any and all interested persons are invited to'attend. Published: Record Chronicle, February 12, 1984 1908 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT IANAGEMENT .SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that Washington State Department. of Transportation who owns the below described property has filed an application for a substantial development permit for reb'ui'lding the Christensen Road over- pass and widening Interstate 405 for exclusive lanes for transit/carpool - use in the Green River Interchange, NE 1/4 SE 1 /4..Section 22, Township..23, Range 4 .WM. and NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 24, Township 23, Range 4 WM, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, Washington, Said development is proposed to be within the Green River area and its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express his views or to be notified of the action taken on this application would notify Rick Beeler, Associate Planner, City of Tukwila in writing of his interest within thirty days of the final date of publica- tion of this notice which. is. December. 9., . 1984. Written comments must be received by January 9 , 1985 :.Y *ILA 1909 .•t as City of Tukwila s Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE.. MANAGEMENT SUBSTAITIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that Washington State Department of Transportation who owns the below described property has filed an application for a substantial development permit for rebuilding the Christensen Road over- pass and widening Interstate 405 for exclusive lanes for transit /carpool use in the Green River Interchange, NE 1/4 SE 1/4 :.Section' 22, Township.23, Range 4 WM. and NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 24, Township 23, Range 4 WM, in the City of Tukwila, County of King, Washington. Said development is proposed to be within the Green River area and its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express his views or to be notified of the action taken on this application would notify Rick Beeler, Associate Planner, City of Tukwila in writing of his interest within thirty days of the final date of publica- tion of this notice which is December 1984. Written comments must be received by January 9 , 1984. DATUM MONSTER ROAD .. • ;t ;2.6; MILES' N.OFT:H - ALONG• PTATEBITH W A 1 L • • FROM. THE INTERSECINTERSECTION S: • : :OR UA SET 'IERTICALEY' It+t THE SOUTH FACE :: ; ;OF THE SOUTH QN HE E IN•T CENTER•ROW• OF .. . . R • I+)D PIERS OF INTERS - ATE 405 , • ::Is: EEt :WEST Imo' THE: CEN OF THE: EAST: ..La OF: T 'HIaH WAY 181 UNDER THE SSJUTht t • ..CURB OF•INTEI#STATE •405 ABOUT T+iREE• FEET DRAWN APPROVED STA. 17 +78.2 8 GUTTER. STA. 10 +50, BOX TO BAC STA. 12 +55, BOX TO BACI STA. 11+50, 30 L.F. OF 1: STA. 11+55, CONSTRUCT STA. 13 +20, STA. 13 +20, 55 L.F.` STA. 13 +91, STA. 154-00, STA. 16 +00, STA. 16 +30, EXIST.• 12" Cr 'STA. 17 +70, STA. 17+70, STA. 16 +30, , 42'9 Lk PER • CONNECT T( INSTALL 4U1 LDC. T10 N TO AT TIME OF STA. 11 +15, SECTION TO AND HAND SPECIFICAT STA. 1 + 65,, ASSEMBLY CITY DIPANTMEN BK CNICW' DSP SAN BRIDGE WEE OI ._.,.CHO. °. . time span, the increase is considered to be violations and enforcement action is generated through the Washington State Patrol. This procdure determines the need for other than routine spot enforcement and allows more efficient WSP manpower utilization. Monitoring of the HOV facility electronically also permits assessment of increases in HOV usage and direct determination of project benefits on an on -going basis. The actual equipment units for the data consolidation at the data stations are described as "Ramp Controllers ". A "Ramp Controller" is a 170 Type controller with dual purpose software, which can be used as either a data station or a ramp controller. The "Ramp Controllers" specified will be used as data accumulators under this contract. Fencing - Existing chain link fence will be removed and reset where necessary. This is required because some sections of existing fence are located inside State right -of- way or because their removal will be necessary during construction. Landscaping - Landscaped areas were planted with the initial construction of this section of SR 405. Ornamental areas and natural areas were used to blend the highway into its urban/sub-urban surroundings. They are now well established plantings which serve to buffer and reduce harsh views of the highway, reduce the construction impacts, provide erosion control, screen headlight glare and delineate traffic patterns. In constructing the HOV improvements some areas will have considerable amounts of the landscaping disturbed or eliminated. Any disturbance construction will have on the area shall be re- landscaped where space allows and standards permit. Ornamental and natural areas will continue to be a part of the landscape concept. A separate roadside development plan will be completed after the construction of the HOV facilities when the extent of the impacts can be determined completely and accurately. TRAFFIC AND ACCIDENTS Traffic Services The 1980 and 1982 Priority Analysis of Accident Data have the following positive listings within the project limits: Type MP Accident Rate Critical Rate Rating Value 1980: Intersection 0.96 to 1.00 1.3 0.4 0.9+ Intersection 2.26 to 2.30 0.5 0.4 0.1+ Intersection 2.33 to 2.37 0.9 0.4 0.5+ 22 NOV 28 1983 CITY - OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor Rick Beeler Planning Department City of Tukwila 620 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Beeler: Attached for your information is a copy of the location of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Datum used for the benchmark reference for this project. Also included is a brief description of the landscaping planned for this project. A more complete description, one that may be specific to that area of the project included in the Shoreline Permit application, is not available at this time, but is planned to be prepared when the construction of the project is completed. I hope this information will help expedite your review and processing of the permit application. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact Molly Johnson at 233 -2415. Thank you, MAJ /hI STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 November 22, 1983 Interstate 405 Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvements Shoreline Management Permit Sincerely, A t• G. L. GILBERT, P.E. District Design Engineer 7 ERM FIOV 2 8 1983 CITY OF TtJKWILA PLANNING DEPT.__ DUANE BERENTSON Secretary �11L4 (. 4 City of Tukwila % 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 2 1908 November 4 1983 Thank you. Rick Beeler Associate Planner RB /b.lk Gary L VanDusen, Mayor G.L. Gilbert, P.E. District Design Engineer Department of Transportation D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So. C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 RE: Shoreline Management Permit - Green River Interchange 83- 21 -SMP Dear Mr. Gilbert: Your application has been received and reviewed for completeness. Per the Master Land Development Application Form (attached). some items remain to be submitted in order for the application to be certified as complete. Please submit the indicated items in order to begin the permit review process. TYPE OF APPLICATION SUPPORTING • MATERIALS i SHORT PLAT I SHORELINE PERMIT 1 B.A.R. /INTERURBAN I SPECIAL REVIEW COND. USE PERMIT UNCLASS. USE 33NVII VA i CHANGE OF ZONING ' 1 DN3iw NVid ' dW00 FORMAT REQUIRED FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS 1 FULL S 24" x 36" REDUC- TION 11" x 17" 8 REDUC- TION 1/2" X 11" SEPA CHECKLIST C X X X X X X - — — CONSULT STAFF LEGAL DESCRIPTION X X X X X X X X X — — 1 EACH SEE BLUE PAGES, STEP 4, SECTION B TITLE REPORT X X X X X X — — — ZONING PLAT ) XI XI Ll� I xl xl — — 1 EACH SEE BLUE PAGES, STEP 4, SECTION i MAILING LIST X X X X X X — — — SEE BLUE PAGES, STEP 4, SECTION D BSIP FORMAT 181/4" — 221/ 2" — 1 EACH SEE BLUE PAGES.. STEP 4, SECTION E CONSULT STAFF SHORT PLAT REC. FORM X — — — FORM PROVIDED BY STAFF SHORELINE DIAGRAMS X 2 EACH • 5 "EACH• 1 EACH SEE BLUE PAGES, STEP 4, SECTION F SITE DEVELOPMENT DIAGRAM X X X X X X X 2 EACH' 10 EACH — SEE BLUE SECTION ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS . X X '2•EACH 10 EACH — SEE BLUE PAGES, STEP 4, SECTION H LANDSCAPE PLAN X X X 2 EACH 10 EACH — . SEE BLUE PAGES, STEP 4, SECTION 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT X 3 EACH 15 EACH k — CONSULT STAFF SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULE lk B C D E G H 1 — — — 1 BLACK -LINE PRINT OR OPAQUE SEPIA ACCEPTABLE 2X EROX REDUCTION O.K. IF LEGIBLE; OTHERWISE PMT OR EQUIVALENT REQUIRED 3 1 SHEET REQUIRED IN COLOR SUPPORTING MATERIALS GUIDE SECTION F: SHORELINE MANAGEMENT CON'T USE THE CHECKLIST OPPOSITE EACH ITEM TO ENSURE THAT YOU HAVE INCLUDED ALL REQUIRED CONTENT ON EACH FINAL DRAW 1 NG : SITE PLAN /ELEVATION SI E BOUNDARY PROPERTY DIMENSIONS lJ EXISTING GROUND ELEVA- 7JANS "LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING ATION OF WATER COURSE T. LOCATION OF PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVE - • MENTS, INCLUDING RETEN- -ON FACILITIES LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED EASEMENTS AND DEDI TIONS LOCATION AND SIZE OF ALL **UTILITIES SERVING THE SITE (� IJGRAPHIC SCALE AND NORTH INDICATOR t_ JTYPICAL ELEVATION OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES, IN- CLUDING HEIGHT AND EXTER- 1 OR MATERIALS LOCAT t ON OF "SHORELINE PROFILE" CROSS- SECTION POINTS ❑DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE, VOLUME AND COMPOSITION OF ALL FILL MATERIAL TO BE PLACED ON SITE .VICINITY MAP SITE LOCATION USING NAT- URAL POINTS OF REFERENCE, SUCH AS ROADWAYS OR PRO - Ml$ENT LAND MARKS VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED GROUND ELEVA- PROPOSED PROJECT NOTATION OF DISPOSAL SITE LIMITS OF CUTS AND FILLS FOR ANY MATERIAL EXTRAC- TED FROM SITE OR ADJACENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPING WETLANDS LJ 1 [] CaT t AN OF EXISTING anm I D DESCR I PT I ON OF SURROUND- PROPOSED STRUCTURES. • ING LAND USE WITHIN 1000' • SITE GRAPHIC SCALE LOCATION OF ORDINARY INDICATOR MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVA- AND SHORELINE PROFILE ECROSS- SECTIONS AT MIN. 75' INTERVALS ALONG SITE'S SHORELINE MEASURED FROM CENTERLINE OF WATERCOURSE TO POINT 100' LANDWARD ❑EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR EACH CROSS SECTION AT TWO (2) FOOT INTERVALS WETLANDS OF ORDIN- ARY MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION ON EACH CROSS- SECTION NOR71* ❑LIMITS OF "RIVER" AND " LOW- IMPACT" ENVIRONMENTS, PER TMC 18.44.120 IIMOMI DVERBAL DESCRIPTION OF BENCFMARK ELEVATION FROM WHICH ORDINARY MEAN HIGH WATER POINT IS DETERMINED V GRAPHIC SCALE AND NORTH INDICATOR A) ON A SUITABLE- SCALED PROPERTY MAP DRAW -IN THE SITE OR PORTION THEREOF AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION. MEASURE 300' FROM ANY AND ALL POINTS OF THE AFFECTED AREA AND CONNECT THE POINTS TO FORM A CONTINUOUS RADIUS OF 300'. C) ANY PORTION OF ANY PROPERTY ENCOMPASSED BY THE 300' RADIUS LINE MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF NOTIFIED OWNERS. D) ONCE YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THE AFFECTED PROPERTIES, OBTAIN THE TAX LOT NUMBER, AND THE OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS FOR EACH FROM THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. ON THE MAILING LIST FORM PROVIDED AT THE BACK OF THE INSTRUCTIONS, SUPPLY THE TAX LOT NUMBERS AND MAILING ADDRESSES IN THE COLUMNS PROVIDED. ADDRESSES SHOULD BE FORMATTED IN TYPICAL BUSINESS -BLOCK STYLE, AS THE CITY STAFF WILL USE THEM TO PREPARE NOTICE -OF- APPLICATION MAILING LABELS: EXAMPLE: TAX LOT NO. 23 -178 -5 MAILING LIST FOR PUBLIC NOTICE OWNER'S NAME AND ADDRESS V. SMITH 144 E. MAIN CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 05124 SECTION E: BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SECTION F: SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DIAGRAMS PROPERTY ADDRESS (1F .NOT OWNER OCCUPIED) OCCUPANT 13447 58TH AVE. SO. TUKWILA, WA ,98188 A BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL CONSISTS OF A COVER SHEET AND A SEPARATE B.S.I.P. DIAGRAM. EACH MYLAR SHEET MUST MEASURE 18 1 /4"X 22" TO BE ACCEPTED FOR RECORDING. AN EXAMPLE OF THE CONTENT AND FORMAT OF A B.S'.I.P. 1S AVAILABLE FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF. A SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT SUBMITTAL CONSISTS OF THREE (3) DRAWINGS WHICH CAN BE DEVELOPED ON SEPARATE SHEETS OR WHICH MAY BE COMBINED ON A SINGLE SHEET DEPENDING ON THE SCALE OF THE DRAWING AND THE DICTATES OF LEGIBILITY. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 • Seattle, Washington 98108 Brad Collins, Planning Director City of Tukwila • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Collins: Enclosed is an application for a Shoreline Permit for construction on Inter -. state 405. This project will widen the highway between the Tukwila Inter- change at Interstate 5 and the South Renton Interchange at State Route 167 to provide an exclusive lane for transit /carpool use. Widening will be on the outside of the existing roadway and structures. In addition, the Chris- tensen Road overpass will be rebuilt as part of this project. An Environ- mental Assessment for this project has been previously reviewed by your office. The construction at Christensen Road and the widening of the Green River overcrossing fall within 200 feet of the mean high water mark of the Green River, and are included in this application. Your expeditious review and processing of this application will be appreciated. A warrant for the amount of $240 has been included for the application fee. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Molly Johnson at 233 - 2415. Thank you. MJ:jcw Enclosures STATE OF WASHINGTON October 14, 1983 Interstate 405 Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvements. L -6166 Sincerely, G.L. GILBERT, P.E. District Design Engineer JLI IS MU U I L°1 OCT 31 1983 CITY OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. DUANE BERENTSON Secretary ---1 \, ', 1 - 1 4 ` . ' , • I —__i .,_, , •4 -L.., - ___ -____ ' 1 .-_____._. , = ^:,:k-t I • 4 A A :` ' T`',., v - itt, — ;; ; • .7 --1 — -- --;- ---.:_l__ .., I -- :i. i' - ,. --, •---.:7- - _ ,-- ,--_-,, -% ' -- ---- Th : \ \ ''',:.,\ • • (.----\ .. -. 1 • -_--, \\ %. \ •- • „ i ; ‘,..._ _ .. , :.....: „1 ? __: , . , • . , i'..__, ..-- -,-. •,.., I -----------....:_::=;_-•:„,. •,,,,„ , ■;•:,!: 1 rt's le Se fee ..?.1 ./CT ttIF EA . _ — — -. . ---- • - •:'i,- 1- — -..-.::-____ _ ...f27 . - -• - 1 \\‘,•-•:,...--''----11.,-;;, I ' 1.-■ , ■ il , , A C P .4.47.: - : ..." ..eorec • , .1 1 i ; , ,174. 4 • : I ., Ti :4'1, Zt' i t r f f S w ; ..7.4 - Jee 1.7 * • rimr.e■1 t • 1 A . - r1;.:4 • •=ii :A; if I - 7 ‘). ( - - - 1-1::•.• • • S I - •- • • ••f.- / \ L r ., „ ....1 •••■•--,f?tr- 1 t ;,..,. 1 tt I ..., I '7 ....: I .' ';* A Il ! ..,...,.. *"*.• 12-,....(-.1../ , N.. 'ire JZ.tr , tree 21 1,-..•••••• . - - __---_____ : .--- „,. i: -------- 9 — - 1 -...• .....------_-- ___...,-- '.( 4:f ..■ .f<•Iur ..rec -.4 . . . . _ . . ..., . . . . . . - . ": . .,...„... 7 1 : 1 ..: Ce.e. r 4.1* I Se•C .9 11: e Co, f• .: .1. i fee ...? I f • '' 2 ( - \ • ''..-Ts • .i" - 1 \I !! I, i . ; II '•• .... _. . „.. • G. 1 il t 1 I I il 1 i i 4 1 1 I G., 11. ■ • — t--- 1 1 I ii I ■ 1111.771 la= ttr Few 2 - I" U‘rcW1L-i--1 -. ... 2 \ , ,4 , -:A. / - -1- •- .,-L- ' --.• . '' , N . . \ \. :7.4., , • :- - •• ...., --..-, -..\-.:... -•. -le , , \ - ,•-• • IT, / / .;•::-. \ • . ... • --„... .-:- - ,-• • ••.: ,, '•-•,-.;"'" '•.:!., ‘ :2 / \ -..: -._ : . r , -- . .7.. s.....,/. ,.....-\ 0.4- ..:'.-.....,':..„1.. 1 1. ', -„N\ ,- , •- I ""< •• , :\:;---- ----,-'""" ' C-- -rg.'. \ \ z/ , I 1 .*. •- s ., .. \ -____ j ..i'..--,../. •-:,;.‘ .,.. \ -•;. \ `7 /,, ';„,.....**".•...,, ____, - --!:::::" % -., - ,,. ,,,-....., , „...- . „...... , , , . • ....... , ..„......-__-_-- . ...... • . Y ' / --,,- -.:•%. -''` - '7. • - • , 7-7 "■ ..Z. •\• ...--:,. _- ,,-<---;77,..-,N ...,,----=_.-----,- ,. ••:',-.\' .1 i ij i 7 \ "--.' ,- ,,, - ,,,..\\:-.-:./ 1:•.i- .,,,N;s ____„,, •(, ....