APPENDIX R: VISUAL QUALITY TECHNICAL … Viewpoint E, Sonoma Villero Condominiums 39 How will project construction temporarily affect visual quality? 40 How will the project operation

I -405, BELLEVUE TO LYNN WOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTA L ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX R: VISUAL QUALITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Appendix R - Visual Quality Technical Memorandum | Page R-1 May 2011

I -405, BELLEVUE TO LYNN WOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTA L ASSESSMENT

This page is intentionally blank.

Page R-2 | Appendix R - Visual Quality Technical Memorandum May 2011

S a m m a m i s h R .

S n o h o m i s h C o u n t yK i n g C o u n t y

Ya

rro

wC

r .

Ju a n i taC r .

No r t h

C r .

Sw

am

pC

r .

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project

VISUAL QUALITY ?¿

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM !"̀$

Northern April 2011 Project Limit

AÐLY N N W O O D

AÌ

B O T H E L L

%&(e

NE 195th St

AÊ

NE 160th St

NE 132nd St

NE 124th St

NE 116th St

F o r b e s C r .

K I R K L A N D

NE 85th St AíNE 70th St L a k e

W a s h i n g t o n NE 6 0 t h St

AÉ

/NE 8 t h S t B E L L E V U E

NE 4 t h S t Southern Project Limit 0 1 2

Miles

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information

If you will like copies of this document in an alternative format large print, Braille,cassette tape, or on computer disk, please call (360) 705 7097. Persons who are deaf orhard of hearing, please call the Washington State Telecommunications Relay Service,or Tele Braille at 7 1 1, Voice (800) 833 6384, and ask to be connected to (360) 705 7097.

Title VI

WSDOT ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 byprohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, nationalorigin or sex in the provision of benefits and services resulting from its federallyassisted programs and activities. For questions regarding WSDOT s Title VI Program,you may contact the Department s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705 7098.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary .............................................................................................................1

What is the objective of this study? ........................................................................................1 How was the study done?........................................................................................................1 Will there be any construction effects? ..................................................................................1 What are the potential visual effects of the project?.............................................................1 What measures are proposed to avoid or minimize project effects? .................................2

Project Description .............................................................................................3 What is the intent of the Bellevue to Lynnwood project and what are the improvements? ..........................................................................................................................3 Are there related projects? .......................................................................................................3 What will the completed project provide? ............................................................................4 How will this portion of I 405 be operated after the project is completed?......................4

Alternative 1: Express Toll and General Purpose Lanes (ETL) .....................................4 Alternative 2: High Occupancy Vehicle and General Purpose Lanes (HOV).............5

What will conditions be like if the project is not built? .......................................................5 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................5

Methodology......................................................................................................26 How did we collect the visual assessment information?...................................................26 How did we determine representative viewpoints?..........................................................28 What regulations and policies apply to this assessment? .................................................28

Federal requirements..........................................................................................................28 State regulations and policy guidance.............................................................................28 Local regulations.................................................................................................................29

Baseline Conditions .........................................................................................30 What is the baseline visual character of the study area? ...................................................30 What are the “viewpoints,” how did we select them, and what is the visual quality of

Who will experience changes in visual quality and how sensitive are they to the

the views?.................................................................................................................................34 Representative views , south to north..............................................................................34

changes?....................................................................................................................................37

Potential Effects................................................................................................39 What are the potential visual effects of the project?...........................................................39

Representative Viewpoint D, NE 160th Street, facing northeast .................................39

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Page i Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

Representative Viewpoint E, Sonoma Villero Condominiums....................................39 How will project construction temporarily affect visual quality? ...................................40 How will the project operation affect visual resources?....................................................41 Will the project create new sources of shadows, light, or glare?......................................44 Does the project have other effects that could be delayed or will be distant from the project?......................................................................................................................................44 Did we look at cumulative effects?.......................................................................................45

Measures to avoid or minimize project effects ..............................................46 What are we doing to avoid or minimize project effects? .................................................46

Unavoidable adverse effects............................................................................46 What are we doing to minimize unavoidable adverse effects? ........................................46

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................47

Glossary ............................................................................................................48

References ........................................................................................................54 GIS data sources ......................................................................................................................54 Base data...................................................................................................................................54 Text references and verbal communications.......................................................................55

Appendix A Detailed Study Approach ..................................................... A-1 What tools and vocabulary did we use for this assessment?......................................... A 1

Visual character................................................................................................................ A 2 Visual quality ................................................................................................................... A 2 Viewers.............................................................................................................................. A 3 Visual resource change ................................................................................................... A 3 Viewer response............................................................................................................... A 4

Appendix B Visual Quality Rating Matrix ................................................ B-1

Appendix C Representative Views ........................................................... C-1

Page ii I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Project vicinity.............................................................................................................3 Exhibit 2: Project improvements.................................................................................................6 Exhibit 3: Project alternatives....................................................................................................23 Exhibit 4: Express Toll Lanes access locations........................................................................25 Exhibit 5: Viewshed analysis, areas potentially visible toward or from I 405...................27 Exhibit 6: Representative viewpoint locations .......................................................................28 Exhibit 7: Landscape character units and description...........................................................31 Exhibit 8: Landscape character units .......................................................................................32 Exhibit 9: I 405 at NE 60th Street (Views A and B) ................................................................34 Exhibit 12: University of Washington – Bothell Campus (View F) .....................................37 Exhibit 13: SR 527 / I 405 interchange area (View G) ............................................................37 Exhibit 14: Cross section of noise wall and retaining wall at Sonoma Villero

Condominiums .......................................................................................................40 Exhibit 15: View of noise wall from community side (ashlar pattern) ...............................42 Exhibit 16: View of noise wall from I 405 corridor side (fractured fin pattern) ................42 Exhibit 17: Simulation at NE 100th Street, demonstrating advance access signage .........43 Exhibit 18: Simulation at NE 85th Street, facing north, demonstrating destination

rate signage .............................................................................................................43 Exhibit 19: Cross section showing braided ramps to SR 522................................................44 Exhibit A 1: Visual assessment approach ............................................................................ A 1 Exhibit B 1: Visual quality analysis – baseline conditions..................................................B 1 Exhibit B 2: Visual quality analysis – projected conditions................................................B 2 Exhibit B 3: Visual quality effects determination ................................................................B 3

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Page iii Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011


Page iv I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

SUMMARY

What is the objective of this study? Visual perception is an important component of environmental quality that can beadversely affected by transportation projects. Community acceptance of a project isoften strongly influenced by the perceived visual effects of that project. Because of thepublic nature of transportation projects and their potential to have visual effects,changes to the visual environment must be addressed during project development. Forthese reasons, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) addresseschanges to the visual environment during project development.

A visual effects assessment evaluates both negative and positive visual effects ofproposed transportation facilities. Visual effects, including aesthetics, light, and glare,are assessed by evaluating the view that is seen from the freeway, as well as the viewlooking toward the freeway. We can determine visual effects by identifying changes inthe visual resources and then evaluating viewer response to those changes.

By considering visual effects in conjunction with a broad range of environmental andsocio economic effects, we can develop concepts, determine avoidance and mitigationmeasures, and determine the most appropriate methods to use as we proceed with aproposed project.

How was the study done? Visual effects are measured by the degree of change to visual resources combined withthe viewer response to that change. For the Bellevue to Lynnwood ImprovementProject, visual quality effects were assessed using baseline conditions, not existingconditions. Baseline conditions for this project assume that the improvements for theI 405, SR 520 to SR 522 Kirkland Nickel Project, the NE 195th Street to SR 527 AuxiliaryLane Project, and the NE 8th Street to SR 520 Braided Ramps Project are complete.

Will there be any construction effects? The proposed project will create temporary visual effects for highway users andneighbors during construction. Construction activities will reduce the visual quality inthe project area due to the presence of construction equipment, materials, signs, andconstruction staging areas. Temporary lighting may be used for nighttime constructionof some project elements. Construction effects to visual resources will be temporary,and will cease when construction is complete.

What are the potential visual effects of the project? I 405 users will be exposed to increased human made encroachment and complexitywithin the corridor, particularly where access ramps and overpasses dominate the view.Encroachment and complexity refer to the degree to which an area is not in its natural

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Page 1 Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

condition. Increased encroachment and complexity usually mean increased humanmade development, segmentation, and clutter. However, for this project, these changesare generally slight when compared to existing conditions. Portions of the project area,where 20 feet or more of new pavement will be added, are already the most highlydeveloped, encroached upon areas.

Additional elements proposed for the project, such as signage, retaining walls, stripebuffers, and other structural elements, will be located within the existing right of way,and, in many cases, within the existing screening of noise walls and vegetation.

The overall visual quality effects of the Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project willbe minor. I 405 is an existing major freeway, and since improvements in most of thisarea include additional pavement on either side of the shoulder or other improvementswithin existing right of way, most viewpoints will remain relatively unchanged. Twoviewpoints described in this analysis will decrease slightly in their overall visual qualityrating because a new retaining wall will be constructed. One viewpoint score decreasesfrom 2.7 to 2.2, and the other viewpoint score decreases from 2.7 to 2 on a 7 point scale.In this visual quality analysis, we categorize a score of 2 as low visual quality, and ascore of 3 as moderately low. Therefore, the viewpoints remain in a low to moderatelylow score bracket (see Appendix B), and the overall visual quality effects for the projectare considered to be minor.