„:—...,_ • ,_,.., '.,\ I i . ,;- - -;-, K ------ , .. , ., \ \\., , ,,./. , , , .. , —...,--/--N__-. ,.•; i. -..x , ,, .,,.. \:-,,,--- . -, .. -i-...■.. .. ......... .,.........._ ...... \ .s , /./...-;:;. ..-::. ..- -.----,..- - .- , , \ ..„„, -_... ,..-:- ._-..---■,,,.„ 11 ....,. .„,...-._---- ---.._..,...„,_.. ,---. --... 7: ..., ,,,, . ... ".... -. i .." 41 "'' ".0° X . st/ .,,../<;_•.-.7.-....t.t" '-',,C__, I -:-.::. \,, ■ ‘,.. N \ z ::',, 77.- :: - *. - \ \ . 1 . '_ / r \ ,' .\;., ..."-- ...;.; \- - 7 ---- ---•-.,. ;.,,\ ,' .-, \ .... ,, ; %'",-----------" -----,- . ( 7. \ •,, .• • , . . ...:- ,-, -... .. p\ •=. .• .•:, \ , ,-,-, - .; , ,,., _ . _, \....:-- -‘,.....,. --,-----__--- ..... ..., ....., --„ , ,r• , .-■ , /7 : ./... •:...).7 . / . \ .."■ N s / i cs t•-• :::- is:Zi:," i B_LXD. ' •-. -: • -0 -----. 1 c.:1' „ ...„, ..-:„. .---,,,, - --- - \ \ • - -. 1/ ..._ . a .,•- , - - -••• N • „., _ s V . •-• - •' • • U •\ • ...: • . \ -';' \•0 , • \•\ L.; • I ) c ' iNTEF;C1-11- \J\J‘zin ,,"' • -,- .. ..-• ).sz - •. \ , ,,. .,--, A, ._:-.---------; --:--'` \ .:•'? • .- .,,, -."-.1 'N..c .r i\s„ 1'.'. • .S ., .. :,' ..'s :•.: --. 5g!'-:•., • ..% .___!...__.....--_,-_,;--.=_,- &* .. P•Ft.:. .. NI- \7 i , ,, ,..,,,:;•-,.. -, -- = .7. \ ° '''.. \ -- '-'.. \ •:, OCT 31 1983 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. L. 6p..apn Ltl •J b. . a ! (bv't Seat L. /01..118.35 .«yo [. r.e...e •ye ✓o(r ! Z2.7 IM S. • R &mast.wi: DIVISION OF HIGHWSYS AM Washington State �T Department of Transportation i- y • • Gaols, ate.dy OSLO" 10 ISTATE SEM MD PRO. Nri w' vaSst "..TUC/ .o onsn..y reo. .4y1 %Sir fir 117-0' DINFSTIS i9 15•50 Mat/nck or Greerr RO..r. Bridge (Proposed) Keeled to the Soulh 2 -a rry rrur .y wrl.. £ .' : iw' trr -av i5•3 Soulh5ide or (seen der Bridge (Reposed) Vnwed to the North 111 s ie 0 AS SmL on 5-4 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS JD i� if i� if If -- if / // ./ 4 // Aft Washington State Department of Transportation ni' II Ja- . j ✓J: EM'R D !ARVIN ONECKEO PRO: EK4. CATE; REVISION DIVISION Washington State V/ 1 Department of Transportation CMECCED -«+ �StaTE io 1111115.4 FED. L'C PROJ. era DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS f All■ Washington State 7 Department of Transportation odny rrnNigh MAW- tLv. T90) R10J. ENC.1 Er N;•ccala D6T. *Dr E 8+ • IST *TEE FED. MD Pao,. oar. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Washington State • Deportment of Transportation CITY OF TUK VILA Central Permit System • MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESS 1 NG .05TT _4 • SECTION 1: TYPE GENERAL DATA OF APPLICATION: D BS1P °SHORT O SUBDIVISION PLAT 1) APPLICANT NAME 0 CONDITIONAL USE Washington State Dept. 6431 Corson Avenue ADDRESS 2) PROP. OWNER: NAME ADDRESS PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, to milepost 2.97 3) ❑ UNCLASS. USE Same AC appiiCAnt GEOGRAPHIC, 0 VARIANCE ©SHORELINE PERMIT of Transportation T EL E PHONE South, Seattle, WA TELEPHONE 0 PRD D PMUD o 1 NTE RU RHAN D CHG. OF Q COMP. PLAN ZONING AMENDMENT ( 206 233 -2415 ZIP 98108 zIP LOT /BLCCK) Interstate 405, milepost 0.00 SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION 4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE The proposed project will add an additional lane to Interstate 405 in each direction for exclusive transit /carpool use. 5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM spring 1984 TO fall 1986 6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? OYES NO IF YES, DESCRIBE: 7), PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: vg 10.0 acres GROSS 84.8 acres ��vt EASEMENTS Ar Area Total Protect Area B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL / /FLOORS N/A INCLUDES: O BASEMENT D MEZZANINE TOTAL GROSS N/A INCLUDES: D BASEMENT D MEZZANINE FLOOR AREA C) SITE UTILIZATION: ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD SIZE - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA AVER. SLOPE OF SITE EXISTING N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ❑ N/A ❑ 1.5 acre ❑ 1 acre ❑ 1.29 acre ❑ 1.92 acre❑ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A 0% 0% PROPOSED NOTES Slope of highway 8) 1S THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? OYES [NO SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT Representative of , BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT 1 AM THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN 1, G.L. Gilbert, P.E. ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS /7Z4, DAY OF NOTARY PUCLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF RESIDING AT4,47r1/2, THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. • DATE 10 /17/3) e`> '&6.4g-e 19 sY4 WASHINGTON G14 - 337 X OC T 31 1883 CITY Oi (SIGNATURE OF CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER) Representative of CITY OF Tt GWILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPL1CATION FORM 1) GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: (Interstate 5) and South Renton Interchange (State Route 167) SEk, Section 23, SWk, Section 24 WITHIN (1/4 SEC.) OF SECTION OF TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4E W.M., IN TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. right of way including city street overpass Interstate 405 between Tukwila Interchange 2) NAME OF WATER AREA AND /OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED: Green River 3) CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: Interstate highway, highway 4) PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY Interstate highway, modified overpass 5) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS CONTEMPLATED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION: Total construction cost = $17,025,000 Construction cost for affected area = $2,500,000 6) CONSTRUCTION DATES (MONTH AND YEAR) FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT 1S REQUESTED: BEGIN March 1984 COMPLETE December 1986 TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL: 7) DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE: L(. 1, ,, s a{Qp ( �( LL fix '' `L .).��� ,ii ► :*tom' UI1 • s • .IDURI J(L C CYLCXT1Cx) E)C= K3C.1 SONY oNAL12006 8) APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL HAVE A VIEW OBSTRUCTED BY ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. 1941) AMPEI OCT 31 1983 CITY OF TUUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. • S)v5 SW% J'e? 23 • J N rr RCJ --JAN J £ %t Jcvj Sec.23 Nf.�Q J'W %I Sec.23 J'T.9..e v.2a.5't.24, B.EG /NN /46' p Real-ICJ' SIJ:i: SE;$ See 21 // ( SOUTH RP NN \ 0 y J N rr RC I-1 .N % AO kr, 1. 0 V te / � 0, % ke SR/ i '''..-. \ . I I .VE Sf %J See 23. % AREA Sf %,r SEA? Sec 23 Q � 2 1 ---- = c -_-J . S%✓14+ SA/74 'Sec 24 I 1 • 1 GREEN •RJ\i 1j\) - rr fAr J--J, -\ .1 .,t::,-:: --- A I ,:,,,-•-•- :- - , .1 ,1/4 •••;, See At 6 ,,,,j,d._-% / .9%." e, ..,•:'V V:jf T) N- - - ' ; - SY--.:-."- 1 ,i'/C '-sid- /60 (,;_.__,:_-..•-- *r• -- - . .24 ------- 0 i ....,.. , - - :•= 1 . , s= , %• - ;- -- f."-T--, \\ --- -21 /9 — 1 I I II I I 7 --- — -- ilill:ACX=7:17.111=611111==.11612WWIN 4:10 Z41: 80 0 &A) /200 /WO Scale • MAPLF' VAI I rY. INTER .N•G \ \ • 7:- ' • \ -- ,-, `7... \ ',..."''. ..••• . / : • • ' - q . ,. . . . .. . . )\-- - . 1; >,,;" \`:S.\, ) 42.1.e0;;;;;•-4:•!..r. 7 ----- - • 7 1- 7 1 7 -;•:_-/ CV\ '''''••k,.%, / --) .../.. \ ... „.• ' ':"...■.,..,. -,..•••*". '"---- _..../ •-• / .1____.416%S(..._,..,_ , set ,.-WP.Y.";. --7' .,•• -C . z ------ ---- _.....--- .-:';'.5 / -.7.-• .., :/// -- i•-. --..:\ z ,-'/ 5;: l.r. t,',..-------= — -4- %<' ' \ )//' / ././ ..;,''' !• V • — .Cdr•e• Go/ 3 s /9 GOP Z011 ,fea /9 t UJ Ld 0 —1 2 \* / ---v--.. \ / t... • CI /70 • — 6. • •.:•;\ All? 455 STA. 4 3050.255 END Of 'ReaTICT iNjEFcHA i OCT 31 1983 c....., ,.. ..-,-- • ;-‘' t.\ v . CITY OF TUKCIJiLA PLANNING DEPT. • • • • i '• I . — . . I. . DRAWN R.I. T -Lina 11.04.90= L 104450.17 CHECKED PROD, ENGR D. ltiirKKala RaI. T Lines 15444.30 Pr L Earth P.iSI 15.40 to sea /s.94! 5.520 I II BanK Run STATE 10 (WASH .109 NUMBER • GREEN RIVER bXI 405/10 ElLW M.P 0.79 ohdirary Moan Nth Utter Fiev1 /20' Z j FED. AID PROJ. NO. '"•;,; T. 3 r� .5°22I9 A 1 i //4" J E'xfreme Niyh Water E /ev "—low Water EA £ /e✓ DIV 3N. R.4E. WM. or !;?7vi Seais b<1 NG tr sky /z 0 c3 . \ .., to si .. 0 • A % ,,,,,,, .., • .1 .... * • i t 44, kir0 4/' ct ?ilk, • kCA .. ,..., _ — — --z-41 -"-, ev. r .. 111— r/tv 22,7 Pi i. S.. • II O- h IL ____ is 11 ' 0 : i 1 1! t II r-- 0" • I r Bonk' At'uneGrave/ II i r 11 i T A' 4/4 3' , DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS Doisfal- ) Pbs or Slope (T ‘ 1 , IiJl / An*. Washington State Ur Department of Transportation Sada in *filet 0' ige C R-oposed) • :r Cleo 2 17.0 0 b • i.o Scala in Feet OF HIGHWAYS 1 4 1 • r - r �/ II /I I // I /1 11 // 1 -T - Trir / II // II // .11 1/ I 11 11 II �► Washington State i VW Department of Transportation 5MEE1 Or DRAWN • . XI- Ao - • - 10- 0 CHECKED PROJ. ENGR. D. WirKKala nIST Anu • ,, ..M♦ - r'n ... ..4 .•., r r . r. .•.1 •• r+, .wv.....• •"• .w r • .�.. .. 4. «h . M 4.•...W.. • •s._■ +.f 1 1 1 • r- \ . 1 Disling Ground Z� n - - - - c \ \ 9 I0 STATE WASH JOG NUMBER CONTRACT Na I\ . I 15, I I Mxthside o!' Green. River 1 Viewed to the South \ FED. AID PROJ. NO. • Ordinary noon I4gh Itih/ar Elev. Southside oi' Greert River aril Viewed' 4o the Abrth PK SNE( TOTeL h S Q� dNnry Motu, Nigh Vey. —4— IS* 59 DIVIS :le S 17.0' -1.53 {.20 ler Bridge C R n Maier Elev. 2 17.0' -0.73_ —_ 'idge (R'taposed ) i z o q SO Scala in r'rei SION OF HIGHWAYS 1 1 40 1 Washington State VW Department of Transportation 11 1 1 1 I r1 � / 1 1 : 1 11 1 Proposed Gruund SHEET ME CHECKED PROJ. ENGR. DIST. ADM. D WirtK&c. 8ocK Mruc " V" STATE 10 WASH JOB NUMBER CONTRACT NQ FED. AID PROJ. NO. R. REVISION B APP 'D APPROVED DIVISI ON OF HIGHWAYS 1 •�...• Washington State Department of Transportation 24 .....;:. ... ... :: • it Or PROJ. ENGR. ninT. AnU D. pr/rKKalo. P w,r■tir,,r JON NUNS II CCNTIUCT NO. P zn Nigh. 14a6r1.- : en = River =Cr !VISION OF HIGHWAYS :.I :::M 97 •A► Washington State VW Department of Transportation Nl . I O STATE WASH _na In .smara FED. AID PROJ. NO SHED TQt I. .([TS DIv$sIo iC rte Cross= )N OF HIGHWAYS .. Washington State Department of Transportation u-405 environmental assessment tukwila to south renton transit carpool improvements WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7- Date D to Federal Highway Administration Region 10 SR 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE 5 TO STATE ROUTE 167 TRANSIT /CARPOOL IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recom ended or Approval: Project Development Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation P. Approved: Federal Highway Administration Official Mountlake' • Terrace_ (( :!✓� Bothell • 1l S22 Bellevue Snohomish SNOHOMISH Redmond Sultan • Monroe 0 • Duvall / Carnation • Sumner • • Issaquah Maple Wiley 1. rtn North Bend Poulsho 3u5 Keyport Purdy Port Gamble - --} Faunttcroy t RT ORCHARD �- -� .... • Southwt rttt / F Vashoo Hts. Normandy Park EVERETT kiltco INTERSTATE 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON TRANSIT /CARPOOL :_ _ IMPROVEMENTS REGIONAL VICINITY .MAP FIGURE 1 It u r , or.,r• ,r mil& '.eke' \ 009 00.1 11 L1 +' \ V ;'! f •' �g • •µil•' +r H \� PROJECT LIMITS IG \ I ♦ f �•1' 1 l SEATTLE \ f hI CITY LIMITS 3 1 1NCwNG1 �• IMIINC,I \, • 1 I L I r4A N.la I.ahr `.005 IO,IIN /l + � W f° 4 1 u r 1 :1 s e.." �r ` _ °: •�! / t • IM ` / .� ,no ,1 �� %N k 29 1 ,/ 2s 7 D / V i,9 : rl \ ' i \k \ 7.1. W . SOUTH NT \ ` \ POINT i !` J ,\ • j nlwrwll • f�_ POINT `` }IT2AN r.:....� 1y V.w.A MIII.C.IA +W TUKWILA 1960 POPULATION 3.440 _ u...ol. j_.I.o .) 11011 ,r ti 24 se 1 .N1IH IIIYIN Nr1 .C"AN(y N om ... , Pr 1 - • C.. X O Of •' RENTON CITY LIAM Y ANI VAII + II PCNArµ INTERSTATE 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON TRANSIT /CARPOOL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT LIMITS MAP 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 3 Transportation Demand 3 Regional Transportation Plans 4 Modal Interrelationship 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 6 Background 6 Descrption of the Project 10 Permit Licenses and Approvals 12 Future Plans 13 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 15 Earth 15 Air 16 Water 19 Flood Plains 21 Flora 21 Fauna 23 Noise 24 Light and Glare 24 Land Use 25 Natural Resources 25 Risk of Upset 25 Population 25 Housing 26 Transportation and Circulation 26 Public Service 27 Energy 27 Utilities 28 Human Health 29 Aesthetics 29 Recreation 29 Economic Impacts 30 Archaeological /Historical • 30 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES COMMENTS AND COORDINATION BIBLIOGRAPHY TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) APPENDICES Page 31 34 36 APPENDIX A • Traffic Estimates A -1 APPENDIX B Typical Roadway Sections and Plans B-1 APPENDIX C Bridge Sections C -1 APPENDIX D Noise Contour Maps D-1 APPENDIX E Correspondence Green River Navigability E -1 Endangered Species Coordination E -2 FIGURE NUMBER 1. Regional Vicinity Map 2. Project Area Map 3. Construction Phasing 4. Schematic Layout TABLE NUMBER A. Existing Air Quality TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Page 1 2 9 14 17 . B. Predicted CO Concentrations 18 This assessment has been prepared to summarize and address recognized social, environmental, and economic impacts which would result due to the construction and implementation of transit /carpool lanes for 2.97 miles on Interstate 405 from the intersection with Interstate 5 in Tukwila to the South Renton Interchange at State Route 167. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Interstate 405 is the major north -south corridor serving the east side of Lake Washington. As such, it serves as a major commuter route between the east side communities. The highway stretches from Tukwila in the south to Alderwood Manor in the north, connecting with Interstate 5 at both locations. The highway provides a through travel route between Renton and Bellevue, in addition to accessing local areas. It also affords direct access to Seattle via either State Route 520 or Interstate 90, the State's major east -west highway, as shown in figure 1. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND Traffic volumes on Interstate 405 have increased rapidly in recent years. Between Interstate 5 and State Route 167 in Renton, average daily volumes have increased 35 to 40 percent since 1975. The highway is heavily congested in both directions during peak periods due to a nearly even directional split in traffic. Existing and predicted traffic volumes for this project are diagramed in Appendix A. The existing facility through the project area operates at or near capacity during peak periods. Speeds are typically less than 30 mph during peak hours, though considerable variation in speed is not uncommon, and stop - and -go traffic may be present for short periods. Vehicles experience slowdowns in both northbound and southbound directions at the Interstate 5/Interstate 405 merge in the Tukwila Interchange, ramps serving State Route 181 in the Green River Interchange and the cloverleaf interchange at SR 167 in South Renton. Congestion, which occurs during both the AM and PM peak periods at these interchanges, is caused by a combination of high turning movements and high -3- volumes of through traffic noted on the traffic diagrams in Appendix A. This situation creates conflicts as vehicles change lanes to enter and exit Interstate 405. Slowdowns or stop and go situations occur frequently at the South Renton Interchange where approximately 6000 vehicles enter or leave Interstate 405 at SR 167 on a double weave approximately 400 feet long. Frequent service breakdowns also occur at the Green River Interchange, which serves Longacres Race Track as well as Tukwila, Renton and the Kent Valley. It is not uncommon to have backups extending to Interstate 5 on the west and through the Renton "S" curves on the east. As demand continues to grow to where it exceeds capacity, traffic congestion in these interchanges will become more unstable and longer delays will occur on a regular basis. Since no new highway facilities are planned in this area; corridor capacity can only be achieved through increases in the capacity or efficiency of the existing highway facilities. This proposal will help to satisfy the need for increased corridor capacity and efficiency in two ways. First, the collector - distributor lanes proposed at the South Renton Interchange would slightly increase the capacity of Interstate 405 by reducing merge conflicts with through traffic and limiting the number of merge points in the corridor. Secondly, since no excess capacity will be available on alternative facilities such as city streets, the future excess peak period demand would have to divert to alternate times or modes. Operating the facility with less capacity than demand increases the tendency to use the travel mode with the least cost and the lowest travel time. The proposed transit /carpool lanes will help to satisfy the need for more capacity as well as decrease transit /carpool travel time by allowing transit and carpool operations at speeds up to 55 mph throughout the peak period, resulting in a significant travel time advantage to those vehicles. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS State, regional and local plans which identify a need and recommend the construction of various elements of the proposed project include the Washington State Transportation Plan Update 1983 -1995, WSDOT, January 1982; the 1990 Transportation System Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region, Governments (PSCOG), 1974; the Regional Development Plan, PSCOG, 1976; the Draft Regional Transportation Plan, -4.- PSCOG, 1981; the King Subregional Transportation Plan, PSCOG, 1981; the I -90 Memorandum Agreement, WSDOT, et. al, 1976; the Washington State Implementation Plan, WSDOE, 1981; and the Transportation Improvement Plan, City of Tukwila (Entranco Engineers), 1979. These plans identify goals, objectives, policies, directives and transportation concepts which support the construction of transit /carpool lanes and limited congestion relieving improvements in the Interstate 405 corridor. Specific reference to the construction of transit /carpool lanes on this section of Interstate 405 is made in the 1990 Transportation System Plan, the I -90 Memorandum Agreement and the Washington State Implementation Plan. In addition, the 1990 Transportation System Plan indicates that it is regional policy to accept "lower operating speeds on critical sections of the system during peak hours ", advocates adequate provisions for adaption of the existing freeway system for use by high occupancy vehicles, and limits expansion of the corridor for general purpose use in favor of transit and carpool incentives. MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIP The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) has developed a long range transit plan for the King County area. It's report, Metro Transit: More Mobility for the Eighties, proposes construction of regional transit centers at Northgate, Federal Way, Bellevue, Tukwila and Downtown Seattle, which would connect with Community Transit Centers and Park and Ride lots throughout the region using a system of exclusive transit /carpool lanes. The proposed project would be essential to this plan. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION The Washington State Department of Ecology has outlined a course of action for attaining federal clean air standards as specified in the Clean Air Act of 1963 and subsequent amendments (most recently, 1977). The Department's State Implementation Plan includes High Occupancy Vehicle lanes as transportation control measures that will bring the Seattle /King County area into air quality compliance by 1987. Construction of transit /carpool lanes on Interstate 405 from Tukwila to Renton is specifically identified as a committed measure in the plan. • -5- Description of the Proposed Action .ti . This project proposes construction of transit /carpool lanes and reconstruction of existing on and off ramps on a 2.97 mile section of Interstate 405 from its intersection with Interstate 5 in Tukwila to the South Renton Interchange at State Route 167 in Renton. Figures 2 and 4 show the project limits and the schematic layout of the proposed improvements. BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION 01? THE PROPOSED ACTION Proposed improvements to this section of the Interstate 405 corridor have been developed in accordance with the goals of transportation plans for this region. They give priority status to construction of transit /carpool lanes in general and on this portion of highway in particular. The Puget Sound Government Council, now known as the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG), adopted the 1990 Transportation System Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region in 1974. This plan recommends the addition of an exclusive transit lane for peak direction flow on this section of highway and suggests that a pair of lanes may be required. It also recognizes the desirability of allowing carpools to use the exclusive lane if they will not affect transit flow. The Washington State Department of Ecology's State Implementation Plan gives exclusive transit /carpool lanes a first priority ranking among transportation measures for controlling area air pollution. Additionally, the Interstate 90 Memorandum Agreement between the City of Seattle, the City of Bellevue, the City of Mercer Island, King County, METRO, and the Washington State Department of Transportation lists the Interstate 405 transit /carpool lanes as a project of highest priority. This project would be developed in conjunction with other transit /carpool improvements in the Interstate 405, Interstate 5, and Interstate 90 corridors. Coupled with park and ride lots, the project would improve commuter traffic on Interstate 405 destined for Bellevue, Seattle, Renton and Tukwila. These improvements would benefit major work centers in the business and industrial areas in those areas. -6- The project would complement the following existing and proposed improvements: Interstate 5 Tukwila Park & Ride Lot Interstate 405 South Renton Park & Ride Lot 350 Stalls Interstate 405 Renton Highlands Park & Ride Lot Interstate 405 Tukwila to Factoria Surveillance, Control and Driver Information System Interstate 405 South Renton Interchange to Sunset Boulevard Transit /Carpool Improvements Interstate 405 Sunset Boulevard to Factoria Transit /Carpool Improvements Interstate 405 Factoria to Northup Transit /Carpool Improvements Interstate 5 Tukwila to Mercer Transit /Carpool Improvements • - On Interstate 405, the transit /carpool lane improvements have been divided into four sections. These sections run from Tukwila to the South Renton Interchange, South Renton to Sunset Boulevard, Sunset Boulevard to Factoria, and Factoria to Northup. Figure 3 shows each section. The project limits established for this project are consistent with limits established for the other transit /carpool improvements in the Interstate 405 corridor. Those limits were based upon projected need, major destination points, potential transit /carpool travel time savings and the operational independence of each segment. As noted previously, peak hour traffic congestion is currently being experienced at the three major interchanges within the project limits. Project limits were chosen that would allow immediate correction of congestion problems at South Renton Interchange, continue all traffic movements to major destination points in the corridor and allow transit /carpool vehicles to bypass congestion at all three interchanges. Traffic studies conducted for the project indicate that both the transit /carpool improvements and the collector - distributor lanes are required to relieve congestion at South Renton Interchange. Construction of the transit /carpool lane alone would not correct merge conflicts of the interchange, resulting in significant disruption and traffic stoppages in the general purpose lanes. Similar situations in California and other parts of the country demonstrate that this could lead to transit /carpool lane violations approaching 80 percent. Construction of the collector- distributor lanes alone would not increase capacity enough to relieve congestion in the corridor and would not give the desired travel time advantages to transit and carpool vehicles. The proposed improvements between Tukwila and South Renton Interchange would provide a transit /carpool incentive with room for future growth of both northbound and southbound traffic. Beginning the northbound transit /carpool lane at the connection with Interstate 5 in the Tukwila Interchange would allow transit /carpool traffic an excellent opportunity to enter Interstate 405 and bypass heavily congested areas in the Green River Interchange and South Renton Interchange. Expected travel time savings would be more than two and a half minutes per vehicle during both the AM and PM peak periods. Similarly, beginning the southbound transit /carpool lane east of the South Renton Interchange congestion points would provide travel time savings of approximately the same magnitude during both peak periods. The proposed project would be operationally independent of improvements on adjacent sections of Interstate 5 and Interstate 405. Construction of this segment would reduce transit /carpool travel time and relieve congestion within the project while not requiring the construction of additional lanes or adversely affecting traffic flows on adjacent sections. General purpose traffic would be given sufficiently long sections of roadway to merge to or from the exclusive transit /carpool lane at each end of the project. At the merge points, slight slowdowns typical of on -ramp merges can be expected. As a result, general purpose lanes would be operating at speeds of approximately 30 mph. General purpose lanes would, however, be expected to operate at that approximate speed at those points regardless of whether additional transit /carpool lanes or the "no- build" condition is selected on adjacent sections. • -8- SEATTLE Fauntleroy • Normandy Park LEGEND: Tukwila to South Renton Interchange South Renton to Sunset Boulevard Sunset Boulevard to Factoria Factoria to Northup Factoria to Northup: N.E. 4th Interchange Kirkland Bellevue Mercer Island Renton Redmond INTERSTATE 405 TUKWILA TO NORTHUP TRANSIT /CARPOOL IMPROVEMENTS :CONSTRUCTION PHASING FIGURE 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT This project proposes building left (inside) transit /carpool lanes on a 2.97 mile section of Interstate 405 from its intersection with Interstate 5 in Tukwila to the South Renton Interchange with State Route 167 in Renton. These lanes would be available to transit and carpools 24 hours a day. A new transit /carpool ramp is also proposed connecting southbound Interstate 405 with northbound Interstate 5. The ramp connecting southbound Interstate 5 and northbound Interstate 405 would be widened from one lane to two, with the new lane for exclusive transit /carpool use. Each direction of the existing roadway would be widened along the outside from two .12 -foot travel lanes with a 7 -foot inside shoulder and a 10 -foot outside shoulder to two 12 -foot travel lanes and one 12 -foot transit /carpool lane with a 7 -foot inside shoulder and 10 -foot outside shoulder. To provide these full shoulder widths, some ditches would be covered with asphalt and integrated into the roadway, and some retaining walls must be constructed. A collector /distributor road would be added at the South Renton Interchange. This would require widening of the bridges across State Route 167 and placing median barriers between the collector distributor and main travel lanes. The existing loop ramp radii in this interchange would be slightly reduced. Transit /carpool bypass lanes would be added in both directions for vehicles entering Interstate 405 from State Route 167. See figure 4. On -ramps and off - ramps throughout the project would be modified to provide more room for acceleration, merging and 'deceleration. Five bridges on Interstate 405 would require widening.. Two bridges over Interstate 405 would require replacement of the slope protection with retaining walls and two bridges over Interstate 405 would be removed and replaced with new structures. Bridge widening would be done in the same style as the existing structures. It would be accomplished either by cantilevering or the addition of new columns where structurally necessary. The amount of new substructure will be kept to a minimum and any new columns will be in line with existing. Bridge cross sections are in Appendix C. -10- • • 'f Reinforced earth, reinforced concrete, and gabion walls would be used on this project. There would be 2475 feet of wall in 7 locations ranging in height from 4 feet to 28 feet . along the northbound side of the highway. In the southbound direction there would be 2000 feet of wall in 7 locations ranging in height from 4 feet to 30 feet. A 200 foot gabion wall would be added to the outside of the northbound State Route 167 to northbound Interstate 405 ramp to prevent fill material from affecting a wetlands area to the southeast. Forty -seven culverts in the project area would be extended with the widening, including two 48 inch diameter culverts in the State Route 167 Interchange area. Construction items will include concrete and asphalt paving, grading, drainage, structure widening, safety improvements, illumination, signing, paint striping, and other work. A total of approximately 0.1 acre of new right -of -way will be acquired from .the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila to allow widening at the South Renton Interchange and near the Christensen Road Undercrossing. This project is scheduled for construction in early 1984 at a cost of $14,000,000. PERMITS, LICENSES AND APPROVALS This document will be submitted together with a Proposed Declaration of Non - Significance to agencies with jurisdiction in accordance with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. A simultaneous notice of a 30 day public availability and comment period will be initiated as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The following permits may be required: - • Shoreline Management Permit from the City of Tukwila for the Green River overcrossing. - Flood Control Zone permits from King County for the Green River. - United States Army Corps of Engineers permit for construction in the Green River and the P -I channel. - Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington State Department of Fisheries and the Washington State Department of Game. A Coast Guard permit would not be required for this project. See the Federal Highway Administration letter in Appendix E. An agreement with the Burlington Northern Railroad would be required to widen the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad and Northern Pacific Railway overcrossing. An agreement with the City of Renton may be required if relocation of a water line near Talbot Road becomes necessary. An agreement would be made with the City of Renton for construction of a common wall on the right -of -way line between Interstate 405 and S. E. Grady Way. • -12- FUTURE PLANS The cities of Renton and Tukwila also have plans to improve traffic flow in this heavily congested area. Major projects planned adjacent to this section of Interstate 405 are: 1. City of Renton, Valley Parkway -- The city is constructing a new parkway between State Route 181 and State Route 167, connecting S.W. 43rd Street with Empire Way South. The parkway has been partially completed, with the rest to be completed when funding becomes available. 2. City of Renton, S.W. Grady Way Extension -- The city will be widening, increasing the load limit, and straightening the existing road and bridges to connect with Southeenter Boulevard in Tukwila. Construction is scheduled to begin in 1983. 3. City of Renton, Lind Avenue S.W. - The City is proposing to improve Lind Avenue S.W. from S.W. 16th Street to Grady Way including the construction of a widened structure over SR 405. The project is in the pre - design phase. Construction plans, schedules and funding have not been finalized at this time. 4. City of Tukwila, Southeenter Boulevard -- 62nd Avenue South to Grady Way. The City is proposing to improve Southcenter Boulevard between Renton and Tukwila including the construction of two bridges over the Green River. The project is in the environmental review, design phase with construction planned for the spring of 1984. 