What measures are proposed to avoid or minimize project effects? The I 405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project is being planned, developed, anddesigned in accordance with Context Sensitive Solutions guidelines. These guidelinesprovide an approach that incorporates community values while meeting local, regional,and national requirements for the safe, efficient, and effective movement of people andgoods.

Page 2 I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011



Ya

rro

wC

r .

J u a n i taC r .

No r t h

C r .

Sw

am

pC

r .

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

What is the intent of the Bellevue to Lynnwood project and what are the Exhibit 1: Project vicinity improvements?The Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project isintended to improve safety and reduce congestion ?¿along I 405 between NE 6th Street in Bellevue and I5 in Lynnwood. To accomplish this, WSDOTproposes the following roadway improvements:

!"̀$

Northern Project Limit Northbound lane from NE 124th Street to

AÐL Y N N W O O D SR 522;

AÌBraided ramps between the I 405 northboundon ramp from NE 160th Street and thenorthbound I 405 off ramp to SR 522;

Southbound transit shoulders between SR 522B O T H E L L

%&(eand NE 160th Street and between SR 527 andNE 195th Street;

NE 195th St

New northbound and southbound structuresAÊ

NE 160th St

over NE 132nd Street and a new northboundstructure over the railroad for the I 405northbound off ramp to NE 124th Street;

Small amounts of additional widening, betweenfour and eight feet, at several locations for NE 132nd St

buffers, wider shoulders, tolling equipment,enforcement areas and maintenance pull outs;

NE 124th St

NE 116th St

F o r b e s C r . andK I R K L A N D Minor upgrades to pedestrian facilities in some

NE 85th St Aíareas.NE 70th St L a k e Exhibit 1 shows the Bellevue to Lynnwood project W a s h i n g t o n NE 6 0 t h St

vicinity. Exhibit 2, sheets 1 through 17, shows moredetail of the project improvements in the 17 mile

AÉlong corridor.

Are there related projects? NE 8 t h S t B E L L E V U E The Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project is NE 4 t h S t Southern Project designed to compliment other projects along I 405 /Limit 0 1 2

including: Miles


Kirkland Nickel Stage 1 Project, which added one lane in each direction between NE85th Street and NE 124th Street and opened to traffic in November 2007;

NE 195th Street to SR 527 Auxiliary Lane Project, which added one northbound lanebetween NE 195th Street and SR 527 and opened to traffic in June 2010; and

NE 8th Street to SR 520 Braided Ramps Project, which creates new multi level“braided” ramps to separate vehicles entering and exiting northbound I 405 betweenNE 8th Street and SR 520 and is anticipated to be open to traffic during the summerof 2012.

The Kirkland Nickel Stage 2 Project will reconfigure the NE 116th Street interchange,and northbound and southbound lanes between NE 70th Street and NE 85th Street, anda southbound lane between SR 522 and NE 124th Street, and between NE 70th Street andSR 520. The Kirkland Nickel Stage 2 project has been environmentally cleared andpermitted, and, along with the other projects mentioned in this section, is consideredpart of the baseline conditions for this analysis. The Bellevue to LynnwoodImprovement Project will be constructed at the same time.

What will the completed project provide? The Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project fills in the remaining gaps and allowsWSDOT to provide an improved system on I 405 between NE 6th Street and I 5.WSDOT has designed this project to maximize the use of existing pavement andminimize the need for new pavement. In some areas, small amounts of widening of lessthan a lane width, together with narrower shoulders and lanes, will allow an additionallane. In other areas, narrowing the shoulders and lanes will allow an additional lanewithout any pavement widening.

Exhibit 3 shows the configuration in each of the project segments when this project andthe related projects described above are complete.

How will this portion of I-405 be operated after the project is completed? In this environmental document, WSDOT and FHWA are considering two operationalalternatives: 1) Express Toll and General Purpose Lanes (ETL); and 2) High OccupancyVehicle and General Purpose Lanes (HOV). Under both scenarios, the project footprintis the same. The occupancy requirement for HOVs in this portion of the I 405 corridor isthe same. It is assumed the occupancy requirement, to maintain HOV performancestandards under WSDOT’s HOV policy, will be three or more people (HOV 3+). Thedifference is in how the roadway lanes would be managed.

Alternative 1: Express Toll and General Purpose Lanes (ETL) This operational alternative will provide two express toll lanes in each direction betweenNE 6th Street in Bellevue and SR 522 in Bothell, and one express toll lane in each


April 2011

direction between SR 522 and I 5 in Lynnwood. The express toll lane system will beopen toll free to all HOV traffic with three or more occupants and all transit operations.The express toll lane system will also be open to single occupant vehicles (SOVs) andHOVs with two occupants through tolling.

The southern end of the express toll lane system will be at the existing direct accessramps at NE 6th Street in Bellevue where one of the two northbound express toll laneswill begin and one of the two southbound express toll lanes will end. South of the NE6th Street, the other express toll lanes will connect with the existing single northboundand southbound HOV lanes. The northern end of the system would be much like it istoday with I 405 becoming SR 525. Access points will be at various locations along themainline as shown in Exhibit 4. The express toll lanes will be separated from the generalpurpose (GP) lanes by a two to four foot wide buffer. At an access point, the buffer willopen and a section of transition lane may be provided between the express toll andgeneral purpose lanes to ease ingress and egress to the system.

Alternative 2: High Occupancy Vehicle and General Purpose Lanes (HOV) This operational alternative will allow HOV users with three or more occupants andtransit vehicles to use the single HOV lane, similar to today’s operation. Access betweenthe HOV lane and GP lanes will be allowed throughout the project, except northboundbetween NE 6th Street and SR 520 where access is not allowed under today’s operation.The new northbound lane between NE 124th Street and SR 522 will be operated as a GPlane.

What will conditions be like if the project is not built?

No Build Alternative A No Build Alternative has been evaluated as the basis for comparing effects associatedwith the Build Alternatives. No new improvements would be made beyond thoseconstructed as a part of the Kirkland Nickel Project Stage 2 and the NE 8th Street toSR 520 Braided Ramps Project.

The No Build Alternative does not include additional stormwater treatment or anyroadway improvements that would increase roadway capacity, reduce congestion, orimprove safety on I 405. Only routine activities such as road maintenance, repair, andminor safety improvements would occur. As with the two build alternatives, we assumethat the occupancy requirement for HOVs in this portion of the I 405 corridor will bethree or more people (HOV 3+).


110

t hA

veN

E

1 12

t hA

v eN

E

116

thA

veN

E11

6th

Av e

SE

S t u r t e v a n tC

r e e k

Un n a m

e d

T r i b u t a r y

t oS t u r t e v a n t C

r e e k

S n o h o m i s hC o u n t y

K i n g C o u n t y

Exhibit 2: Project improvements – sheet 1 of 17

TrailN E 8 th S t

Pedestrian BridgeMP 1 3 . 8 !(

McCormickMP 1 4 . 1 !(Park

N E 1 2 t h S t (! 1/10 Mile Post Ashwo od Playf ie ld Proposed Lane Striping

Proposed Noise Wall

MP 1 4 . 0 !( Proposed Retaining Wall

N E 1 0 t h S t Proposed Stormwater Feature

NB and SB I-405 Proposed Pavement NE 6th St to NE 124th St Right-of-WayMP 1 3 . 9 !(Build Alternative 1

StreamRestripe existing pavement to provide express toll lanes Culvert

Park

Wetland

Eastside Rail Corridor

MunicipalityN E 6 th S t MP 1 3 . 7 !(

NB Northbound

SB Southbound Southern Project Features are not to scale Limit

MP 1 3 . 6 !(

/ N E 4 th S t

0 250

MP 1 3 . 5 !( Feet

BTL Project Description.mxd Updated: 11-19-10N E 2 nd S t

%&(e?¿

LynnwoodMP 1 3 . 4 !(AÐ1 7

1 6 AÌ1 5

1 4

!"̀$

1 3Ma i n S t 1 2

BothellMP 1 3 . 3 !( 11

ÊA1 0

9

8

Kirkland 7

MP 1 3 . 2 !(6

5

%&(e4

3AÉ

L a k e W a s h i n g t o n

MP 1 3 . 1 !( 2

Bellevue 1

!"b$


April 2011

500

N E 1 2 t h S t

112

thA

veN

E

N E 2 4 t h S t

No r t h up

Wa y

Y a r r o wC r e e k

1 16

t hA

v eN

E


K i n g C o u n t y


(! 1/10 Mile Post

Proposed Lane Striping

Proposed Noise Wall

MP 1 5 . 0 !( Proposed Retaining

U n n a m e d T r i b u t a r yt o Y a r r o w C r e e k MP 1 5 . 1 !(

AÉ Wall

Proposed Stormwater Feature

Proposed Pavement

MP 1 4 . 9 !( Right-of-Way

Stream

Culvert

Trail

MP 1 4 . 8 !( Pedestrian Bridge

Park

%&(e Wetland


MunicipalityMP 1 4 . 7 !(

NB Northbound

SB Southbound

Features are not to scale

MP 1 4 . 6 !(

/0 250

Hidden Val ley Park

MP 1 4 . 5 !(Feet

BTL Project Description.mxd Updated: 11-19-10

?¿Lynnwood

NB and SB I-405 MP 1 4 . 4 !(

AÐ1 7

AÌNE 6th St to NE 124th St !"̀$ 1 61 5Build Alternative 1 1 4

Restripe existing pavement 1 3

to provide express toll lanes 1 2Bovee N E 1 5 t h S t BothellMP 1 4 . 3 !(Park 11

ÊA1 0

9

N E 1 4 t h S t 8

Kirkland MP 1 4 . 2 !(

6

5

%&(e4

3AÉMcCormick

2MP 1 4 . 1 !(Park N E 1 2 t h S t Bellevue

1Ashwo od Playf ie ld


!"b$


7

500

K I R K L A N D C I T Y L I M I TB E L L E V U E C I T Y L I M I T

Ya

r r

ow

Cr e

ek

Y a r r o wC

r e e k

Y r r o w

116

t hA

v eN

E


K i n g C o u n t y


MP 1 6 . 0 !(Right-of-Way

MP 1 6 . 2 !(

(! 1/10 Mile Post


Proposed Noise Wall

MP 1 6 . 1 !(Br idle Tra i ls Proposed RetainingWatershed

Park State Wall Park


Proposed Pavement

Stream

Culvert

Trail

%&(e


Park

Wetland


MP 1 5 . 8 !( MunicipalityNB and SB I-405 SR 520 to NE 70th St NB Northbound Construct a buffer/access for

SB Southbound express toll lanes and/or a shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane Features are not to scale

MP 1 5 . 7 !(

/0 250N E 3 6 t h P l MP 1 5 . 6 !(

Feet


NB and SB I-405 ?¿NE 6th St to NE 124th St MP 1 5 . 5 !( LynnwoodBuild Alternative 1 Restripe existing pavement to provide express toll lanes

AÐ1 71 6 AÌ!"̀$

1 51 4

1 31 2

MP 1 5 . 4 !( Bothell 11

ÊA1 0

9

8

KirklandMP 1 5 . 3 !( 7

6

5

%&(e

É

4

3ÉMP 1 5 . 2 !( 2A A

Bellevue 1


!"b$


April 2011

500

N E 6 0 t h S t

K I R K L A N D C I T Y L I M I T

U N I N C O R P O R A T E DK I N G C O U N T Y

Ya

r ro

wC

r ee

k

K L 2


K i n g C o u n t y


(MP 1 7 . 2 !(

! 1/10 Mile Post

NB I-405 Proposed Lane Striping SR 520 to NE 70th St Proposed NoiseConstruct an enforcement area Wall

Proposed Retaining Wall

MP 1 7 . 1 !(Proposed Stormwater FeatureNB and SB I-405 Proposed PavementSR 520 to NE 70th St

Construct a buffer for Right-of-Way express toll lanes and/or a

StreamMP 1 7 . 0 !( shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane Culvert

Trail

Pedestrian Bridge Paul J . Taylor Park

MP 1 6 . 9 !( Fie lds Wetland

Eastside Rail Corridor NB and SB I-405 NE 6th St to NE 124th St Build Alternative 1

Municipality

%&(e NB Northbound Restripe existing pavement MP 1 6 . 8 !(

SB Southboundto provide express toll lanes


/ MP 1 6 . 7 !(

0 250

Feet

BTL Project Description.mxdMP 1 6 . 6 !(Updated: 11-19-10

?¿Lynnwood

AÐ1 7Br idle Tra i ls AÌ!"̀$ State 1 6!(MP 1 6 . 5

1 5Park 1 4NE 5 3 r d S t C 5

1 31 2

Bothell 11

ÊA1 0MP 1 6 . 4 !(

9

8

Kirkland 7

6

MP 1 6 . 3 !(Watershed%&(e

4

3AÉ

2

Bellevue 1

MP 1 6 . 2 !(

L a k ePark W a s h i n g t o n

!"b$


5

500

N E 8 5t h S t

K L 2

K L 3

K L 4

NE

116 t

hA

veN

E


K i n g C o u n t y


MP 1 8 . 1 !(Stream

Culvert

Trail

Pedestrian BridgeOhde Avenue MP 1 8 . 0 !(Park Park

Wetland

MP 1 8 . 3 !( (! 1/10 Mile Post


Proposed Noise Wall

Proposed RetainingMP 1 8 . 2 !( Wall


Proposed Pavement

Aí Right-of-Way

%&(e Eastside Rail Corridor

Municipality MP 1 7 . 9 !( NB Northbound

SB Southbound N E 8 0 t h S t


NB and SB I-405 MP 1 7 . 8 !(

/ NE 6th St to NE 124th St Build Alternative 1 Restripe existing pavement to provide express toll lanes

Everest Park

0 250

MP 1 7 . 7 !( Feet


?¿LynnwoodMP 1 7 . 6 !( NB and SB I-405

AÐ1 7NE 70th St to NE 124th St 1 6 AÌ!"̀$ Restripe existing pavement in order to 1 5

1 4provide a buffer for express toll lanes and/or a shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane 1 3

1 2

BothellMP 1 7 . 5 !(11

ÊA1 0

9

8

Kirkland 7MP 1 7 . 4 !(6

5

%&(e4

3AÉ

2MP 1 7 . 3 !(

Bellevue 1

L a k eN E 7 0 t h S t W a s h i n g t o n

!"b$


April 2011

500

F o r b e s

Cr e

ek

C 1 9

C 1 8

Sla

t er

Ave

NE

Fo

r be

sC

r ee

k

Sla

t er

Av e

NE


K i n g C o u n t y



MP 1 9 . 4 !(

! 1/10 Mile Post(


Proposed Noise Wall


Proposed Pavement Forbes Creek MP 1 9 . 2 !( Right-of-WayPark

Stream

Culvert

Trail

Pedestrian BridgeMP 1 9 . 1 !(NB and SB I-405

ParkNE 6th St to NE 124th St Build Alternative 1 Restripe existing pavement to provide express toll lanes

Wetland

%&(e Eastside Rail Corridor


NB Northbound Highlands Spinney SB SouthboundHom estead

Park Park


MP 1 8 . 9 !(

/ N E 1 00 t h S t

0 250 MP 1 8 . 8 !(

Feet


?¿MP 1 8 . 7 !( Lynnwood

Sheet AÐ1 7 9AÌ!"̀$ 1 6

1 51 4

Forbes Lake 1 31 2ParkMP 1 8 . 6 !( F o r b e s Bothell

11Ê

L a k e A

1 0

9

8

NB and SB I-405 KirklandMP 1 8 . 5 !( 7NE 70th St to NE 124th St 6Restripe existing pavement to

provide a buffer for express toll lanes 5

MP 1 8 . 4 !(

%&(e4

3AÉ

L a k eand/or a shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane W a s h i n g t o n

2

Bellevue 1N E 9 0 t h S t

!"b$


500

NE 1 2 4 t h S t

C 2 2

J u a n i t a C r e e ka t N E 1 2 4 t h S t

Sla

ter

Ave

NE


K i n g C o u n t y


(! 1/10 Mile Post


Proposed Noise Wall

MP 2 0 . 5 !(


Proposed Stormwater Totem Lake Feature

Wetlands Proposed Pavement

MP 2 0 . 3 !( Right-of-Way

Stream

Culvert

Trail MP 2 0 . 2 !( Pedestrian Bridge

Park

Wetland


% &(eNB and SB I-405

MP 2 0 . 1 !(NE 6th St to NE 124th St Build Alternative 1

Municipality

NB NorthboundRestripe existing pavement to provide express toll lanes NB I-405 SB Southbound

New bridge over railroad MP 2 0 . 0 !( for NE 124th St off ramp Features are not to scale

/MP 1 9 . 9 !(

0 250

N E 116 t h S t Feet


MP 1 9 . 8 !( ?¿Lynnwood

Sheet Ð1 7 A

12

0th

Ave

NE

NB and SB I-405 NE 70th St to NE 124th St Restripe existing pavement to provide a buffer for express toll lanes and/or a shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane

1 6 A9Ì!"̀$

MP 1 9 . 7 !(

1 51 4

1 31 2

Bothell 11ÊA

1 0

9

8MP 1 9 . 6 !(

Kirkland 7

6

5NB I-405 %&(e

4

Construct an enforcementMP 1 9 . 5 !( 3area AÉ

2

Bellevue 1

L a k eNE 85th St to NE 116th St W a s h i n g t o n

!"b$


April 2011

500

C 2 8

J u a n i t aC

r e e k

a t NE

1 4 5 t hS t

J u a n i t a C r e e k

a t N E 1 2 4 t h S t

To t emLa ke B

l v d NE


a t N E 1 3 2 n d S t

Jua n i t a Cree k

Tr i bu t a r y


K i n g C o u n t y


WS D O T Ma i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y MP 2 1 . 6 !( (Pr o p o s e d S t a g in g A r e a ! 1/10 Mile Post