5. City of Tukwila, Christensen Road Bridge -- The city is developing a proposal which would ultimately replace the existing bridge with a wider structure on a new alignment and modify some of the connecting roads. Construcion plans, schedules and funding have not been finalized at this time. Any of these projects would serve to improve traffic conditions in the Interstate 405 corridor and complement the proposed transit /carpool lanes by providing better access. Coordination with the cities of Renton and Tukwila has been on -going throughout the design process. The proposed new bridges at Christensen Road and Lind Avenue S.W. are compatible with the cities future plans. -13- TUKWILA INTERCHANGE GREEN RIVER INTERCHANGE co L 0 (1) SOUTH RENTON INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON- SCHEMATIC LAYOUT FIGURE 4 Impacts of the Proposed Action EARTH IMPACTS 01? THE PROPOSED ACTION The social, environmental and economic impacts of the proposed project are summarized in the following discussion. They reflect a comparison with the "No Build" alternative. This section of Interstate 405 passes through rolling terrain and river valleys in the cities of Renton and Tukwila. A preliminary soils investigation, based on a March 1956 report made from the original construction and structure borings from contract plans for the area, has been made for this project. Valley sediments consist of soft to medium stiff cross - bedded sand, clay and silt to a depth of about 20 feet. North of the State Route 167 Interchange weathered sandstone overlain by glacial debris was encountered. This sandstone is lightly cemented. More complete test borings would be done before construction to determine if special considerations are needed for any structural modifications. Conditions are expected to be similar to those found in the original construction, and no particular problems are foreseen. The proposed transit /carpool lane improvements would widen the existing highway approximately 12 feet on each side and realign many on and off ramp connections. Grading and paving required for the project would disrupt, displace and cover over soils adjacent to the existing roadway, affecting approximately twenty acres of native and ornamental vegetation. The pavement area would be increased by approximately 30 percent. Widening would require approximately 15,000 cubic yards of excavation, mainly on the south side of the highway for the State Route 167 on -ramp. The contractor would be required to remove this excavation to an approved site if not used as part of the fill for the project. Approximately 74,000 cubic yards of fill would be necessary, which would be supplied by the contractor. -15- • • Minor wind and water erosion can be expected during construction. The contractor for the project will be required to submit an erosion control plan to the WSDOT prior to construction. Erosion control methods, such as check dams settling ponds, silt fences, and other appropriate measures, will be included in the erosion control plan. Development of this project will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructures. The project will not destroy, cover or modify any unique geological or physical feature. Nor will the project cause changes to the deposition or erosion of beach sands or cause changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which will modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of an ocean, bay, inlet or lake. AIR Supporting information for the following air quality discussion is contained in the Interstate 405 Tukwila to South Renton Interchange Air Quality Study Report, WSDOT, November 1982. Existing Air Quality The principal sources of air pollution within the study area are transportation emissions, heating system emissions and emissions from local industries. There are no significant industrial sources of air pollution in the project vicinity. The proposed project is located in EPA's designated nonattainment area for ozone and within an unclassifiable area for carbon monoxide as noted in the State Implementation Plan. The results obtained from three previous air monitoring sites by the WSDOT in the Renton vicinity indicate that the existing air quality is good. The monitored carbon monoxide (CO) levels recorded were well below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Ozone and suspended particulates were monitored near the project vicinity by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). Monitored values for existing air quality are listed in Table A. Predicted worst case CO levels at selected receptors for the entire project were calculated using existing (1981) traffic volumes and the Mobile 2 and Caline 3 -16- Carbon Monoxide 1 hour max. 8 hour max. Ozone 1 -hour max. .12 ppm Hours above std. 1 Particulates Annual Mean NOTE: EXISTING AIR QUALITY TABULATION WSDOT WSDOT WSDOT STUDY STUDY STUDY PSAPCA POLLUTANT NAAQS SITE # 51 SITE # 54 SITE # 100 (Data Summary) 35 ppm 9 ppm 60 ug /m e 8.1 ppm 6.6 ppm TABLE A NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quaity Standards ppm = parts per million ug /m - micrograms per cubic meter 8.9 ppm 6.4 ppm 8.5 ppm 4.8 ppm .11 ppm * 0 56 ug /m 3 * * Air Quality Field Study Site # 51 (Puget Power Transformer Yard); Washington State Department of Transportation, June 11, 1976 through July 4, 1977. Air Quality Field Study Site # 54 (State Route 515 at 2640 Benson Road); Washington State Department of Transportation, July 2, 1976 through July 6, 1977. Air Quality Field Study Site # 100 (State Route 515 and. S.E. 170th); Washington State Department of Transportation, December 9, 1979 through March 31, 1980. *From the 1981 Air Quality Data Summary, 22916 - 86th Avenue South, Kent, Washington, PSAPCA Station; sampling period January 1 through December 31, 1981. * *From the 1981 Air Quality Data Summary, South 2nd Street and Lake Avenue South Renton, Washington, PSAPCA Station; sampling period January 1 through December 31, 1981. • -17- computer models. The highest predicted PM peak hour CO value was 20.5 ppm and 8 hour average was 8.9 ppm. These predicted CO values included background values of 3.0 ppm for the one hour and 1.5 ppm for the eight hour average respectively. The relevant NAAQS are 35 ppm for the one hour and 9 ppm for the eight hour average. Impact Evaluation A microscale analysis of future years was completed using the Mobile 2 and Caline 3 approved computer models developed by EPA and CALTRANS. These models were used to calculate the CO emission factors and to predict CO concentration at selected receptors along the existing highway right -of -way line for the year of first phase opening (1985), year of completion (1990), and design year (2000) for no build and build alternatives. All predicted PM peak and eight hour average CO concentrations fall below the NAAQS. The maximum predicted CO concentration occurred at the same receptor identified for the existing air quality model. The maximum predicted CO values are listed in Table B. TABLE B MAXIMUM PREDICTED CO CONCENTRATIONS NO BUILD BUILD 1 HR 8HR 1' HR 8HR 1981 (Existing) 20.5 8.9 1985 13.6 7.0 16.6 6.8 1990 11.1 6.8 12.5 7.2 2000 11.9 7.2 12.8 8.4 These predicted CO values include background values of 3.0 PPM and 1.5 PPM which were added to the one and eight hour average respectively. The large CO concentration reduction between 1981 and 1985 is due mainly to emission reductions on new automobiles and the King County Inspection Maintenance Program which was initiated in January 1982. As traffic volumes and congestion on Interstate 405 increase from growth and local development, emissions in the area will gradually increase; however, air quality in the area will meet NAAQS through the year 2000. The build CO concentration is slightly higher than the no build because Interstate 405 would handle larger traffic volumes during the congestion periods after construction of the transit /carpool lanes. Construction activities may cause short term impacts to air quality in the area immediately adjacent to the transit /carpool lane corridor. Grading, paving, and material placement activities may cause temporary increase in the emission of dust, hydrocarbons and other pollutants and may also create some objectionable odor. Subsequent to the completion of any of the construction phases there will be no alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature changes or any other detriments to the climate near this highway corridor. This project is located in an air quality nonattainment area which was identified in the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 14, 1981. Construction of transit /carpool lanes on Interstate 405, one of eighteen transportation control measures proposed in the SIP, have been included as a committed project in the Transportation Improvement Program for the area. The Federal Highway Administration has determined that both the transportation plan and the transportation improvement program conform to the SIP. The Federal Highway Administration has also determined that this project is included in the transportation improvement program for the Puget Sound Council of Governments. Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to the SIP. WATER The proposed transit /carpool lane would increase pavement area by approximately 30 percent, resulting in increased runoff and decreased groundwater recharge. All runoff would be directed into the existing highway drainage system. • -19- A hydraulic report will be prepared for this project. It will include detailed study of the South Renton Interchange due to the addition of a collector- distributor road system and determine whether a water retention area would be required in the interchange. Other drainage revisions would be of a standard nature with no significant impact anticipated. Bridge widening over flowing waters would be required at the Green River and the P -1 channel. Construction would comply with WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and provisions of Hydraulic Project Approval issued by the Washington State Department of Game /Washington State Department of Fisheries. A United States Army Corps of Engineers construction permit may also be necessary. Water quality in the Green River and P -1 Channel is generally good, and the project is not expected to cause impacts in this area. A temporary increase in turbidity may occur during construction in the Green River, P -1 Channel (Springbrook Creek), or other water bodies adjacent to the project. As noted in the Earth Section of this document, the contractor will be required to comply with an erosion control plan submitted prior to construction. This project is not expected to cause significant changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements in marine or fresh water, nor is it expected to alter the course or flow of flood waters. • -20- FLOODPLAINS This project would be constructed in the Green River floodplain, but would cause no significant encroachment into this floodplain. This area is already highly developed and construction would not support incompatible development. The Green River is controlled by Howard Hanson Dam, which would contain up to a one - hundred year flood. This project would not impact natural and beneficial floodplain values such as wetlands or natural retention areas. To minimize risks, the contractor would be required to complete all construction immediately adjacent to the Green River and the P -1 Channel in the time period between April 1 and October 1, and would not be allowed to significantly obstruct flow with coffer dams or any other objects to avoid any floodplain impacts during the construction phase of the project. FLORA The proposed project would eliminate about seventeen acres of grasses and shrubs on the outside shoulder slopes. The existing vegetation along the route varies between native and ornamental plantings. Near the beginning of the project, between Interstate 5 and 61st Avenue South, grasses and small trees in the interchange area would be affected by widening for the transit /carpool lane and new ramp. From the 61st Avenue South Bridge to the 68th Avenue South Bridge over Interstate 405, vegetation adjacent to the roadway is much denser. On the north side, madrona, cottonwood, poplar, willow and fir trees grow on a steep bank between Southcenter Boulevard and Interstate 405. A grove of black cottonwood trees, with seven nests in their tops were noted along the south side of the roadway in this area near the cottonwood grove. A drainage ditch flows out of an 80 inch culvert nearby, and parallels the highway for about 400 feet. A gabion wall would be built in the narrow area between the widening and the drainage channel to contain additional fill required -21- • • for the construction of the northbound transit /carpool lane. Other vegetation associated with the ditch includes himalayan blackberry, common horsetail, red alder, and willow. North of the highway, in this location, small trees and grasses comprise most of the vegetation and a small drainage ditch promotes the growth of juncus and cattails. A few cottonwoods are associated with the shoreline near the highway where the Green River is crossed by Interstate 405 east of 68th Avenue South. From the Green River to the P -1 Channel most of the vegetation is the result of highway planting. North of Interstate 405 in this area there are numerous plantings of Fraser's Photinia. Approaching the P -1 channel, large cottonwoods line the highway; however, the channel contains very little streambank vegetation, mainly knotweed and canary grass. There is very little vegetation on the north side of the highway from the P -1 channel crossing to Lind Avenue S.W., but the south side has a row of poplar, cottonwood, alder, big leaf maple, canary grass and ornamental shrubs. A row of about 10 arbovitae grow just before the Lind Avenue overcrossing. Most of the interchange areas of the project are vegetated with small douglas firs, scotchbroom and other shrubs. In the southeast corner of the South Renton Interchange a drainage area at the edge of the project limits flows to a larger wetland area outside of the project area. A drainage ditch next to the bottom of the ramp collects runoff from the adjacent hillside. Vegetation in the area between the ramp and the drainage channel consists of reed canary grass and horsetail. Beyond the channel, canary grass, willow, alder and salmonberry are found. The water table is very high, and is connected to a larger, more well- defined wetland with open water, cattails and dead tree snags south of the interchange area. A proposed gabion wall on the west bank of the ditch would prevent placement of fill material near the wetland and prevent impact to these areas. .