Proposed Lane StripingNB and SB I-405

Proposed NoiseNE 132nd St to NE 160th St WallConstruct an enforcement area Proposed Retaining

MP 2 1 . 5 Wall!( Kingsgate Park Proposed Stormwater

Feature

Proposed PavementC 2 9 N E 1 40 t h S t

Right-of-Way MP 2 1 . 4 !( Stream

Culvert

Trail

Pedestrian BridgeNB I-405

MP 2 1 . 3 !( ParkNE 124th St to SR 522 Edi th Moul ton Construct a new lane Wetland

Park Eastside Rail Corridor

Municipality

MP 2 1 . 2 NB Northbound!( NB and SB I-405NB and SB I-405 NE 6th St to NE 124th St Build Alternative 1

NE 124th St to NE 160th St SB Southbound Construct a buffer for

Restripe existing pavement express toll lanes and/or a Features are not to scale

to provide express toll lanes shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane MP 2 1 . 1 !(

/ 0 250

Feet

%&(e

MP 2 1 . 0 !(BTL Project Description.mxdNE 132nd St Updated: 11-19-10

Replace bridge structures

?¿U N I N C O R P O R A T E DNE 1 32 n d S t LynnwoodK I N G C O U N T Y

MP 2 0 . 9 !( AÐ1 7K I R K L A N D C I T Y L I M I T 1 6 AÌ

1 51 4

!"̀$

1 3Ki ng s ga t e

MP 2 0 . 7 !(

1 2Pa r k Bothellan d MP 2 0 . 8 11!(

AÊRi d e 1 0

9

8

Kirkland 7

6

5

%&(e4

3

MP 2 0 . 6 É!

A( 2

Bellevue 1


!"b$


500

Tolt Pipeline Trail West


a t N E 1 4 5 t h S t

Jua n i t aCre e k

Tr i bu t ar y

Juan

i ta -

Woo

d in v

i l le

Way

NE


a t N E 1 4 5 t h S t


K i n g C o u n t y

%&(e

MP 2 2 . 2 !(

NE 1 49 t h S t /0 250 500

MP 2 2 . 1 !( NB and SB I-405 NE 124th St to NE 160th St Feet

4


MP 2 2 . 7 !(N E 1 60 t h S t

(! 1/10 Mile Post


Proposed Noise Wall



Southbound I-405 Proposed PavementBr i c k y a r dNE 132nd St to NE 160th St Pa r k MP 2 2 . 5 !( Right-of-WayConstruct an enforcement area an d

Ri d e Stream

Culvert

Trail


Park

Wetland


Municipality

%&(e

MP 2 2 . 3 !(

NB Northbound

SB Southbound


SB I-405 NE 124th St to SR 522 Build Alternative 1

Construct a buffer for BTL Project Description.mxd Updated: 11-19-10express toll lanes and/or a

shoulder/buffer for an HOV laneRestripe existing pavement ?¿to provide express toll lanes

LynnwoodMP 2 2 . 0 !(AÐ1 7

1 6 AÌ1 5

!"̀$ N E 1 45 t h S t 1 4

1 31 2

MP 2 1 . 9 Bothell!(11

ÊA1 0

NB I-405 9

NE 124th St to SR 522 8

Construct a new lane Kirkland

7

6

MP 2 1 . 8 !(

Win dsor Vis ta L a k e Park WS D O T Ma i n t e n a n c e F a c i l i t y W a s h i n g t o n

Pr o p o s e d S t a g in g A r e a 3

AÉMP 2 1 . 7 !( 2

Bellevue 1

!"b$


April 2011

5

Sa

mm

am

i sh

Ri v

er

B O T H E L L C I T Y L I M I T




Juan

i ta -

Woo

d in v

i ll e

Way

NE

KL

14

S t r e a m4 2

B r i ck ya r d

Rd

Sammamish River Trail

NorthCreek Trail

Un

na

me

dS

t r ea

m

Sa

mm

am

i s h R

i v e r

Tr i b

ut a

r y

N o r t hC re

e k

Un

na

me

dS

t rea

m


K i n g C o u n t y

(! 1/10 Mile Post


Proposed Noise Wall


!(MP 2 3 . 8

MP 2 3 . 7 !(Proposed Retaining

AÊ Wall


Proposed Pavement MP 2 3 . 6 !( Sammamish River

Trai l Si te Right-of-Way

Stream

Culvert

Trail MP 2 3 . 5 !(

Pedestrian Bridge

ParkBrackett 's

Land ing Park

Wetland

Eastside Rail Corridor MP 2 3 . 4 !(

MunicipalityWo o dc r e s t D r N E

NB Northbound

SB Southbound %&(eNB I-405 NE 160th St to SR 522

Features are not to scaleMP 2 3 . 3 !( Construct grade-separated rampsSB I-405 NE 160th St to SR 522 Construct a transit shoulder

/ MP 2 3 . 2 !(

0 250

Feet

BTL Project Description.mxd NB and SB I-405 NE 160th St to SR 522 Construct a buffer for express toll lanes and/or a shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane

Updated: 4-8-11

Br ickyard Road ?¿MP 2 3 . 1 !(

Park Lynnwood Sheet A1 7 Ð

1 6 A9Ì

1 51 4

!"̀$

1 3MP 2 3 . 0 !(1 2

Bothell 11

ÊA1 0

9

8MP 2 2 . 9 !(SB I-405

NE 124th St to SR 522 Build Alternative 1 Restripe existing pavement to provide express toll lanes

MP 2 2 . 8 !(

Kirkland

%&(e4

3AÉ

2

Bellevue 1


!"b$


7

6

5

500

N o r t h C r e e k

NorthCree

k Trail

Un

na

me d

St r e

amB

eard

s lee

Blv

d


K i n g C o u n t y


Restripe existing pavement Proposed Pavement to provide a transit shoulder

Right-of-WayMP 2 4 . 7 !(

Stream

Culvert

MP 2 4 . 9 (!!( 1/10 Mile Post


Proposed Noise Wall


SB I-405 Proposed Stormwater NE 195th St to SR 527 Feature

Trail

Pedestrian Bridge%&(e

MP 2 4 . 6 !(Park

Wetland


MunicipalityN E 1 95 t h S tMP 2 4 . 5 !(

NB Northbound

SB Southbound


MP 2 4 . 4 !(

/ 0 250

Nor th Creek

MP 2 4 . 3 !( Feet

BTL Project Description.mxd Spor ts f ields Updated: 4-8-11

?¿MP 2 4 . 2 !( Lynnwood

Sheet Ð1 7 A9AÌ!"̀$ 1 6

1 51 4

NB and SB I-405 1 3MP 2 4 . 1 !(SR 522 to I-5 1 2

BothellRestripe existing pavement to provide 11

ÊAan express toll lane and/or a 1 0shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane

9

8MP 2 4 . 0 !(Kirkland

7

6

5

%&(e4

MP 2 3 . 9 !(3

AÉ2

Bellevue 1


MP 2 3 . 8 !( !"b$


April 2011

500

No

rt h

Cr e e k

S t r e a m 6 6

S t r e a m 7 1 - 7 0N

orth Creek Trail

Fi t zg

er al d

Rd

S N O H O M I S H C O U N T YK I N G C O U N T Y

No

rt h

Cr e

ek

S t r e a m 7 6 - 7 5

S t re a m

2 5 . 0L

C-77


K i n g C o u n t y

!(


(! 1/10 Mile Post

Proposed Lane Striping!(

Proposed Noise Wall



Proposed PavementMP 2 5 . 9 !(

Right-of-Way

Stream %&(e

MP 2 5 . 8 !(CulvertNB I-405

NE 195th St to SR 527 Trail Restripe existing pavement to

Pedestrian Bridgeprovide an enforcement areaMP 2 5 . 7 !(

Park

Wetland



NB Northbound

SB Southbound

Features are not to scale MP 2 5 . 5

SB I-405 NE 195th St to SR 527

/ Construct an enforcement area

23 8 t h P l S E MP 2 5 . 4 !( 0 250

Feet


?¿MP 2 5 . 3 !(24 0 t h S t S E Lynnwood

NB and SB I-405 Sheet AÐ1 7S t r e a m 6 4SR 522 to I-5 91 6 AÌ!"̀$ Restripe existing pavement to provide

24 1 s t S t S E 1 5

1 4an express toll lane and/or a 1 3shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane MP 2 5 . 2 !( 1 2

Bothell 11ÊA

1 0

9%&(eSB I-405 NE 195th St to SR 527 MP 2 5 . 1 !(

KirklandRestripe existing pavement to provide a transit shoulder 6

5

%&(e4

3AÉ

2


MP 2 5 . 0 !(

Royal O aks Park Bellevue

!"b$!(MP 2 4 9

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

Page 17

8

7

1

500

22 8 t h S t S E

P e r r yC

r e e k

No

rt h

Cr

ee

kNorth Creek Trail


K i n g C o u n t y


(! 1/10 Mile Post


AÐ Proposed Noise Wall



Proposed Pavement

Right-of-Way 9 !( Stream

Q ue e n sb oro u gh C re e k Culvert

Trail MP 2 6 . 8 !(

Pedestrian Bridge

Park

WetlandMP 2 6 . 7 !(


Municipality MP 2 6 . 6 !(

NB Northbound

%&(e SB Southbound

MP 2 6 . 5 !( Features are not to scale

/ MP 2 6 . 4 !(North Fork Per ry Creek

0 250MP 2 6 . 3 !(

Feet


MP 2 6 . 2 !(

?¿NB and SB I-405 LynnwoodSR 522 to I-5

AÐ1 7MP 2 6 . 1Restripe existing pavement to provide !(1 6 AÌ!"̀$ an express toll lane and/or a 1 5

1 4shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane 1 3

M 1 2

Bothell 11

ÊA1 0

9

SB I-405 8

NE 195th St to SR 527 Kirkland

7Restripe existing pavement 6

5

to provide a transit shoulder

%&(e4

3AÉ

2

Bellevue 1


!"b$


April 2011

500

B O T H E L LC I T YL I M I T

North Fork Perry Creek

Queen sborough Creek

U n n a m e d S t r e a m

Stream 27.75M

Stream 27.65LStream 27.6M

Stream 27.5M

Stream 27.4M


K i n g C o u n t y


MP 2 7 . 9 !(

(! 1/10 Mile PostStream 27.78MThrashers 's

Corner Proposed Lane StripingMP 2 7 . 8 !( Park

Proposed Noise WallStream 27.76R

Proposed Retaining WallStream 27.75R

MP 2 7 . 7 Proposed Stormwater!( Feature

Bon nevi l le View Proposed Pavement Park

Right-of-Way

Stream MP 2 7 . 6 !( Culvert

Trail

Pedestrian Bridge

ParkMP 2 7 . 5 !( Wetland

21 6 t h S t S E NB and SB I-405 Eastside Rail Corridor SR 522 to I-5

MunicipalityRestripe existing pavement to provide an express toll lane and/or a NB Northbound

MP 2 7 . 4 !( shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane SB Southbound

9th

Ave

SE Features are not to scale

MP 2 7 . 3 !(

/ 0 250MP 2 7 . 2 !(

Feet


% &(eMP 2 7 . 1 !(

?¿Lynnwood

Ð1 7 AMP 2 7 . 0 !(1 6 AÌ

1 51 4

!"̀$

1 3MP 2 6 . 9 !( 1 2

Bothell 11ÊA

1 0

MP 9

8

Kirkland 7

Cedar G rove 6Park

5

%&(e4

3AÉ

2

Bellevue 1


!"b$


500

20 3 rd S t S E

F i l b e r t C r e e k

F i l b e r tR

d

Stream 28.95R

Stream 28.4L


K i n g C o u n t y


Right-of-Way

Stream

CulvertMP 2 8 . 8 !(

(! 1/10 Mile Post


Proposed Noise Wall



Proposed Pavement9 !(

Trail

Pedestrian Bridge

ParkMP 2 8 . 7 !(

Wetland

Eastside Rail Corridor MP 2 8 . 6 !(

Municipality

NB Northbound%&(eMP 2 8 . 5 !( SB Southbound


MP 2 8 . 4 !(

/ MP 2 8 . 3 !(

AÌ 0 250

Feet


MP 2 8 . 2 !( ?¿Lynnwood

AÐ1 7NB and SB I-405 1 6 AÌ!"̀$

1 5SR 522 to I-5 1 4

Restripe existing pavement to provide MP 2 8 . 1 !( 1 3an express toll lane and/or a 1 2shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane Bothell

11

ÊA1 0

9

%&(e

!(MP 2 8 . 0 Stream 27.95R 8


Kirkland 7

6

!(MP 2 7 . 9

5

%&(e4


AÉ2

3

Stream 27.78M Bellevue 1

MP 2 7 . 8 !( !"b$


April 2011

500

12th

Av e

W

M a r t h a L a k e C r e e k

Sw

am

p C

r ee

k

Sw

am

pC

r ee

k

F i l b e r t R d

Da

mso

nR

d


K i n g C o u n t y


Shenandoah Wo ods

(! 1/10 Mile PostPark Proposed Lane Striping

Proposed Noise Wall


Proposed Stormwater

AÌ

Feature

Proposed Pavement

Right-of-Way9 . 7 !(

Stream

Culvert

Trail

MP 2 9 . 6 !( NB and SB I-405 Pedestrian Bridge SR 522 to I-5 Restripe existing pavement to provide Park

an express toll lane and/or a Wetland MP 2 9 . 5 !( shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane Eastside Rail Corridor

Municipality

MP 2 9 . 4 !( NB Northbound

SB Southbound MP 2 9 . 3 !(


MP 2 9 . 2 !(

/ %&(eMP 2 9 . 1 !(

0 250

Feet

MP 2 9 . 0 !( BTL Project Description.mxd Updated: 11-19-10

?¿LynnwoodMP 2 8 . 9 !(

AÐ1 71 6 AÌ

1 51 4

!"̀$

1 3MP1 2

Bothell 11

ÊA1 0

9

8

Kirkland 7

6

5

%&(e4

3AÉ

2

Bellevue 1


!"b$


500

L Y NN

WO

OD

CI

TY

LI M

I T

S w a m pC

r e e k

Interurban Trail

U

NI N

CO

R PO

RA T E

DS

NO

HO

MI S

Y

S w a m pC r e e k

Fi l b e

r tR

d

Stream29.8L


K i n g C o u n t y


(! 1/10 Mile Post

H

!"̀$ Proposed Lane Striping

Proposed Noise Wall



Proposed Pavement

Right-of-Way

Northern Stream Project CulvertLimitMP 3 0 . 3 !( Trail

Pedestrian Bridge

ParkMP 3 0 . 2 !(

Wetland

CO

UN

T



NB Northbound

SB Southbound

MP 3 0 . 0 !( Features are not to scale

%&(e

/ MP 2 9 . 9 !(

0 250

Feet!"̀$ MP 2 9 . 8 !(BTL Project Description.mxd

Updated: 11-19-10

NB and SB I-405 SR 522 to I-5 ?¿Restripe existing pavement to provide Lynnwood

MP 2 9 . 7 !(an express toll lane and/or a AÐ1 7shoulder/buffer for an HOV lane 1 6 AÌ

1 51 4

!"̀$

1 31 2MP Bothell

11

ÊA

AÌ 1 0

9

8

Kirkland 7

6

5

%&(e4

3AÉ

2

Bellevue 1


!"b$


April 2011

500

Exhibit 3: Project alternatives – sheet 1 of 2


Exhibit 3: Project alternatives – sheet 2 of 2


April 2011

Exhibit 4: Express Toll Lanes access locations


METHODOLOGY

How did we collect the visual assessment information? The I 405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Project Team evaluated the visual effects of theBellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project in the following manner: by identifying thevisual resources of the affected environment; by determining the potential changes toresources that will result from the project; and by evaluating the viewer response tothose changes. When observing and evaluating their visual environments, viewers usetheir own personal values and perspectives. This methodology provides an objectiveapproach to assessing the visual environment and project changes.

The project team reviewed existing I 405 corridor environmental documents to helpidentify viewer groups. Reports on effects to visual quality in the programmatic EIS andthe I 405, SR 520 to SR 522 – Kirkland Nickel Project (David Evans and Associates[DEA], 2001 and Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT], 2005b)identified two principal viewer groups: (1) those with views from I 405, which includedcommuters and local traffic; and (2) groups with views toward I 405, which includedpersons living in or using adjacent residential, commercial, industrial, and recreationalareas, as well as travelers on the local roadway network.

For the Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project, the project team used thegeographic information system (GIS) to: (a) define the boundaries of the visualassessment area, and (b) evaluate what parts of the project area may be visible from theproject and what parts of the project are visible from the surrounding areas. GIS canhelp define a “topographic viewshed” – or the part of the project area that is visiblebased solely on topography (see Exhibit 5). Starting with the GIS viewshed analysis,field reconnaissance was conducted to verify where existing vegetation and structuresscreened or blocked views looking toward and away from the project area. The projectteam then identified the key views to be evaluated for visual quality. Key views aredescribed in detail later in this memorandum and are shown in Exhibit 6. Please refer toAppendix A to see a more detailed methodology.


April 2011

S n o h o m i s h C o u n t y

K i n g C o u n t y

Ya

r ro

w C

r ee k

J u a n i ta

Cr e

e k

No r t h

Cr e e k

Sw

am

pC

r ee k


K i n g C o u n t y

Exhibit 5: Viewshed analysis, areas potentially visible toward or from I-405

!"̀$ Northern Project Limit AÐ

?¿AÌLY N N W O O D

Areas Potentially Visible from I-405 Arterial

Freeway Stream ParkWater Body Railroad Municipality

AÊ

%&(e!"̀$

B O T H E L L

S a m m a m i s h R i v e r

Aô /0 1 2

Miles

BTL VQ Viewshed.mxd Updated: 12-17-10

F o r b e s C r e e k

K I R K L A N D

Lynnwood

!"̀$ AÌAíBothell

AÊL a k e W a s h i n g t o n

Kirkland

L a k e W a s h i n g t o n %&(e

AÉ AÉBellevue

Newcastle Aí

!"b$

!"̀$%&(e

B E L L E V U E Tukwila %&(e

Renton Southern AÇProject Limit Aæ




Ya

rro

wC

r.