• -22- FAUNA Widening for the proposed transit /carpool lanes would eliminate habitat and result in the loss or displacement of small birds, rodents, and insects; however, impacts to wildlife habitat are not significant when compared to the total available habitat adjacent to the Interstate 405 corridor. Several nests believed to be crows were observed situated in large cottonwood trees along the south side of Interstate 405 near Southcenter. Several raptors have been seen in the area, including red - tailed hawks and rough - legged hawks, but the widening' project is not anticipated to have any impact on them. A variety of birds use the roadside vegetation for food and shelter, as well as other stands of trees in the vicinity. Some vegetation bordering the existing highway would be eliminated, but would be minimized to the extent practical by the use of concrete and gabion retaining walls. No other wildlife form is expected to be affected by the project. The Green River is used by anadromous fish, including fall Chinook, Coho, Chum Salmon Steelhead and Searun Cut- throat. Fish use in the P -1 Channel (Springbrook Creek) is questionable, since an anadromous fish block (dam) on the Black River may preclude their use of the creek. All streams would be bridged. Impacts would be limited to placement of piers on shoreline or in- channel near existing piers. Impacts would be limited to the period of construction, and are expected to be minor. The project would not introduce new species into the area or result in a barrier to the migration /movement of fauna in the area. The project would not reduce the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna. -23- NOISE LIGHT AND GLARE Noise levels were predicted with the aid of the FHWA approved computer program "STAMINA 1" using design year 2000 traffic volumes and vehicle speeds based on posted speed limits. Traffic generated noise currently adversely impacts all residential areas in the Interstate 405 corridor between Tukwila and the South Renton Interchange. A noise impact is defined as: noise level that is generally caused by peak hour traffic which exceeds an L of 67 dBA in residential areas, 2) an increase in existing noise levels of five to ten decibels. Noise contour maps for the residential areas in Appendix D show the "existing ", "no build ", and "build" noise level and alignment conditions. Residences receiving a peak hour L of 67 dBA or more are shaded. Analysis shows that construction of the transit /carpool lanes will have little effect on the existing noise levels (two decibels or less). The project related noise impacts for this facility are not significant; therefore, noise abatement is not proposed. Headlight glare from vehicles operating on Interstate 405 Is not the dominant light source in the area. The transit /carpool lanes will bring headlight glare closer to existing developments, but this is relatively insignificant compared to the generally high levels in this urban area. Minor lighting revisions to accomodate structural changes, roadway widening, and other construction improvements will require the repositioning of existing illumination. The new light sources will be directed toward the roadway and are not expected to contribute significantly to glare or energy consumption. } -24- LAND USE NATURAL RESOURCES An air rights agreement would be required to widen the Chicago, Milwaukie, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad overcrossing near the Green River Interchange. Property may be acquired from the City of Renton adjacent to the South Renton Interchange and the City of Tukwila between Tukwila Parkway and Interstate 405 for widening in this area. The proposed action will not result in the alteration of the present planned land use adjacent to Interstate 405. The project is consistent with local and regional land use plans, the PSCOG 1990 Transportation System Plan, the METRO 1990 Transit Plan, and the Interstate 90 Memorandum Agreement. The construction materials and energy consumed during construction would contribute to the depletion of non - renewable natural resources such as cement, steel, fuel, and gravel. The project will not increase the rate of use of any natural resource and will not cause the depletion of any non - renewable natural resource. RISK OF UPSET The risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances is always present during the construction phase of a project; however, approved standard construction practices would be required from the contractor to reduce the possibility of such an occurrence. POPULATION Improved home to work accessibility in some areas may contribute to other social and economic forces leading to an alteration of the local population density or growth rates. This contribution is not expected to be significant. Any future change would more likely come from other social and /or economic forces not now evident. -25- HOUSING No homes or businesses would be acquired for this project, and no minority or elderly housing areas would be affected. The proposed transit /carpool improvements may slightly alter the geographical distribution of housing demand. This effect should not be significant. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The project has been developed in accordance with the general and specific goals of transportation plans for this region. The project will have the following effect on the existing transportation system and circulation patterns: Interstate 405 Capacity - Implementation of the transit /carpool improvements will increase the peak hour vehicular capacity of the Interstate 405 corridor between Tukwila and South Renton by approximately twenty percent. The exclusive transit /carpool lane would be available to high occupancy vehicles 24 hours a day. The project is expected to increase the people carrying capacity of the roadway by approximately thirty -five percent. The capacity for single occupant vehicles in the corridor will remain unchanged. Bus /Carpool - Construction of the transit /carpool lanes will result in increased bus usage and carpools. The METRO Transit Improvement Program and the Commuter Pool program will both be affected by the proposal. Travel time advantages available to transit /carpools are expected to reduce travel time by approximately 30 percent, resulting in a shift toward their use. Safety - This project would provide a 12 foot transit /carpool lane and 12 foot general traffic lanes with standard 10 foot outside shoulders and 7 foot inside shoulder. Most interchanges will be improved and collector- distributor roads will be provided at the South Renton Interchange. All existing bridge rails will be replaced by jersey -type rails, and beam guardrail throughout the job will be replaced by concrete median barrier. -26- Arterial Street Service Level Impacts - The implementation of transit /carpool priority treatments in the Interstate 405 south corridor will have a positive overall effect on the north - south arterial streets. The peak hour capacity will increase as will general bus usage and carpooling, resulting in a reduction in the traffic diverted to the arterial streets. Some lane restrictions would be necessary throughout construction of the project; however, on Interstate 405, the contractor will be required to keep the existing roadway configuration during peak hours. Traffic will be maintained on Christensen Road and Lind Avenue during construction of those bridges. PUBLIC SERVICE During construction, response times for emergency vehicles may be increased due to construction lane closures and detours. Additional enforcement actions by the State Patrol would be required, especially during the initial implementation stages of the project. Expanded roadway facilities would require additional maintenance efforts by WSDOT personnel. Bus usage would be expected to increase in the corridor. METRO may need to purchase more equipment and hire additional personnel. The project would not increase the need for fire protection, schools, parks, social or religious institutions, nor cause a reduction in such services or facilities. Fuel consumption was analyzed by the use of the FREQ6PL computer modeling program. This program was developed by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, under the sponsorship of the -Federal Highway Administration. According to the computer simulation, overall fuel consumption after implementation of the transit /carpool improvements would be reduced 3.4 percent as compared to before implementation. This equates to about 236,500 gallons of gasoline saved per year during the peak hour use of the lanes. These calculations do not include fuel consumption on arterial streets which would decrease if the transit /carpool program is implemented. Construction operations would consume approximately 2.42 x 10 Britsh Thermal Units (BTU) of energy based upon information developed in Energy Costs of Goods and Services, Herendeen and Bullard, 1974 and applying the Stanford Research Institute Chart for 1980 construction costs. The inflation adjusted 1982 construction cost of the project was multiplied by 110,000 BTU /construction dollars to obtain the total amount of energy to construct the project. The total amount of energy required to construct the project is equal to approximately 19 million gallons of gasoline and represents about 2 percent of the energy consumed in King County in 1980. Since the project would be constructed over six years, the project will not require use of substantial amounts of energy, increase demand on existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. UTILITIES Utilities that will be affected by this project are: Pacific Northwest Bell Puget Sound Power and Light Washington Natural Gas Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) King County Water District No. 107 City of Tukwila City of Renton Signing and illumination revisions would require minor modifications to the electrical service of the freeway. A suitable solid waste disposal site for asphalt, concrete, and excavation materials generated by this project would be selected by the contractor during the construction phase of the project. -28- HUMAN HEALTH AESTHETICS The proposed action would not result in the creation of any real or potential health hazard. This section of Interstate 405 passes through an urban /sub -urban area which has no outstanding visual features. The highway corridor has been improved by the landscaping of the various interchanges and the re- vegetation of the right -of -way areas. Native and ornamental plants have been used to blend the natural and urban character of the area. Shrubs and trees are strategically placed to define traffic patterns and screen headlight glare. Groundcovers are used for erosion control on slopes which are too steep to allow mowing. This project would eliminate some of the landscape previously planted which is now becoming well established. There would be no obstructions created to any existing views. The reduction of the landscape, which serves to soften and reduce the mass of the manmade feature, may serve to emphasize the structure. To mitigate any disturbance the construction of this project will have on the area, natural areas may be seeded with grasses and native vegetation may be planted. All bridge widening would blend with the existing structures. Modification would be done in the style similar to the existing, and would not have any significant visual impact. RECREATION This project is not expected to impact these or any other recreational properties. Noise levels are expected to increase only slightly (two decibels or less). Construction would be confined to existing right -of -way and would have only temporary impacts. The City of Renton Parks Department does not foresee any significant impact on its facilities. See letter in Appendix E. • -29- Consideration of Alternatives Engineering, social, economic and environmental studies were conducted to evaluate alternatives to increase corridor capacity. Evaluation of alternatives considered during the study was based on the following criteria: 1. The extent to which the alternative is a part of an overall strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled, conserve energy, and /or improve public transportation. 2. Compatibility with the long range plans of the PSCOG 1990 Transportation System Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region and the METRO Study A Transit Plan for the Metropolitan Area - Seattle - Kind County. 3. The extent to which the alternative is part of the overall corridor transit /carpool implementation plan 4. Compatibility with the park and ride /flyer stop program. 5. Compatibility with the Commuter Pool strategies. 6. Project costs. 7. Congestion reduction, safety, and operational improvements of the highway. 8. Evaluation of other social, environmental or economic impacts on the user and adjacent residents. 9. Enforcement strategies and responsibilities. The WSDOT considered the following alternatives for transit /carpool lane construction on this section of roadway: A. No-build CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES The no -build alternative would not construct transit /carpool lanes in the Interstate 405 corridor between Tukwila and the South Renton Interchange. Not constructing the proposed lanes would not significantly impact earth, water, flora, fauna, light and glare, lane use, natural resources, risk of upset, population, housing, public services, utilities, aesthetics, recreation or the area economy. -31- Not building transit /carpool lanes on this segment of Interstate 405 is not felt to be a reasonable alternative. It would be inconsistent with local transportation system plans. Peak hour traffic demand would continue to exceed the capacity of the corridor resulting in an extension of peak periods, increased congestion in the corridor, lower air quality, and an increase in fuel consumption. Congestion on Interstate 405 would also reduce the effectiveness of transit service improvements within the corridor. B. Shoulder transit /carpool lanes A shoulder transit /carpool lane would use the existing outside shoulder for high occupancy vehicles during peak traffic periods. Social and environmental impacts would be similar to those of the proposed alternative. Costs would be less. Shoulder transit /carpool lanes have been successful in other areas, such as State Route 520; however, the large amount of entering and exiting traffic would hamper their effectiveness in this area. This section of the highway contains interchanges with three state highways and has twelve ramps. The existing weaving conflicts from these would carry over and negate the time - saving advantage gained from exclusive lanes. Since there are no express bus stops planned in this area, there would be no need to have transit lanes close to the outside of the roadway. This alternative would have potential safety problems. Turning over existing shoulders to transit and carpools would leave no stalled vehicle refuge during peak hours. Enforcement would be hazardous as well as difficult. C. Widen Interstate 405 to six standard lanes with the new lane for transit /carpool use • -32- Widening the roadway to provide an extra, standard lane for exclusive transit /carpool use is the preferred alternative. Its impacts were discussed under Impacts of the Proposed Action. Expanding the facility to six full lanes with full shoulders along most of the highway would be safer than the shoulder lane alternative. It would be much easier to enforce and would provide refuge for disabled vehicles. It would also allow exclusive transit /carpool lanes 24 hours a day. This alternative can be constructed with transit /carpool lanes on either the inside or the outside. The inside lanes are preferred for several reasons. They would avoid the weaving problems discussed in Alternative . B, and permit an interference -free facility geared to through, long haul traffic. They would provide more flexibility for future transit considerations. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION The WSDOT has coordinated development of the project with local, regional and state agencies. An interagency coordinating committee was established to review development of the transit /carpool improvements and obtain community input. Agencies included on the committee were: Washington State Department of Transportation Washington State Patrol Puget Sound Council of Governments King County Metro City of Renton City of Tukwila Commuter Pool The committee met September 19, 1980 and August 6, 1981. The committee suggested areas of study and design details that have been incorporated in the design of the project. More than a dozen meetings were conducted with individual members of the committee in order to gather and exchange more detailed and specific project concerns. Additional meetings were held with Boeing, Longacres, and representatives of the Southcenter business community. An open house was held on November 5, 1980, at the Renton City Hall. The meeting was well attended by the public and had live news, coverage (KOMO -TV evening news). Citizens expressed the following concerning the project: The existing section of Interstate 405 is believed to be inadequate for existing traffic with extreme congestion during peak hours. Additional travel lanes should be built. -34- A collector - distributor system on Interstate 405 /State Route 167 Interchange is essential for safe transit /carpool operation on Interstate 405 and has been needed for some time on this facility. A collector - distributor road could also be considered for the State Route 167 portion of the interchange. Full width shoulders in addition to the transit /carpool lanes should be provided for safety and enforcement. The general concept of transit /carpool improvements on Interstate 405 was well received. As noted previously, agreements and /or approval from the following agencies and utilities will be required: Metro ' City of Tukwila City of Renton King County Burlington Northern Railroad Washington State Department of Fisheries Washington State Department of Game United States Army Corps of Engineers • Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY State Implementation Plan, Washington State Department of Ecology. The Clean Air Act as amended August, 1977, U. S. Government Printing, November, 1977. Action Plan for Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations in the Planning and Development of Transportation Systems and Improvements, Washington State Department of Transportation, March 1980. SEPA Guidelines, State of Washington Council on Environmental Policy, adopted December 12, 1975. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Polic Act, Council on Environmental Quality, November, 1978. 1990 Transportation System Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region, Puget Sound Governmental Conference, 1974. A Transit Plan for the Metropolitan Area /Seattle - King County, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, May, 1972. Regional Overview Study: 1990 Transit Sketch Plan Analysis - Regional System Issues and Implications, by Parsons Brinckerhoff for Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, May, 1979. Metro Transit: More Mobility for the Eighties, MetroTRANSITion Phase IV Technical • Report, by Parsons Brinckerhoff for Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, August 1980. I -90 Memorandum Agreement, between King County, Seattle, Metro, Mercer Island, Bellevue, and the Washington State Highway Commission, December 21, 1976. -36- SR -5 North Corridor High Occupancy Vehicle Study, Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff, August, 1977. I -5 South HOV Project - Alternatives Screening, Technical Memo No. 5, by Parsons Brinckerhoff, the TRANSPO Group, and Caroline Feiss for the WSDOT, June, 1981. I -405 North Renton Interchange to Factoria Interchange, SR -900 to I -90 High Occupancy Vehicle Study, WSDOT, April, 1979. I -405 High Occupancy Vehicle Project, I -90 Factoria Interchange to SR -520 Northup Interchange - Preliminary Alternatives Screening Report, WSDOT, by Entranco Engineers and H. W. Lochner, Inc. April, 1981. I -405 SR 900 to Factoria High Occupancy Vehicle Improvements - Design Report, WSDOT, March, 1980. 1-405 North Renton Interchange to Factoria Interchange SR -900 to I -90 High Occupancy Vehicle lanes May Creek Park and Ride Lot - Environmental Assessment, WSDOT. Environmental Assessment for SR -5 North Corridor HOV Improvements Jefferson Street to 236th Street S. W., WSDOT, January 1980. URS Design Report - Southwest Grady Way Bridge Replacement, by URS Company for the cities of Renton and Tukwila, June, 1980. Transportation Improvement Plan, by Entranco Engineers for the City of Tukwila, October, 1979. Freeway Modifications to Increase Traffic Flow - Technology Sharing Report FHWA- TS -80 -203, U. S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administation, January, 1980. • - 37 - • ± . Appendix A Traffic Estimates TUKWILA 1-5 SOUTHCENTER GREEN RIVER co 44000 _45460 s eh 43110 ?so M S. RENTON SR 167 40200 40190 S R 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON 1981 AMT . ,_ TUKWILA 1-5 SOUTHCENTER GREEN RIVER 0 I. 0 2980 3660 if � • hp 1 x ;4020 3190 S. RENTON SR 167 h_ O SR 405 3530 3240 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON . 1981 AM PEAK HOUR ' . .YfT'I ;.1S.. ,i,71 lis _ YryT 'IC'.MT�'I!':SLT_ ^M;. .„ - Vta'�'l�15't?Rn� - _77 SOUTHCENTER GREEN RIVER et 3760 3590 o 3470 3990 •0 S R 405 'TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON 1981 PM PEAK HOUR • SR 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON • 2000 TRAFFIC AWDT 0-4580 6g500 ca Ui 23200 610•0 7030'0 ,c.2,-,,x44.,44•Werivaratk44..04K-I • • 4-.1 ,,, 4 4 :.,19j02 .0•Serror-ip 1-5 SB 1-5 NB MUTHCENTER - SR-181 NB • SR-181 SB 8400 7'170'0 68900 6500 . 8R-167 SB 18600 17700 43400 42600 39'00 • 95 N`b SR-167 NB 65900_ 66200 • 1300 390 ( (30) 2460 (260) 2680 (350) 2760 1140 - (33 )14 60) (170) 500) 3900 W 690 2840 3540 m (130) 720 (390) 700 (450) (100) (60) 1-5 NB 90UTHCENTER 000 GENERAL TRAFFIC (000) HOV TRAFFIC SR -181 SB SR -181 NB 920 (50) (60) SR-167 SB SR -167 NB 190 (80). - (490) (450) SR 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON 2000 TRAFFIC HOV LANE PM PEAK 3960 4�•• '. iy:'ww.j.etH:^ i:i! f�'•'- .. "... 1300 900' 490', _ 430 SR -181 SB 3T90 3500 900 1-5 NB SOUTHCENTER SR -181 NB SR-167 SB SR -167 NB TA- SR 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON 2000 TRAFFIC PM PEAK (NO BUILD) $' Var ;ea_ Shldr, N ot Steeper Th an Pk.I 2$' Me;on Var cd es 111b- - / 4' I varies 4' Varie� 12' o'-43" ), ) (.) I t.% L Ex ;st;n Pavement' Pro c∎Ie. Gradc Pivofi Point • 12' ROADWAY Vicinity South Ren 1 • SECTION 12' 12' nton Interchange 12' 4' -14' -�- — -11:I r )' . 1 ' � � I V Existinj Pavtm ProP Grade, Pivot Point Mec an \0.r'e.s Varies d- 2' Varics' ' 4 0 1_ g , B -1 varies 0 -28' Varies S F -= J O' Sh Id r, Not Steepe Than Hz: I Varic S' t /0' Sklar, Not Steeper Than I'Iz. I 12' Pro ciIC Grade- d Pivot Poi 12' /2i Existin I oven Typical Roa • ' mo 1 1 / I Cht /2 I • I dway Section /Z /2.' _ , -J ProPc Grade, Pivot Point Varies_ Via 10' Not S Thgh e 40 0P- Id i 0 ° P IIIP 13') ' A i l s \ • —. _ • z _..• oo 200 • • /0 ' ''•••■•..... ' -E17 --__, /4, . 7 .• k f3N \ ‘•,>. \ \ N NN \ • \ \ \ \ • • ../' ,/ , v ol tij) _ - • • 7, ger 1 2;;e 121449 gl° 23I■ #Le _ c4. - 2\7' 0 00 Zone ffid CURVE 4,474 /"Zeittreo ,eawx • ,Pi. SM. ..c. ,e. 4. i seSIV I , ‘0 _ ...67V7:0/ ZU-5/' _MeV' MAO' .45 sr/WM' ,nswmg,:yr 4 22, /attar 'WRY' ...427M 411,4 1 .9843fiv? d'h2219:02" f4-d%77 41efoz:04 d7f3 r 1,29W' X.6.27'' .47257,41 ,rieesiralir AVrfii311‘ I.W.55•7/21 %Wier —AVM' 27/.00' AltiVir ..07,4 9.22 /YI/rd" Azit/6072 e) 411148// .5 4 672..z4" .ea:e4P. ,ilerwas' ..ficf 4 - 1e-Ali.-0 925120W' -.Wig' 4 'Med' ..4e, Iget:0100/ Xen/it/All NI., R4E. VV. M. top O • 11 \ 4 I t 2.1 N re; ge v z \ i L A /-412,40-4 / ,HANGP" -r- . ---".• _____,-- — souTNCENTER PAW)! — —/---- ;0 60 20 0 100 200 300 400 Sca!, in Feet B-3 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON 1: - . mew /34T4 /ieORCED .€DIVK R ‘f2,'19 78'42:0 /sax' � ' /210/" .?Q6.As' . /O %e N.t/21rivk .92910:492 .ei T /4 +Z2/0 /09 /9' . /5800' 2/2.92 287. /2' . /.97, 9 N95S74' I23•2W0'IV 300 400 B,e /LVIS ra BE M'D WED !�'PFFN yee QkSeettIST/NQ BPioOE04 /4' E •.o N v #7/flier afAlfatleTAWOY orr'f) B,e /DCE TD BE 4PEBU /LT Be/U4'E "145/9 (C/Ty Df 77/4/✓ /14 , c&'Y' /EAY /ew) i i �"� ffe' 7-line /6 rr i B -4 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON Lamm moor * 1 : 1 f �h 1•1y�•I Vk i 14,. i !•m• ` r it fir I;i Vo ,' f , Pi/ r ' 1 i i t ill i ; 1 I I/ I Ii ! ( I 11 T. 2 3 N., R.4 E. W. M. ( .2)REITZ, N rt lVP' i\rrr ;C; AJ \1(JE IA . Lax I0 60 20 L k BODGE TO A s , v 44 g r7 44 c.At 'pp gee. BeIVE. 00 200 300 Scale in Feet eaevE 1474 /Alopff'ED .PDMV .9/. 574. o ,e T. .c _ _ S SZBASS. M4f'A5+0 MD MS AQ a:11,E .AC' /,5/. 9/ 4"44 '416"" .2 4610" /49x' .1f9..Si' .6757, ! a&' //trim' /r3' /S:3r /.5?4r zvas' ,2'lrssr' . /o %�f S03'.ritaVir.3/a:af A.e'/G9r97.e35 .SG:.11: " .41S61 /.24415 Z.Z1.9 /' R$r� dilaraG:t/,E 3-43.raVE A,e%/3049.23 41•40 4'9" fella ' .9137' .1.67' .Dl;'r(.. .f.Ertre vz iorn arz B2' // . ,'r : r ,/s 1. //63 7/' 4'9zAc' . /D% 2'.e Vi' NiS'M+Kf BE kaDEN ED ireattrriNG Afze,4E0 INWEGTED l 470 "wive( 414(71.i°ua7IGW By orfees B -5 t Q1 V TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON 0 /38+4.4 57 "Pee. rAppro*.) End eomman .116//(/07.11/44) ay een&ta lareep74en ANN" ---MIIRM; - - - -- 00 200 300 400 ale In Feet B-6 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON Ci/ 'f .0 4731 / ,eQPoseo .eo 41 A 519 0 /2. r L. S. ar Bea.. ma Aea ,es73'r27,// 38'48 441a44' 0.2'.23' 4, f3' .OWl. SO /4500:(✓ SJ6'0€725. Gsel .?D 0:434!" /f20o .26.4f S7o.8/' ..d%P S8ff2:6E 4/BL:2yGbE B.C .P'r,48;J' 4 99417' /Pip?' .0(3.W. 4/41/40 .YOG:ZPA7E Ceze5'3. /SGb 32794 _ * ' /OS.al' .2'&,&v' .07% /E .Ye:A S54...1Z 1, O'.e 45'/;67%2' /60.411' 385.77 508. //' ..d %`f 271 Z ._ %7)l' CZZ9S +7.5.31, $41'442" 10400' /SS..27' .286.3 .0 7/A 452'51 /i1.O0' ...0z 5'20.72.Z s"P:3 /.G' 23849 / /O.00' 206./8' OBX S3 ?!.4 S'BY7.2.E Ae g7sY;29' 3- /59.68' .x.28' .z%'?. y3tS4 O'BZ:sa:67-re T. Lind 4+30.00 /4'/9'26" 40000' 34.90' 75.60' .06 7K. .'0/' 3530'2. N8 TLi77e8.2489 /4'/9'26' 4L000' 3490' 736 .067 /l. Ireir0.Z'W 40/'35302. TGnd ///74. /4'/9'26' 40049' 35.66' 7/. /3' .05/K. NO/' E N//'444TE TGad/3.55.20 /4' /9'24' 400.00' 3566' 71. /3' .067K. 11l/'46'47'E N0/'.35.32'.5 Care .0.474 /, '4P i''0. .cowl ' R. 5z1. o .e. - Z. S'. £e ge$ ANO B,PG. .LCD 9S•728/ OS'.2gii9 - / /31,3. 6 ' S43.98' /Q97/3' .a' /�2: 4484•2lag' ,Gb /'4'417 E' 470 49•,215,4 Q?'.s86O f 84943 .26.4f .53..25 41% S8ff2:6E 4/BL:2yGbE "CD '5'377.2 e15'd3.2/ //523.85 ,s4e 77 - /O /G.BB' GY /sf 4/84,2'7GoE' iYB /:25:37, 4Y 753•.i 16 .Sr .et: " 37/.49' /17.269' 33157' .eWA 4/8I312 .'.32 727.51W9 .44 Selloo' --WAG" 385.77 .CY//f. S81 ve:2iE .3LGiE 271 Z ._ %7)l' .>e7ell .1ld..i.5 .21 72" .07/.e! NGYIW.SeVE A/S4:,t2274/ BLZ /774/_56" /i1.O0' ,502.•1,3' . /O%�f .81 40•0:1.4" ._140.40 //3.417" , /i./1' .07%01,! .5'.52'0! %fiv Avivitiv2e ezz a5'.ZD. Sd .2740i4e 4tc?2 v' W..50' /ti/L " .QL%,E. 4 E HS6146:f12 O 20.274;.9' /62.60 .57/.76' ./OW ai 91 /.2.85 .3l:sOAC" mar ..'253 21' .CY,/,(. 53635;/4.✓ .3'd'f45bio'/ iu DM ti Vioe Amer ere` woe 2 / PO.T= 4C.0 7/025700 PO.T. 65Z 7f) 5 pn m q . Bowler gecoa/ Co,. Typ •2 N k/np. Lad 4re 45 #92267 PT. np• L Are. 13 + /q. 541V 7re •. Lmdbe. /2410.0 Temp. L ,n d Aye. //039 02 PC. f �✓ /L 1,A_ �` __ N Lk 0 . . : . • ' mow 7a Alr A9PeriVED ezionverTS277441101:82) 01/ereattgrA eziore *Wig ad/ T 23N., R. LU U) t Io 0 8 0 0 0 Appendix C visit':;::•: �i� ^ •.:::;::.. :::9i.�: ?�:.M �. Bridge Sections 0 10 varies Ic ►� is is v a is Ic 7.7 8 t o .-. '•t- �.r --a.� 12.68' O r� r 11 I I :I; 1 — : ! 1.5' 8' 16' 2,67' ami Varies 27.78' to 32.68' Varies 20.53' to 24.29' lC Varies 3' 12' to 16' ; ____, ' - - - - -� I ` - - - -�� I ` - - - ._i 267' 3' Varies 12' 12' 8' 8' 13.54' to 30.60' rI Varies . r 4.83' to 16.35' 12' 12' 12' 12' 1 8' 8' 12' 8 ' 1 i J I - -' �`---- JI ` - - - - GREEN RIVER O NO. 405/10 E/W Sta. 105 + 14 to Sta. 107 + 59 8' 12' 12' 12' 12' sil SR* 181 O' XING NO. 405/11 E/W Sta. 113 + 94.67 to Sta. 115 + 6742 12' Varies 0 , 3 , 14 r I / I� -- - - - - -- - - - - -- — — f - 1 — ' — T - — f ' — � — T T — r T — — ' — 1— ' T —r — r— '— -r T -1 ' -r — —1 — T - — — p ti( �, 1 r 1 If 1 �I I r � ( �f I s 1 1 1 L. r r' � � r r r `I i ti r ti r�. I, r 1 J-. - L_1- `1_ _ i 1— L s _L y — _I_ —.L. —L L 1 1_ 1_ l J —J _. 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' Varies 12' 12' 4.77'to 29.27' 3' 2 67' EXISTING I NG _ 1 4 4 Pima 12' 12' 0 rl II ,, i -�- i - - - - - -_- - -- - - - - - r- - I --- L- - - - - -- RIVER O'XING NO. 405/10 E/W Sta. 105 + 14 to Sta. 107 + 59 8' 12' 12' Varies Variesowl 12' I�I�I�I�I�I I � : II t i ,� ti ', t tir _i. _i. J . _i —i — ;.-1— L. — L 1 _j 181 O' XING NO. 405/11 E/W ]. 113 + 94.67 to Sta. 115 + 67.42 12 ' 14' to 1 0' -3 2' 12' 12' Varies 10.54' to 13.61' fi I r i I C -1 12' Varies 6.93` to 16' F Varies 22.99' to 26.16' 2.67' EXISTING 16' 8' Varies 27.54' to 27.61' 8' INN SR 405 HOV IMPROVEMENT$ TUKWLA TO SOUTH RENTON BRIDGE CROSS — SECTIONS 1.5' 1.5' L— 6166 Project 15990J I.5 10' 16 ' 12 ' 10 ' - • r r• _T r tir ti tir i (Le's ti 1 r' 12' I I II I I 1 1 12' 8' 14.4, 8' 2 ' r t T T T— T � I — I ti ti e ti J r 1 I 1 J I , . ; 1 1 , C. M. St. P. B P RR a N.PRY. No. Sta. 123 + 87 to Sta. 131 + 52 Q 12 12 4 I . 4 I 41 1.5' 10' 12' 12 12 .8' 8' n n 1 1 1 � I � I I I I 1 !„, I I I I ( I 12' C.7-1 —r==1. I I I I II II :zap j 'Cr I I 12' 2' DRAINAGE DITCH No. 405/1 E/W Sta. 145 t 24 to Sta. 147 + 26 405/12 E/W 12' 12' r-; 4•-• * - 1 . _ • 'r -1 - .2_. IP — L�7 1 1 1 1 1.. • I I I I. I I •I •1 ',1 I I I I 1 I. I I . I I • k - 4......: .1 '.s.J Issd it-J..1 r 1.7:.1 ---°"i311-* 5' 5' 12' 12' 6' 2.67' EXISTING _.. T r" Il I � ti 8 ' 8' 12' St. P. B P RR 81 N.PR.Y. No. 405/12 E/W Sta. 123 + 87 to Sta. 131 + 52 4' Q 4' I 4' 4 8' 8' I" I —r T I _ f _ "r' —r I t 1 J i ti i' 11 til I( 1 r til j I I, • iAINAGE DITCH No. 405/13 E/W ta. 145 -t- 24 to Sta. 147 + 26 12' 12 ' n 1 1 J Varies I 0' to 9.76' Varies 14' to 2 3. 76' 12' 12' 10' 1.67 EXISTING 12' 12' 12' 10' I I I I 1 I ':s.J %er.4 C11 -s II MI I I II I I I I Ic� 1 ' 12' SR 405 HOV IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON BRIDGE CROSS SECTIONS L6166 C -2 1.5' Project 15990J 15 8' 16' 14' 1.5' 2.83' 4' 2' 8' 8' 1 3' Varies 12 to 13.70' 12' 12' i _ , 12' 3' 5' 12' 12' ri I I I I r - L ••■ ■ 1 1 ---ti -I. -- I---1 - r - T f T T --- — — -r --r - ti N 1 k ,; S/ k ,/ ti! I I I , 11 , , I J 1 , , 1 It , , 1 l r\ lti 1\ e%, k, !1 , I `, -1 - --1. - - 1 - I- .L 1- - J I .__l - 1 - I - '• _ J k 12' 12' 12' 12' 8' I 8' ■•� aft —;—; —�� r -•- 1�1 - rl - - % t ; ; I ,' '7 r I ' y r 1 I , I I, 1 I I I , , 111.1.1 — -I -I- _ L- _ L 17' 8' WNW 12' 12' 0 Sta. 184 + 72 to Sta. 186 + 60 12' 3' 1 .0 2 1 .41.4.4, _52 04 - I- - T . -. T i .-r -r -1-t - r- r- ; 1 I) �I ti 5 / I SR 167 O'XING NO. 405/15 E/W 12' I 12' , 3' 12' 12' ' 12' 12' I - — - r- r 1- r - t -'- -, -' - 1 r- S i 1 ` l 1 I ii I I 1 , P I I 1 , BURNETT ST. O'XING NO.. 405/ 16 E/W Sta. 209 -1- 98 . to Sta. 212 -1- 15 ? � � 3' S 3' 8' 3 167 O'XING NO. 405/15 E/W ;ta. 184 + 72 to Sta. 186 + 60 3` 5` 5' 3' I` 12' `1 ?' 8' --e - r -1 - I' ti r II I 8' r 8' 12' 12' Varies 3' I Wi 13.7' to 12' 12' 8' 12' j-r ' _ T T- _ ...T - I-- ) , - r r -r 1 - '- - � -- j r I I I, I I I I I I I I I • / r e l 1 , 1 / l � . i ._. 1 J — l L L _1. _L _I --6. • -. 1 _ { _1 _. L 1 12' TT ST. O'XING NO. 405/ 16 E/W a. 209 + 98 . to Sta. 212 -+ 15 12' 12' "4 3' I 2_83' EXISTING 12' . 1 5 ' T 1 . ) ! I i I I I I I i I I ll I ♦ 12' Varies 3.07' to 7.41' Varies 20.07'to 24.41' C -3 2.83' 8' EXISTING 1.5' 1 I11I11I11I11I6 SR 405 HOV IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON BRIDGE CROSS — SECTIONS L-6166 Project 15990J ; — L 8' 12' STATE CONSTRUCTION Temp. Barrier — rT T 7 TTTr r '� ( �► ! r* ( Il ' I ( I } I 1 (� I I ' I I I 1 I I I I I Lind Ave. 12' _ _ 12' LIND AVE. S.W. U'XING NO. 405/14 Approx. Brdg. Sta. 8+ 80 to I I + 20 (Temp. Lind Ave.) Existing Bridge 405/14 to be removed Relocated T— Line 30.5' .30.5' 18.5' 6.5' 12' 4' FUTURE CITY OF TUKWILA STATE 12' Temp. Barrier FUTURE CITY OF RENTON CONSTRUCTION c. Temp. T —Line 12' CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION CHRISTENSON RD. U'XING NO. 405/9 Approx. Brdg. ,Sta. 16+ 05 to 18+17 (Rel. T— Line) Existing Bridge 405/9 to be Removed 5 5'1 r � II _J I . �1 'I I 1 I I I I J._ L L 7 5' 1.5' E. S.W. U'XING NO. 405/14 :rag. Sta. 8+ 80 to 11 + 20 (Temp. Lind Ave.) Bridge 405/14 to be removed Relocated T— Line 18.5' c- Temp. T —Line 6.5' 12' 121 51 um 121 $1.4-4 121 -► E Lind Ave. 1 21 ■ EL ? ( 1 1 I I , 1 I I 1 _1� Temp. Barrier I - 1 1 T 1 S• I i I I r I' FUTURE CITY OF RENTON CONSTRUCTION 30.5' I 5 I. J STATE CONSTRUCTION RD. U'XING NO. 405/9 16+ 05 to 18+ 17 (Rel. T— Line) 5/9 to be Removed 12 51 k 15 1 r � II J 1 _• �! H 1.5' C -4 SR 405 HOV IMPROVEMENTS TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON BRIDGE CROSS — SECTIONS L.— 6166 Project 15990) L Appendix D Noise Contour Maps .0 I 1 ., .......,.... -- —• ..-, - • -- ----' . -4L•• .- ::' ••• 4 .•••.: ' ':A• A -4.4.--.• . ' -"•-•-•-•"•!..24114111111r." •L' ' --5 .....••• :1• ,, .. ... ... .., : 1 :It .1 0/ • ..,. ; ; ... a - ... t ; .• .. . . l'.,' -.. :. --- Pz . , • . 1 't• , . - .4., , _ . ........../ :..: - - 1111111111111111- - A • A , • . . • --: 7 t-4 :', p. 2 .7:7-r) 7 ,., ..,,, •••_:......„: 4.., .i. t;' . ., - . , -,-- .....,....