Ju a n i t aCr.

No r t h

Cr .

Sw

am

pC

r .

NE 160th St!!!!

How did we determine representative Exhibit 6: Representative viewpointviewpoints? locations

The project team reviewed the existing documentation onthe visual environment in the project area. The team alsoused GIS to determine the topographic viewshed withinthe study area. We conducted field reconnaissance toassess “seen” areas, looking both from and toward theproject, and to select representative viewpoints to be

!"̀$

Northern Project Limit

analyzed. Exhibit 6 shows the locations selected asAÐrepresentative viewpoints.

LY N N W O O D

What regulations and policies apply to this assessment?

AÌ

%&(eSR 527B O T H E L LFederal requirements

!!

facing east

Federal requirements for visual quality evaluation inSR 522 NE 195th St

!!

association with freeway systems and other facing east

AÊtransportation facilities are contained in severalprograms, including: the Transportation Equity Act for

NE 160th Street facing northeast

NE 160th Streetthe 21st Century; the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and facing west

Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003; the HighwayNE 124th Street

facing northBeautification Act of 1965; the National Historic NE 132nd St

!!NE 124th StPreservation Act of 1966; and the U.S. Department ofNE 116th St

Transportation Act of 1966.

In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act

F o r b e s C r .

K I R K L A N D

NE 85th St AíNE 60th Street Overpass(NEPA) requires that due consideration be given to facing north NE 70th StL a k e

W a s h i n g t o nenvironmental issues, including aesthetics and visualNE 60th Street Overpassquality, during project development. facing south

AÉThe method and criteria used in this visual qualityassessment follow the guidance provided in the FHWA

!!!! NE 6 0 t h S t

B E L L E V U E NE 8 t h S t NE 4 t h S t

Visual Impact Assessment for Highway ProjectsmanualSouthern(FHWA, 1981). / Project

Limit 0 1 2

MilesState regulations and policy guidance WSDOT policies for visual quality assessment are Representative Park

Viewpoint!!

Procedures Manual (WSDOT, 2006). Freeway Municipality Stream

BTL_RepViewPoints.mxd Updated: 12-16-10Applicable state regulations include Washington’sHighway Beautification Act (RCW 47.040.101) and the

Water Bodycontained in Section 459 of the WSDOT Environmental Arterial Railroad


April 2011

Open Space Land Preservation Act (RCW 84.340).

Local regulations Local comprehensive plans frequently contain urban design and aesthetic goals. Thecomprehensive plans of the local jurisdictions in the project area were examined to gainan understanding of these future land uses and related goals.


BASELINE CONDITIONS

What is the baseline visual character of the study area? The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Roadside ClassificationPlan (WSDOT, 1996) classifies the I 405 corridor between NE 6th Street in Bellevue andI 5 in Lynnwood as urban, semi urban, and rural. The southernmost portion of theproject area to SR 520 is classified as urban. North of SR 520 through approximately NE140th Street in unincorporated King County is classified as semi urban. North of thispoint, I 405 is classified as rural. The baseline conditions surrounding the I 405 corridorrange from heavily forested to relatively densely developed, with mixed land uses.Terrain of the freeway corridor ranges from flat to gently rolling. Adjacent areas are flatto hilly, with ridges and hills to both the east and west in some parts of the corridor.Several parks are adjacent to the freeway corridor, but are generally not highly visiblefrom the freeway itself.

The baseline conditions for the Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project includeimprovements made for the Kirkland Nickel Project, the NE 195th Street to SR 527Auxiliary Lane Project, and the NE 8th to SR 520 Braided Ramps Project due to theoverlap in project footprints.

The I 405 Corridor Program Draft Visual Resources Expertise Report (David Evans andAssociates [DEA], 2001) identifies the landscape character units surrounding the studyarea (Exhibits 7 and 8), which include the Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Projectstudy area.


April 2011

Exhibit 7: Landscape character units and description

Landscape character unit Description

The setting and character are generally urban in nature. This is a Bellevue developed area with mid- and high-rise buildings, roadways,

highways, and overpasses. Vegetation is limited. This landscape character unit includes urban and suburban development. Commercial strip development and transportation Overlake facilities are noticeable; trees and other vegetation are visible but subordinate to the built features.

Bridle Trails State Park This is a linear, wooded park, separated from I-405 by 116th Avenue NE and a row of single-family homes. The park is not readily noticeable from I-405.

Watershed Park This wooded park is bisected by I-405 and is surrounded with single-family residential development. The park is not readily noticeable from I-405.

Kirkland

The Kirkland landscape character unit encompasses a large area of residential neighborhoods (comprised of primarily single-family homes) with some commercial land uses. The character of the built environment is general suburban. Developed areas include large trees and roadways.

Spinney Homestead Park This is a small neighborhood park with open play fields, screened from I-405 by an earthen berm. The park is not readily visible from I-405.Totem Lake is primarily an urban area with commercial and light industrial development, including the Totem Lake Mall and other shopping areas. The area includes some multi-family residential Totem Lake development. The area is highly developed and areas of vegetation are visible as I-405 traverses this landscape character unit.Kingsgate is primarily a single-family residential area, with Kingsgate roadways and mature vegetation. This is a small wooded park west of I-405 separated from the Edith Moulton Park freeway by a row of houses. The park is not evident from I-405. Kingsgate Park is a small wooded area with no developed facilities. Kingsgate Park It is not evident from I-405.

Bothell

This landscape unit encompasses both sides of I-405. It includes multi-family and single-family residential, a mobile home park, and the I-405/SR 522 interchange. This landscape character unit includes stands of mature trees, relatively large undeveloped areas (such as those adjacent to the I-405/SR 522 interchange), and highly evident, major transportation infrastructure (I-405, SR 522). The Snohomish County landscape character unit is semi-rural in character, with generally low-density residential development, Snohomish County transportation infrastructure, open spaces, and stands of mature vegetation. It includes the I-405/I-5 junction.



K i n g C o u n t y

Exhibit 8: Landscape character units - sheet 1 of 2

10

9

8 Aô

7

KIRKLAND

Landscape Unit 1. Bellevue

2. Overlake

3. Bridle Trails State Park

4. Watershed Park

5. Kirkland

6. Spinney Homestead Park

7. Totem Lake

8. Edith Moultan Park

9. Kingsgate Park

10. Kingsgate

11. Bothell

12. Snohomish Co. Arterial

%&(e

65

34

AÉ 1

Freeway Stream Park

Water Body Railroad Municipality

/ 0 0.5

Miles

520-i5_LandscapeUnits.mxd Updated: 7-2-07

Lynnwood

AÌS H E E T !"̀$ 2

Bothell

AÉ AÊ

%&(e

Kirkland S H E E T

2 11


AÉBellevue BELLEVUE

!"b$

!"̀$ Newcastle Aí

%&(eTukwila Renton AÇ

Aæ


April 2011

1

NE 124th St


K i n g C o u n t y

Exhibit 8: Landscape character units - sheet 2 of 2

LYNNWOOD

!"̀$

!"̀$

AÐ

AÌ12

Landscape Unit 1. Bellevue

2. Overlake

3. Bridle Trails State Park

4. Watershed Park

5. Kirkland

6. Spinney Homestead Park

7. Totem Lake

8. Edith Moultan Park

9. Kingsgate Park

10. Kingsgate

11. Bothell

%&(e 12. Snohomish Co. Arterial Freeway Stream Park Water Body Railroad Municipality 11

BOTHELL

/0 0.5

Miles

1

AÊ

520-i5_LandscapeUnits042507.mxd Updated: 04-25-07

11Lynnwood

!"̀$ S H E E T2

Bothell AÊ

Kirkland 10 S H E E T

%&(e1L a k e

9 W a s h i n g t o n

AÉBellevue

8!"b$

!"̀$ Newcastle Aí7

Tukwila %&(eRenton KIRKLAND AÇ

Aæ

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

Page 33

What are the “viewpoints,” how did we select them, and what is the visual quality of the views? Representative views of the project are described below. Viewpoints were identified torepresent areas where large numbers of viewers will be present, the existing I 405corridor is visible, and the build alternatives are anticipated to create changes in thevisual environment.

Seven representative viewpoints were selected (see Exhibit 6) for visual qualityevaluation (see Appendix B). Due to the overlap in the project areas of the Bellevue toLynnwood Improvement Project and the Kirkland Nickel Project, several of the sameviewpoints were selected for evaluation. Viewpoints were selected based on their safeand easy accessibility; viewpoints from individual residences were not specificallyaddressed.