• ,, 0 -I- '" - . C ' . . • . . .'..- ., ...,-. , ------...... • --- 1 . . • ' ' ,. .`" 1,1 .:V. . i l ..„ .. c,.... . i..: ..,<...• -.,i' ,..., •.... .F • ...,•... • Ps:, . ' .. :-')...:...., • - % \ r • -1_ .• 1 : - ? . • , 1. ,' C.• i . ' ,,• . • ( )........ -,*:.• ..• , f I ' , i, I' ' /:-.) -,..••• 71_ :'. • '•• 7 ,..1 • S.p . ‘ • -. .. • • 3< - •.-.;... :1 ,l -, • =•-4. - , .- H• • '4 .'' ' L„. -• ....:J.: . -• e - ... •-•••:;...- -----.........,., --- "' . , ' - ,..,..._ , --.0 4 . : . ,, • - .. C - ■ • P ' 4 1 -- -, • ' - 44...---.. i • 1 1 / - • , .. ) lo g . I '• . 1,..; :11 I ''''''' • ; ....1 7 ''-: ., '''' % 1> •,,.- c_,--\;,. ' ••,.. 4 ,,,,,, tr .! „.... .\.‘ • 1 cll.,' ..,•:''".:- - / i --, "' . -,---.....--- - _ ,--.--:- ,..., ■ ii i 0 i V : I,/ ....... .........:-.,.... ! . --- 6' ` • k , I ::i . B. • i , jr7,- ? ,:?.. 14 , 4, i ..k ., , -t-r ,. ' i• P i 1 "'A...4.r! , ,,-..",, m t ., • 1 '. 1 1 ....... ;■.....), 1 7. - P , ° ,0 • .. ,........ / ,y ■ • r /..- ....r 0 . ,I • ) ,) • •-. / it 0 :77:-. .. ...... . ... - • 0 r,,l‘• - ------ 0 00 0 ---- --- • • I • I.• \ •-•-• • ..,;• • \ (. . " - • • •-• • ■•• 'LI ‘' c , , lj‘ • • ■ - .`:4 • LEGEND Ibo so 30 0 -4. MUM) 2000 PIA PEAK NE Lou NOISE CONTOURS 100 200 Seale in Fon 300 400 le •• 1 4 • 0, 0 • / T23 N.,R.4E.WM. © c O / r l � �Y J J •,f ,,, LEGEND 100 60 SO 0 '1 • `_�. Go v �.r .• "r,L I \ l r` l . rJ , r ,,` p . i . `,\}O v. 1. �� . III • 1 r : — e .,...-.4.,-.-...', 12 In ° `^- `F w '' • BUILD 2000 PM PEAK MM Loq NOISE CONTOURS IOO 200 300 400 Sear in r.r { • �. �� Y e t , �,• ,y I ' • • • V • D -1 • 5 „ BUILD 1 -405 NOV TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS • . ' . ----. -- • • • ,,, Z • .• i ri /.., : 0 CI_ I I I I-- .1J x • • .- 1 ::- - s . ---, fr. )-`2 .', ••• .• 1. t I ! r' I ., ,. or ' . • , • I a 1+, 1 7 . . . I • •.• '• • • • t • .. 1. • •L'. •6! • ttT l j 02 ••••,.■••- • , ,■•••.\ t • % • - 77. 1 t, . / , ,.... .,a '..fi ,--,• '..• . ,..- ••.• ,..' ! g .. • ',:' .-- ;.- - • --- • 7 , --i --4- . %"' ,,79=4_C •-• , .: ? / i f - ,' .,---. ., ,. .. -. , —,;,._ - ,., j . ,.-.:-.). ...,, ...,..• "-----. ._,-1.--11 \ . ' 0 • ;:f 41. — ! LEGEND 100 60 30 0 EXISTING 1012 & NO BUILD 2000 PM PEAK HN NOISE CONTOURS 0 PM PEAK HP FIELD MEASUREMENT Leg 11 200 100 400 sew rn AM • J • ' - •=4. 182 II NO BUILD 2000 PM PEAK HR :ONTOURS FIELD MEASUREMENT Los . 0J 2 Scol. Fe., 100 400 D-2 =27 to 1 ( -- 14 8T 1-405 HOY TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS EXISTING & NO BUILD . .• ••••••• sem* in rem 400 •••.••••• •-•••••-;: .• ' . • • ' .• • ■• , ;•. • .‘" tr ...\\• a, , • • - -0-3/ "" > -' A. S • J - i) r"ft • •4 A ' -7'‘ -1 7 . 6 • • t: • -• ••• • --1 • • •, • • ' ( ? . '... - t73 - : - 1', • -...• ,. GV•srle St .1( . • - •...'' •••• .% f ,.. r., . .,,, •,, ..., ,, ,_...,.. •,, , ......,.. ,.1.... Ia. ---,- • :/..:- • ,•-' -) ' 2 • • , ' 7" -- ----- -. , ! !•,..i .,- V. --: , L - z7;,. - ).< . , • . •••••$(.'t • ' •%-, • :, d ;•} - 7 • i • i ' i! • • --0 ' ...) - ;,---, \ ;. i. -. .1.,:,...– . - ":„ . ... J .. . i • . I ' 1:,!....... . L.3 :. i 1..:, ;- 1 ,,, ; -.. 7 .. 7. - •,. ,.: . • . . . . . ,... 4: .7,.. c .\-- — - 7-T.,.7 / 4 1 .1 ..-.. xl ri_ t ,,,• ' • .- At ,, , i ; t • : : . t,• _,1 / y ,- • • • . co: , A 1 T - -1 .-,,s.- t , . V • , .' t "- ') ..: ', ,1 • • , t • s ,-"•-•• i ' ''.•■ Z'. ; ' i I M r .,,,,,cirr.-I.--•.— •:■ 1- --. • v 5. p s-r4 ' ,4 ' • . l (-; i 1 1. • 0, - . ..,`,-1 e• ‘ 1 I . '. ..., ...........r---/: 1 I,- n • t ;A.-lei 4 .I . • 1.1 '41. I , 3 • ''" . • . '' •.,..., . ., = - - -.1 -- .z•-,7- t• -yr -11 /f• • 7.. •• • • _ S, • 1 1 el • . • 1 . - •• ' • a i ? ' - • • • . i • . . ' 1 • . *?--I , . ‘-'-'.- P.-- . p ' —;--- ..p --. - '._ .. ' ' .. -,...- ••••w7.• LI I', _ • .. r . ..•;'.;,/ . I . .,. 1 7 ;.'• • V .„; 11°.• , , • " • •••• • (3 N :7> ' I ". • 11 * •1:5 szt a' • re r . % .S..:-- • • •••••••••• ......- .....1 ' ' ......."."-!. . ••• .,„....„..... --,-, ;., . . ) ) ■,' i'. AL:AFf. ' • • " - • . . . - . • ....................... ................... ........ it- . ......... "c 0 o iEt 0 — A — — --•.,-- ' • ',...` . , ..- _ • :----4,:....5_, •,'-~: --- • ., .i.-.....4., !Ti .....k...r- - I c , t • v. ,f `,... . . ' s •, I ''t' -e---- i ; .,.• , '9 •, , ''l i'..):‘" f i /- ' !...- .• • d - ;. ' ; .• (., I. 1 - .., .z.... .; • I ' d i 4 .7 S7 •. ii ,. ,. i -, i..: • : • J ; _:": .••• , . •• - • -s — '4. T0;' • CA . ,,,a • • • • 1 ' .„; • - , •, •,• • r;k / t • • • • :If I • .* "•-•'`A„ ■•• • / ) - , •••••,.• . ) 1/4 • 1, • .• 2 . • LEGEND EXISTING 1552 & NO BUILD 2000 PM PEAK AR Lem NOISE CONTOURS 0 PM PEAK NE FIELD MEASUREMENT Lem 100 60 30 0 •■• a 1_, 4. .41 1 '9 0. • z,"T„. • • • - 4 - • .. ..... _ . , rt . - • - 0- • _ • f • • • ) W-/ • IMISR172elayi==.21.: y.1.11.11r1.1 f' • • • I _____ . - • ........ .. 7 .4 . : ............. ......... , .... . . ••■••• • ■Ule... :.!... ,.. . ' VA. , c; 0_..— S • 4 , i • . 2::.C.::::■ -■....,■.:r. : . .."=": .F ..... . . . .. . . C ,.., ..'.. ''.•. ..... . ; .. .... • — — .... • I . LEGEND 100 60 30 0 . . . - _ .. : -; . ;•':•"', -• . r-,---------€1,_ ---,.... • ••• !tr:__ • •'-----_-•`-__.=,. _,._ • - ..'..• • , • ,,,.....! • ''.- 7 - "1 , t•-•- • , .„..- -- _,._. . _ , ' „. _,___, ••• 1 . _:,.. i _e / ./ ' • ' - / ( _,,___ • 7 "Tr ' i -- V ( r. . :•• • , ' , ,.. I / ,- • . • ..._ .9 , , .., iiiiwi /:, _ „...) ' f ....,:. !. ''., d ■'' . 4 .. I / • < ,...., ) • f ! ',1 t . ..I • ,1 , > 1.0.- -, It . , • ,: .,.• \•,i" hi_ • ', .1 :: s:" :. • 4.•• ‘4. lI • • .4 ;••-'-- l• •.• • • • • • I • . ••" • • ) •••• .1•A • • I :-•,' , , ,-•-•,, :... • --. •-• . '.!, ' ,s i ;!... ••• . • .• -"'-•-•••••••\ • •• ,, f • - . ,.. ••• -=, • - • • \ \ : ' • — '- . • • • t. ■••` / / • • • --- ‘4 ., i , . • • • • 1 ,•; • ; • ' i s; • / • \• \ \ , ' • . 4. / ,5 • '.. I „ 1 !.. , '... ,..‘ ': " Q . ■ ', , i ' t• . 1 • \ 0 `, 4 :/.. •,• • • .1.z. k \ 4 '7. • • EXISTING 1952 & NO BUILD 2000 PM PEAK HR Leg NOISE CONTOURS 0 PM PEAK HR FIELD MEASUREMENT Log 100 200 300 400 SC4 in Fool •1104.'• • ;42 „A. • :s Al• . • g • I) i• ••••`• • 14 4•• .--- .4.. ID 1 --. (-:,..... .. „ 1' I`; dp....,.., .•-, -: ,: . .. -, ..-:." °I . . •:„. , . , .,. ... , .... • K iZ.• s. .."*. ■ • 1 ! 1 • 'Il;:•••• , :•'•-• I ,. • ,,. 44; e,..1 • • .., , , ..:1, •••••• 0, At 1 • I .6 ...el • = L./ ••••-- „ .6 r• '••• - • , • -.) r •• 1 , ) '. --' - "'"? - • ..y_.-1....:__. --- --•• - ..,...______,_0: ..'c"..• x 1 : J — ' , i' • 1 ....______ ,....._„....___e .. - , ..;........_ :4.4„..._ , i i l „ , , .., 4 ,, : • 0, .., ,. . , ..... , , - .,, ::, ..„ -, • ' 1 .0 q ), , ..„,/ I - ., -- ___,...._,-...........„. 1.• A. ' c • 1 . , - : . :y D-3 7; 1 WAS. — - • . ..,... -- . .- •.: CI ,c- - •.•r . i 2•-•••-•••.--_,,„ • • • • ...• .,,..,J 1 ) r' r. - . 11- . - • • , ••••• - . . • ..• ) • 1 / . '. • ( ''.. ,,j t r. • — • .. . 7. ' ...• • ' , I ..' / 1 I ' • . ..., ''' :.I/ I 1 1 • . --,- , , . i (N ' • I ' .. r : ..,-...... . • • I • ' I 1-405 HOV TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS EXISTING & NO BUILD - • • ; �\ • .lteI DGES TO BE W /DENED • • / ' / • • ID LEGEND A '. "( .4 100 60 30 0 100 300 3b0 400 Scut. in F..$ • ,t. , I BUILD 2000 PM PEAK NR L•q NOISE CONTOURS / ter _ / / f 1 F� • D -4 /• .4 I -405 HOV TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS BUILD 100 60 30 0 SUILD 2000 PM PEAK MN IA0 NOISE CONTOURS 100 ZOO 300 400 Soto in Coe D-5 r: )• . 1. •, LEGEND SUMO 2000 PM PEAK MR Lsq NOISE CONTOURS 100 60 30 0 100 200 300 400 Scale in ..t • /•7 — .45 R. \ \1• 1' io D-5 ,-.• Ir • „ 0...1.•••■•• - ■•••-•,••••-roww.• "11 1=. WI' I a laql 4 7•■••••• - M_Lnanyjim MIONIMINE- ■MUMMB.11■WiMM.M.0 77 • ■■• • 7 '. ,00•Ga.•••1/EMMNP. 771,10 t$ ra ee , 4 • '; ..e — \ 17" — • o -•;".. . ;.• ,•• ••• .., - - V :!35:• • ; "•-•- 1 -.- I (..?,.... ,/,•.' , !, ,. --.../...7, . - it j .... 1-405 HOY TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS BUILD - 4. 4. 6:0 tip •••• ' 1 1.4 4 • sV s ?,„ r 1:- . !/ L. \ \ 0 0 ..8 0 C z 0 NZ 0 u ••• 0 • • • e • • • ... a a 0 1 a a • • 8 0 MI • IN • MN MI =I MI MI 11•1 , • • 0. • -4. 4 j t 4 t LEGEND 100 60 30 0 :2 / EXISTING 1982 & NO BUILD 2000 PM PEAK HR L•q NOISE CONTOURS PM PEAK HR FIELD MEASUREMENT L•q 100 200 300 400 Scale I n Fitel 0-8 -As-, ;-• 1-405 HOV TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS EXISTING & NO BUILD Appendix E Correspondence � .:. ....I L./ . "; ) 10 I r .I .11 r" . • • , i I KRIM \ ^.Hir`: Y ..mot I M••Yv C!P('u:•\i(!I' ;:T - 11 1 Subject U.S Deportment of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Exemption from U. S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit Requirements - Green River From: Mr. Paul C. Gregson, Division Administrator Olympia, Washington Toy Mr. John Mikesell . Chief, Bridge Section United States Coast Guard 915 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98174 This is to advise you that FHWA has applied the criteria established in 23 USC 144(h) to the section of•the Green River from the mouth of the Black River upstream to the SR. 516 Bridge. We have found that this stretch of Liver is not subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and is not used or susceptible to use as a means to transport interstate or• foreign commerce. Accordingly, we have determined that the bridges proposed for construction with Federal funds under Title 23 )USC under the City of Tukwila's Southcenter Boulevard Project are exempt from U. S. Coast Guard bridge permit requirements. This determination will also apply to future bridge' construction projects that may be proposed on this section of the Green River. E - 1 • " :"∎-∎ ' a S 1• .( `— �'� ` 11,11, f l'ir js �c'i [! j� t� t z'� r3 i� u'i; �J U Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 S. Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 9S501 Dale. August 26, 1982 Reply to Attr. ot• • HPP -WA By: William J. Glover Environmental Engineer February 27, 1981 United States Department of the Inferior FISH AND W'Iii)IJFE SERVICE Area Office 2625 Parkmont Lane S.W. ' Olympia, WA 98502 J.D.Zirkle,. P.E., Department of Transportation. Office of District Administrator D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So. C -81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Zirkle: This is in response to your letter, dated February 9, 1981, for information on listed, proposed, and candidate endangered and threatened species which may be present within the area of the proposed highway projects in King and Snohomish Counties, Washington. Your request and this response are made pursuant to Sec- tion 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. To the best of our present knowledge there are no listed, proposed or candi- date species occuring within the area of the subject project. Should a species become officially listed or proposed before completion of your pro- ject, you should reevaluate your agency's responsibilities under the Act. We appreciate your concern for endangered species and look forward to continued coordination with your agency. • • Attachment cc: Regional Director, Portland, OR (AFA -SE) ES, Olympia, WA Washington Department of Game, Non -Game Program Sincerely, )11.44,, J fe Joseph R. Blum Area Manager LISTED None PROPOSED None CANDIDATE None . LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CANDIDATE SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY PROJECTS IN KING & SNOHOMISH COUNTIES, WASHINGTON [L -6167, L -6804, L -6777, L -6749, L -6677, L -6817, L -6913, L -6181, L -6166, L -6292, L -6813, L -5075, AND SR 203 - SLOUGH BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION (203/9).] NUMBER 1- 3- 81 -SP -46 � SR 5 Marysville Park and Ride Lot .L-6749 -IN SPEI WAN Governor STATE Of WAS! IINCTON • • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Me of District Administrator • D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C- 01.170 • Seattle, Washington 90108 Joseph Blum Area Manager United States Fish and Wildlife.Service 2625 Parkmont Lane Olympia, Washington 98502 • Dear Mr. Blum: In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended, we are requesting a list of endangered or threatened species that may be found in the vicinity .of the proposed highway projects listed below. Please include species offically designated as endangered or threatened under the act as well as proposed and /or candidate species. SR5 Tukwila to Mercer Street Highway Occupancy Vehicle Lanes L -6167 • SR 5 .North 'City Park and Ride Lot L -6804 • SR 5 • • Edmonds Park and Ride Lot L -6777 SR 9 Old Snohomish River Bridge L -6677 • • • February 9, 1981 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Species List Request Washington State Department of Transportation,.District One • E -q- W. A. WMU' • Secretary • • Joseph J3lum February 9, 1981 Page 2 DAM:jcw • SR 90 Issaquah Park and Ric3e . Lot - Stage 'II L -6817 • • SR 202 Tokul Creek Bridge Reconstruction L -6181 L- SR 167 South 212th Street Interchange 1176 913 SR 203 • Slough . Bridge Reconstruction (203/9) SR 405 Tukwila to SR 900 High Occupancy Vehicle Study L -6166 SR 405 Kirkland East Park and Ride Lot L -6292 J.D. 2IRKLE, P.E. District Administrator • SR 405 N.E. 195th Street Park and Ride Lot L -6813 • SR 410 White River Mill. Bridge Oxing (410/111) .L -5075 • A vicinity map and description for each project is enclosed. If you have any questions regarding these projects or would like to field review the proposed projects, please contact Douglas A. Murdock, District One Environmental Coordinator at 764 -4369 (Scan 443 -4369) or Jim WSDOT Biologist, 753 -3878 (Scan 234 - 3878). Please advise us of any further response wa may have regarding En- dangered or Threatened Species that may be affected by these projects.. . Very truly yours, • D.L. 13OPFNAN, P.E. District Design ;ngineer i-405 response to public comments tukwila to south renton transit carpool improvements WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT' OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Region 10 7. 23-93 Date D to SR 405 TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON INTERCHANGE INTERSTATE 5 TO STATE ROUTE 167 TRANSIT /CARPOOL IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. 4332 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recom ended or Approval: Project Development Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation e. c Approved: Federal Highway Administration Official INTRODUCTION This document has been prepared to supplement the Interstate 405 Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvements Environmental Assessment. The environmental assessment detailed expected social, environmental and economic impacts that would result from the construction and implementation of the planned improvements. This project would construct a new, exclusive lane for transit and carpool use along a 2.97 mile section of Interstate 405 from its intersection with Interstate 5 in Tukwila to its intersection with State Route 167 in Renton. New construction would be along the outside of the existing highway, and would require about 0.1 acre of right -of -way, and a 0.25 acre railroad encroachment. The transit /carpool lane would be on the inside, the lane closest to the median, and would be signed for twenty -four hour a day operation. This project is currently scheduled for construction during the 1984 through 1986 seasons. Total construction cost is estimated at $17,025,000. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The WSDOT received six comment letters in response to the publication of the environmental assessment. These were all from governmental agencies; no private citizens commented. All of the letters were reviewed and written responses were prepared for some comments. Other comments were determined not to need a written response, and are acknowledged. Responses are given below, following a synopsis of each comment. The comment letters are reproduced in full following the text. City of Tukwila Entering and exiting traffic should be given sufficient analysis. Proposed transit center and peak hour commuter traffic may be adversely affected by inside lanes. 1 Response: A complete traffic analysis has shown that an outside transit /carpool lane would cause more traffic impacts to transit and carpools than would inside lanes. The heavy on- and off -ramp volumes would back up through the transit /carpool lanes and could become an obstacle to the through traffic, which would be moving at a higher speed. This would create a potential safety hazard, and would also negate the time savings for transit and carpools afforded by providing an exclusive lane for their use. Commuter Pool WSDOT could explore the possibility of defining a carpool as two or more persons per car at the onset of the program rather than three or more, and re- evaluate as utilization increases. Response: WSDOT recognizes the potential for a two or more person definition of carpools on Interstate 405, and is currently conducting a study to determine the impacts. The outcome of the study is expected to depend on factors such as transit /carpool lane levels of service with current and projected traffic, and utilization and service capabilities in the transit /carpool lanes when the section immediately north of this project is completed. The environmental assessment stated violation rates could reach 80 percent in the vicinity of the South Renton Interchange. Inside shoulders should be ten feet to allow enforcement. Response: Violation rates of up to 80 percent are currently experienced on similar highways that do not have collector - distributor roads. For this reason, a collector - distributor road would be built at the South Renton Interchange. It would be expected to significantly decrease the violation rate because of the presence of a physical barrier between the general traffic and transit /carpool lanes and the on- and off - ramps at the interchange. Ten foot inside shoulders would not be provided in this area because of the 2 reduced ramp radii they would cause in the interchange, which could create potential safety problems. Enforcement areas would be available on either side of the interchange. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Department of Army permits may be required for the project. Alternatives should minimize impacts to wetlands. Response: WSDOT personnel have met with the Corps of Engineers with regard to permits which may be required for the Green River and the P -1 Channel (Springbrook Creek). Application will be made for those permits which are determined to be necessary following the approval of the Final Declaration of Non- Significance for this project. A field review will be made to confirm that construction will not affect wetlands in the project area. Department of Fisheries Structure expansion should not restrict the flood plains. Additional piers should be in line with existing piers. Response: The widening of the existing structure would not further restrict the Green River flood plain. Mitigation that would be required is described on page 21 of the environmental assessment. Piers required for structure widening would be in line with the existing piers. Roadway drainage should be directed to oil separating basins. Response: Rather than using oil separating basins, the roadway drainage system for this project will utilize vegetated drainage courses to minimize water quality impacts. Procedures for impact assessment will be followed as outlined in Guide for Water Quality Impact Assessment of Highway Operations and Maintenance, a report prepared for the WSDOT Highway Runoff Water Quality Research Project. 3 The environmental assessment neglects to mention the fishway at the Black River Dam, and the presence of fish in Springbrook Creek. Response: Paragraph 4 on page 23 of the environmental assessment should be amended to read: Metro The Green River is used by anadromous fish, including fall Chinook, Coho and Chum Salmon, Steelhead, and Searun Cut - throat. A fishway at the Black River Dam allows fish to enter Springbrook Creek. Department of Fisheries personnel sighted two pair of salmon upstream from the project area during the 1982 spawning season. N'SDOT should coordinate with Metro with regard to their south interceptor line and Renton Effluent Transfer System project. Response: Efforts will be made to coordinate with Metro to protect both their waste water facilities and WSDOT's highway facilities during construction of this project and Metro's proposed Renton Effluent Transfer System and south interceptor line. This will occur . during the detailed design phase of the project. JOHN SPELLMAN Governor G.L. Gilbert, P.E. District Design Engineer Dept. of Transportation P.O. Box C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 Dear Mr. Gilbert: dj STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION 111 West Twenty-First Avenue, KL-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 753 -4011 September 8, 1983 Log Reference: 442- F- FHWA -08 Re: I -405: Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Im- provements, L -6166 A staff review has been completed of your proposed declaration of non - significance. The document adequately considers known and antici- * pated cultural resources and the potential for impact to these. We concur with the consultant's recommendations. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. Archaeologist JACOB THOMAS Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 September 2, 1983 G.L. Gilbert, P.E. District Design Engineer Department of Transportation D-1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C -81410 Seattle, WA 98108 RE: Environmental Assessment of 1 -405 Tukwila to South Renton Transit / Carpool Improvements Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The City of Tukwila is primarily concerned that entering and exiting traffic be given sufficient analysis in the assessment of alternatives. Future plans for transit services in the area include a regional transit center which may have need of transit lanes close to the outside of the roadway. Gearing improvements to through, long haul traffic may relieve congestion in the general purpose lanes and thereby have a spin -off benefit for entering and exiting traffic that impact arterial street service levels. However, peak hour commuter traffic is the source of much of the congestion to be relieved, and inside lanes in the Tukwila area interchanges may have a greater impact on peak hour commuter traffic than does 24 hour a day outside lanes. Sincerely, Bradley J. Collins Planning Director BJC /blk cc: Gary Van Dusen, Mayor By Sneva, Public Works Director Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer COMMUTER POOL VANPOOLS RIDESHARING INCENTIVES • RIDEMATCHING = LE\'BLE WORKING HOURS PARKING MANAGEMENT S'EERING COMMITTEE District Administrator Washington State 1e: artmen: p! Transaortat o" Traffic Engineer City of Renton Traffic Engineer King Co unt, Director of Public Works City o• Kirk an Manager of Transit Development Metro T•ansportation Engineer Traffic Engineer C • Se .^•.•. Eff ENERGY EFFICIENCY AWARD — v.+• <• -v• c. &r -,•. SEA \.0 • : E4e.: o - e .. -, _ Eie • September 9, 1983 G. L. Gilbert, P.E. District Design Engineer Washington State Department of Transportation Office of District Administration, D-1 6431 Corson Ave. South C -81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Gilbert: Seattle/King County Commuter Pool has completed review of the Interstate 405 T kwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvements Environmental Assessment. We strongly support the proposed addition of ITV lanes to the Tukwila to South Renton segment of 1 -405. As you know, the development of HOV lanes in the I -405 corridor is an integral component of an effort to meet the transportation needs of the region by providing a high level of service for ridesharing commuters. We do however, have two concerns relating to the operation and enforce- ment of the proposed HOV lanes: 1. Appendix A -5 shows traffic volume projections for the HOV lanes in the year 2000. We note that the highest IJ)V lane estimate is 500 vehicles during the P.M. peak. We assume this estimate is a result of a gradual increase in the use of the HOV's over a period of several years. Initial utilization of the HOV lanes will probably be law. We therefore suggest that WSDOT explore the possibility of defining a carpool as two or more persons at the onset of the program rather than three or more. As utilization increases and subsequent exten- sions of the HOV lanes occur in the I -405 corridor, a reevaluation of the carpool criteria could be made, which could result in a new definition of three or more sometime during the early 1990's. 2. The environmental Assessment indicated that }DV lane violation rates in the vicinity of the South Renton interchange could approach 80 percent (p.8). We suggest that some consideration be given to designing the facility to accommodate enforcement maneuvers, e.g., widening the inside shoulder to 10 feet to allow for the pulling over of violating vehicles. We hope you find our comments useful. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. illiam T. Roach Program Manager RJL: l jh Planning Branch G. L. Gilbert, P.E. District Design Engineer Washington Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Dear Mr. Gilbert: DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C-3755 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124 SEP 2 1983 We have reviewed the environmental assessment for Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvement, Tukwila and Renton, Washington, with respect to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' areas of responsibility for flood control, navigation, and regulatory functions. We have the following comments: a. Department of the Army permits may be required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for construction activities in the Green River and at the P -1 Channel (Springbrook Creek). Section 404 permits may also be required for the construction of gabion walls in the vicinity of the wetlands involved. b. As you know, wetland habitats are ecologically signifi- cant areas which help maintain the quality of the human environment in a number of important ways. The Seattle District encourages you to consider the use of alternatives which minimize impacts to wetlands. Thank you for the opportunity to review this assessment. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Steven F. Dice, telephone (206) 764 -3624, of my staff. Sincerely, George W. Piouore. P.E. Assistant Chief, Engineering DivoiOn k)HN SP'ELLMAN Goy ttrnor . August 15, 1983 Department of Transportation 6431 Corson Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Gentlemen: Sincerely, RAT: jbg cc: Ziliges STATE Of V1:ASHING1ON DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES 115 General Administration Building • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (?(k 753- tx,tk) • (SCAN) 234 -nh(I0 Environmental Assessment, I -405, Tukwila to South Renton, Green River and Spring - Brook Creek, WRIA B- 09.0001 Thank you for the opportunity to review your preliminary environmental assessment for the referenced project. This agency's interest in the project include the crossings of and drainage into the Green River and Springbrook Creek. The expansion of existing structures should not further restrict the flood plain. Additional piers should be hydraulically in line with existing piers. Roadway drainage, including that which comes from the bridge surfaces, should be directed to basins designed to separate solids and petroleum products from the water. On page 23, under the title of "Fauna ", please refer to paragraph 4. When the Black River Dam was constructed it was equipped with a fishway to allow for continued use of the Springbrook Creek system by salmon. They presently are utilizing the system for spawning and rearing. Rick A. Trosper, Regional Habitat Manager Habitat Management Division \\'II l AM R \VILI.LRS()N Dire( tor $CmETRD Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Exchange Bldg. • 821 Second Ave., Seattle, Washington 98104 August 31, 1983 G.L. Gilbert, P.E. Washington State Dept. of Transportation Office of the District Administrator D- 1,6431 Corson Ave. South, C -81410 Seattle, Washington 98108 Environmental Assessment Interstate 405 - Tukwila to South Renton Transit /Carpool Improvements Dear Mr. Gilbert: Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and offers the following comments. Wastewater Facilities Metro's existing 90 inch diameter reinforced concrete South interceptor sewerline crosses 1 -405 at an approximate 45 angle to drainage ditch bridge #405, the structure proposed to be widened (see attached Metro plan and profile, Schedule 2, South interceptor and Appendix B -6). To protect Metro's wastewater facilities, we recommend that WSDOT: o Contact Ms. Susan Solberg of Metro's Right -of -Way Section at 447 -6642 for the purpose of providing Metro with a save- harmless agreement and arrangements for liability insurance. o Contact Mr. Eddy Chu of Metro's Engineering Services Division at 447 -6673 to review plans prior to commencing construction activities. Metro's Southern Seahurst alignment alternative for the Renton Effluent Transfer System project extends along the right -of -way for Southcenter Blvd. from the Green River to, and under, Interstate 5. If this alignment is selected for the project, there does not appear to be any conflict with WSDOT's proposed Transit /Carpool Improvement project as described in this July 1983, DEIS. Water Quality We anticipate no significant degradation of surface water quality provided that all mitigating measures for erosion and stormwater 8/31/83 control (whether temporary or permanent) are implemented and that stormwater facilities are inspected on a regular basis and maintained in good working order. public Transit $ystem Metro strongly supports the addition of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on congested roadways such as I -405. In this particular segment proposed for improvement, Metro now operates relatively little service. However, the addition of these lanes may encourage increased utilization by transit in the future. In addition, the widening of the Lind Avenue overcrossing would also be conducive to improved transit service. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Very truly yours, Rodney G. Proctor, Manager Environmental Planning Division RGP :lda cc: Roger Pence Susan Solberg Eddy Chu Attachment •ta' / r t v� ¢ /'i ..t • i ••••••'. •. of >�. , I� c � '� • „4";72 r ✓A. L •4 'i f L Il i s i 4.ra.tr P/Op 0 r:J/D!a <2f 4 \ P..• 4 ^ 1.44' J •l. s(ta • "'� /.4 .•1 1 .. h TYPICAL JACKED OR TUNNELED CROSSING NO SCALE .•iPidFc,Pt 9:% A"... AV•r al' 4. -• - c OrfP fir''YA 4l/ .Lt{ . 01 1.1,41 q''JS.VD 160.3./r147 ;4•::fi P,Pf 4�.: t', .. •fC'w •L. P/F/ z • -a- • , ^ 0 11.; • •. e- . •< PLAN • J 4t �,• SECTION ANGLE POINT DETAILS NO SCALE • • .1 • S 6 PLAN AND PROFILE SCALE NONIZONT•. t'.5O',VENTKAL 1'•10' • G °• - 7Sf: SECTION •••• 4•i 1/3•: i dtl mime 4'.. Tr/Aie• /A/ AA!''T /OU '41 • ' i is -e ABIlfr r r ELEVATION BULKHEAD DETAILS • NO SCALE SECTION © `ow. • T - 1 \— • \ .1 41 C / �_. •_ --t -t r • • 1 IC AS CONSTRUCTED NR CSC DA,gi3 ao , • Ark A; " ILS '1 6,, • :. • • — SECTION • e - • • „• ' --4 E 'CAL. t'• to' • 7 • .• .• • 6.4 iff -"AN/ _ 7 ; • . • . • ' • 4 • 7 7 7. r":; - ” , J. • f•.■ • .. 1 ELEVATION BULK HEAD DETAILS NO SCALE • - 19 CAVA. • .• .f e 4.41•4(/ .4 11, 7 .7 1.V.":”.4: A . 1 7 .4..k. Alr.7/04/ *. • • • S/...` e r.ov.? • LW' \ ts. 4 • 4 #1 4 . 4 •" 4 -k'-' „, • /e• .14: • 4.4n AZW • N't MA% /4,: , • 7. • 41 SECTION C 2 _____;,. ••• • k it; s • s f4 • : ' -••••.. • • r.roc •, • .44.1.rr +.1%S .4.mtair- .0091Y061411(0 Rail -4/ AIANA*0 • •••• : C . • • ■ • -- Ft/,'"URE '44 (.) AS 01:11STRUCTED man Du 24,063 • t '; • :3 'S AWALAIdG 110•••••••• V -4 , 4e 5 " (-1-4 - 4 ' ti+t-k% 1'T s :4.1V J. ;:k • CV-O ./A JP F.:Axe: ID - • 15f : •.!" • ' ' '•• - – — SCHEDULE 2 sumcipaLITY Of METROPOLITAN SEATTLE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PROJECT RENTON SYST EASTSIDE INTERCEPTOR — SECTION 1 SOUTH INTERCEPTOR STA. 0+00 TO STA. 10+34.21 L I MOM MS f.r.11•111L k t &NV MO %YOU • OKA. ••• 51100 MO lallelk■ 101S 4 ,c 4 filz . .U44/. parrs L& •$ •••• • 4.1V6t _ DWI, • • .14.ALUIPM • 23 N.,R.4E. WM. /✓.f1,NED E 1' e 7W rrrw cle: S //3 EIh' TUKWILA TO SOUTH RENTON