Representative views , south to north

I-405 at NE 60th Street (views to the south [A] and north [B]) A pedestrian bridge crosses over I 405 near the southern limits of the project area linking NE 60th Street on the west side of I 405 to the neighborhoods and Bridle Trails State Park on the east side of I 405. The freeway in this location is relatively straight and level, aligned in a north south direction. Exhibit 9: I-405 at NE 60th Street

(Views A and B)Representative View A (see Exhibit 9 and AppendixC) looks southbound from the vicinity of thepedestrian bridge along the travel lanes ofsouthbound I 405. The primary viewer group ishighway users who are in a level position. I 405 is inthe foreground and there are distant views of hillsand the roadway. The sides of the roadway are wellvegetated with trees and shrubs. A noise barrierencroaches on the west side of the project, endingjust south of the pedestrian bridge. The roadwayitself dominates the view; the project’s constructedelements lack vividness and unity. Overall visualquality is rated at 2.7 out of 7, moderately low.

Representative View B (see Exhibit 9 and AppendixC) looks northbound from the vicinity of thepedestrian bridge along the travel lanes ofnorthbound I 405. The primary viewer group ishighway users who are in a level position. I 405 is inthe foreground with distant views of the NE 70thStreet interchange. The sides of the freeway are well

520-i5_RepView_NE60th_042507.mxd Updated: 4-25-07

!!!!

0 500 1,000

Feet

/

!!

Representative Viewpoint Arterial Freeway Park

Stream Railroad Municipality

NE 60th St


April 2011

vegetated with medium to large trees. A noise wall encroaches on the southbound sideof the facility. The freeway itself dominates the view; constructed elements lackvividness and unity. Total visual quality is rated 2.7 out of 7, moderately low.

I-405 at the NE 124th Street overcrossing (view to north) Representative View C (see Exhibit 10 and Appendix C) looks northbound from theoverpass. Land uses include the Totem Lake Shopping Center commercial strip andlarger buildings, including a parking garage to the east. There is some residentialdevelopment on the west side of the freeway, but not as much as on the east side. Therecent Kirkland Nickel Project improvements and the freeway are the predominantfeatures. The total visual quality for this viewpoint is rated 2.1 out of 7, low. Theprimary viewer group is local roadway users.

NE 160th Street, facing northeast Representative View D (see Exhibit 11 and Appendix C) looks north and east from thenorthbound I 405 ramp. Highway users are the primary viewer group and they are in alevel position. Trees and multi family residential development (Sonoma VilleroCondominiums) are on the east side of the freeway in the foreground. Total visualquality is rated 2.7 out of 7, moderately low.

Sonoma Villero Condominiums Representative View E (see Exhibit 11 and Appendix C) looks west toward thenorthbound ramp at NE 160th Street and onto I 405. There are currently medium andtall trees in the foreground between the condominium balconies and the northboundramp that block most of I 405 and any possible background. The primary viewers arethe condominium residents. The total visual quality for this viewpoint is rated 2.7 out of7, moderately low.

SR 522/University of Washington – Bothell Campus Representative View F (see Exhibit 12 and Appendix C) faces east from the collegecampus to the SR 522 / I 405 interchange. Wetlands and vegetation can be seen in theforeground along with vegetated hillsides in the middle ground. Some office/medicaldevelopment in the distance is screened by trees. The dominant features are thevegetated wetland and the interchange. Within the study area this is the onlyrepresentative viewpoint with a water feature. The total visual quality for thisviewpoint is rated 4.6 out of 7, above average, mainly due to the wetlands and the hills(landform). The primary viewer groups are local roadway users, college students, andcollege staff.


Exhibit 10: I-405 at the NE 124th Exhibit 11: I-405 at the NE 124th Street crossing (View C) Street crossing (Views D and E)

!!

520-i5_RepView_NE124th_042507.mxd Updated: 4-25-07

0 500 1,000

Feet

King County City of Kirkland

NE 124th St

/

!!



NE 132nd St

0

!!!!

500 1,000

Feet

Tolt Pipeline Trail

NE 160th St

/

BTL_RepView_NE160th.mxd Updated: 12-23-10

!!



SR 527/I-405 interchange area Representative View G (see Exhibit 13 and Appendix C) faces southeast from acommercial strip development to I 405. Mid rise buildings are visible on the east side ofthe freeway with a vegetated ridgeline in the background. The freeway and a frontageroad are the dominant features. The total visual quality for this viewpoint is rated 2.4out of 7, low. The primary viewers are retail customers and drivers.


April 2011

Exhibit 12: University of Washington – Exhibit 13: SR 527 / I-405 interchange Bothell Campus (View F) area (View G)

0

!!

500 1,000

Feet

/

%&(e

AÊ

520-i5_RepView_SR522.mxd Updated: 7-2-07

!!



0

!!

490 980

Feet

228th St SW

/

AÐ

%&(e

520-i5_RepView_SR527.mxd Updated: 7-3-07

!!



Who will experience changes in visual quality and how sensitive are they to the changes? Two primary viewer groups will experience changes in visual quality—highway users,who will experience views looking away from the project—and I 405 neighbors, whowill experience views looking toward the project. Highway users will be commuters,local traffic, and other traffic. However, drivers will have a narrower field of view thanpassengers, as well as a reduced perception of views away from the immediate roadwayin front of them. Typically, drivers are more sensitive to changes to the view of theroadway (e.g., lighting, signs, additional changes, barriers, etc.) and less sensitive tochanges away from the roadway. Conversely, passengers are more sensitive to changesin the views of the areas surrounding the freeway. Overall, commuters are consideredto have the lowest sensitivity to views looking away from the project; local traffic has ahigher sensitivity than commuters; and other viewers have the highest sensitivity.

I 405 neighbors include local residents and users of the local transportation network andcommercial, industrial, institutional (e.g., medical, educational), and recreational areas.


Residents may view the study area on a frequent (even daily) basis and generally have astrong sense of identity associated with the area in which they live or work. There areseveral parks near the I 405 corridor; however, the highway is generally obscured frommost areas of these parks making park users unlikely to notice potential changes toI 405. Those who use the local transportation network may routinely be exposed toviews of the areas affected by the project, such as in the local roads that cross I 405.These users are likely to be less sensitive to changes than local residents who havelonger and more frequent exposures to views of the project.


April 2011

POTENTIAL EFFECTS

What are the potential visual effects of the project? Visual effects are measured by examining the degree of change to visual resources thatwill take place in relation to viewer response to that change. We can determine changesin visual resources by understanding changes in visual quality, using the representativekey views; viewer response is determined from the sensitivities of viewer groups andthe frequencies and durations of their exposures to the views. Visual effects areconsidered for both project construction and operation.

For the Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project, overall visual quality effects will beminor. Most viewpoints will remain relatively unchanged once the proposed project iscompleted. Based on our analysis, two viewpoints decreased in their ratings. On a 7point scale, one viewpoint score decreases from 2.7 to 2.2, and the other viewpoint scoredecreases from 2.7 to 2. The visual quality analysis categorizes a score of 2 as low visualquality, and a score of 3 as moderately low. The viewpoints remain in a low tomoderately low score bracket (See Appendix B). Therefore, the overall visual qualityeffects for the I 405, 520 to I 5 Improvement Project are considered to be minor. Theparagraphs below summarize the visual effects.

Representative Viewpoint D, NE 160th Street, facing northeast Representative Viewpoint D (from the highway) looks northeast from the I 405northbound ramp at NE 160th Street (see Exhibit 10 and Appendix C). The projectedvisual quality score for this viewpoint is 2.2 out of 7, a 0.5 decrease in score. The viewcurrently includes a buffer and trees in the foreground and condominiums in thebackground. Although some trees will be taken from the buffer to build a retaining walland a noise wall, these project elements will decrease the noise from the I 405 right ofway. Visual quality scores for criteria like vegetation and encroachment will decrease.Since the development in that area is not unified, the new walls will not help to increaseany natural or human made unity. Therefore, the visual quality of that view willdecrease slightly. Exhibits 15 and 16 show the exterior treatment for the walls at thisviewpoint.

Representative Viewpoint E, Sonoma Villero Condominiums Representative Viewpoint E (toward the highway) faces the northbound ramp to I 405and I 405 at NE 160th Street (see Exhibit 8 and Appendix C). This is the view oppositeRepresentative Viewpoint D. The projected visual quality score for this viewpoint is 2out of 7, a 0.7 decrease in score due to the noise wall. The noise wall is anticipated to be20 to 30 feet tall and may be less than 20 feet from condominium patios or doors.Exhibit 14 shows the concept for the noise and retaining walls at this viewpoint.Exhibits 15 and 16 show the finish for the noise wall that will be constructed atRepresentative Viewpoint E.


Exhibit 14: Cross section of noise wall and retaining wall at Sonoma Villero Condominiums

How will project construction temporarily affect visual quality? The proposed project will create temporary visual effects for highway users andneighbors during construction. Construction activities will reduce the visual quality inthe project area due to the presence of construction equipment, materials, signs, andstaging areas. Temporary lighting will likely be used for nighttime construction of someproject elements. Detours or lane shifts will require greater driver attention and willdistract highway users from views outside of the construction areas. The primary visualeffects will occur during clearing and grading activities. Given that a large portion ofthe study area has recently experienced construction effects from the Kirkland NickelProject, continued construction activities will have minor visual quality effects.

Most of the residential areas to the east and west of the I 405 corridor are screened fromthe highway by a combination of vegetation, topography, and structures. Views of I 405are limited and occur primarily at cross streets and associated interchanges, or localroads that are near the freeway. In some cases, existing noise walls will obscure theconstruction activity from surrounding areas.

The visual effects of construction will not change most views from I 405. Screening bytopography, vegetation, and/or existing structures restricts most views to theforeground or middle ground. Where distant views are present, they will remainvisible. Clearing of vegetation for construction will generally be limited to areasadjacent to the existing facilities.


April 2011

How will the project operation affect visual resources? The Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project will not create adverse long termvisual effects for I 405 users and neighbors. Although some changes to the visualresources will occur, these changes are not substantial enough to alter the overall visualquality of the corridor or the rating scores of the representative viewpoints. Permanenteffects of the project will be minor because viewer sensitivity is relatively low, andcontext sensitive solutions (CSS) will be incorporated into the project.

The essence of CSS guidelines is that a proposed transportation project must be plannednot only for its physical aspects as a facility serving specific transportation objectives,but also for its effects on aesthetic and environmental elements. CSS is discussed furtherin a following section on avoidance and minimization. I 405 is already a major freeway,and most of the improvements in the study area consist of added pavement oroperational improvements within the existing right of way, which does not changesubstantially the visual quality. Exhibit B 2 (Appendix B) presents the project visualconditions with the project improvements.

The new noise walls have aesthetic treatments that were the outcome of the CSSprocess. They have a fractured fin pattern on the side facing the I 405 corridor and anashlar pattern on the side facing the community. The fractured fin pattern is currentlyused on the existing noise walls along the I 405 corridor, and the use of the samepattern will ensure visual continuity throughout the corridor. The noise walls alsoincorporate an aesthetic post and cap treatment. Retaining walls will have aesthetictreatment similar to the noise walls. Exhibits 15 and 16 show an existing noise wall withCSS treatment from the community side and from the I 405 corridor side.

I 405 users will be exposed to increased human made encroachment and complexitywithin the corridor, particularly where access ramps and overpasses dominate the view;however, these changes are slight when compared to the existing conditions. Portions ofthe project area where 20 feet or more of new pavement will be added are already themost highly developed, encroached upon areas.

Additional project elements, such as signage, retaining walls, stripe buffers, gantries,and other structural elements, will be within the existing right of way, and, in manycases, within the existing screening of noise walls and vegetation. Exhibits 17 and 18show what the express toll lanes and gantries might look like, including the buffer andsignage for ingress/egress and tolling information. A gantry is a metal frameworkspanning toll lanes that may contain advance warning signs, signals, monitoringequipment, and electronic toll readers needed to communicate with the vehicletransponders. This is part of the technology that replaces a traditional toll plaza andenables in motion, electronic toll collection. There will be approximately 34 tollinggantries and approximately 15 other toll sign structures.


Exhibit 15: View of noise wall from community side (ashlar pattern)

Exhibit 16: View of noise wall from I-405 corridor side (fractured fin pattern)


April 2011

Exhibit 17: Simulation at NE 100th Street, demonstrating advance access signage

Exhibit 18: Simulation at NE 85th Street, facing north, demonstrating destination rate signage


Exhibit 19 shows a cross section of the northbound ramps from I 405 and NE 160thStreet to SR 522. This is similar to the location shown in Exhibit 14. The retaining wallsand elevated structure will have CSS treatment, as described above. Vegetation removalwithin the right of way to accommodate the additional general purpose lanes will havea slight adverse effect on the visual environment. CSS techniques, such as landscapingand the use of aesthetically pleasing designs for I 405 and related facilities, will enhancethe attractiveness of the constructed environment and will alleviate minor effects tovisual resources.

Exhibit 19: Cross section showing braided ramps to SR 522

Exhibit B 3 (Appendix B) presents the visual quality effect determination used to assessthe level of effects for the proposed project pertaining to the representative viewpoints.For these viewpoints, virtually no change will occur in visual quality.

Will the project create new sources of shadows, light, or glare? Exposure to light generated by construction (illumination, headlights, and solarreflection) will increase during construction. This project will replace all impactedlighting and install approximately 200 new lights in the project area, mainly for the newexpress toll and HOV signs. All lights installed on I 405 will be 50 feet or less in heightusing cut off fixtures, with lamps recessed into the light fixture. This configuration isdesigned to limit the amount of light that can spill outside the roadway area, resulting inreduced glare and light pollution. The new light poles will be painted to match the CSSstandards — Cascade Green. Most residential areas are screened by vegetation,topography, and noise or retaining walls. The new lighting will be contained in theI 405 corridor; therefore, light and glare are expected to remain the same within thestudy area.

Does the project have other effects that could be delayed or will be distant from the project? The Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project has no other visual quality effects thatcould be delayed or distant from the project. This project will be constructed as one of


April 2011

the later pieces in the overall I 405 Corridor Program schedule. Other effects fromearlier phases, like the Kirkland Nickel Project, will already be in place and areconsidered in a separate analysis. Visual effects will be limited to the project area andsurroundings.

Did we look at cumulative effects? The I 405 team did not evaluate cumulative effects on visual quality. In accordance withCouncil on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, an analysis of cumulative effects isnot needed for every discipline studied in NEPA documentation. Disciplines selectedfor cumulative effects analysis should be determined on a case by case basis early in theNEPA process, generally as part of early agency coordination and scoping. For theI 405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project, the disciplines evaluated forcumulative effects were air quality, surface water, wetlands, and fish and aquatic habitat(Washington State Department of Transportation [WSDOT], 2010).


MEASURES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE PROJECT EFFECTS

What are we doing to avoid or minimize project effects? To address the type of disruption to the visual environment that will occur, light andglare effects will be reduced by shielding freeway lighting and using downcast lighting.The Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project is being planned, developed, anddesigned in accordance with Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) guidelines. Theseguidelines provide an approach that incorporates community values while meetinglocal, regional, and national requirements for the safe, efficient, and effective movementof people and goods. CSS considers the elements of mobility, safety, environment, andaesthetics throughout the project. To adhere to these guidelines, the proposed project isbeing developed to fit its physical surroundings and preserve these elements.

The application of CSS guidelines reduces the need for additional mitigation of visualeffects. The Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project will consider community inputduring development to ensure that local concerns are met early in the project planningand design phases. Measures that are typical for transportation projects, such asretaining existing natural vegetation to the maximum extent practical, and planting newvegetation to screen constructed elements, have been incorporated within the CSS ofI 405 and related transportation features. Other areas subject to CSS include structuralelements, landscape features, lighting, signs, and special elements such as parkingstructures and pedestrian bridges.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

What are we doing to minimize unavoidable adverse effects? The project will not cause any adverse affects that cannot be avoided. The effects ofproject construction and operation are minor, as discussed earlier in this technicalmemorandum. While the average overall visual quality rating in the project areadecreased slightly from 2.95 to 2.7 on a 7 point scale, the visual quality remainsmoderately low to low, as assessed in the baseline conditions.


April 2011

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Term Acronym

CSS context-sensitive solutions

DEA David Evans and Associates

EIS environmental impact statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GIS geographic information system

HOT high-occupancy toll

HOV high-occupancy vehicle

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

RCW Revised Code of Washington

ROW right-of-way

SOV single-occupant vehicle

SR state route

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation


GLOSSARY

Visual quality assessment Word definitions Meaning context-sensitive solutions (CSS)

Context sensitive solutions (CSS) is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical surroundings and is responsive to the community’s scenic, aesthetic, social, economic, historic, and environmental values and resources, while maintaining safety and mobility.

CSS is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist.

continuity The uninterrupted flow of visual pattern elements, e.g., the maintenance of visual relationships between related landscape components or features.

A view with high continuity has an uninterrupted visual pattern. A view with low continuity has one or more elements (colors, forms, lines, etc.) that disrupt the visual pattern.

de minimus effect An effect so small that it is insignificant.

distance zones (foreground, middle ground, background)

Three conventional terms in painting (foreground, middle ground, background) which can be helpful in describing distance relationships.

Foreground: In a visual analysis, this distance zone is where the viewer has impressions of immediate details and intensity of color is at a maximum. This area can be designated with clarity and simplicity not possible for the middleground and background because the observer is a direct participant (0 to 0.25 mile).

Middleground: In a visual analysis, this distance zone is where the parts of the landscape can be seen to join together, where hills become a range or trees make a forest. This is also where manmade changes may be revealed as resting upon the landscape, or where conflicts of form, color, shape, or scale show up (0.25 to 1.0 mile).

Foreground is what viewers see relatively close. Detail and color are clear. For example, a single tree may stand out as a key element of the landscape. Viewers are often highly sensitive to changes to the visual quality of the foreground.

Middleground is farther away than the foreground. In the middleground, smaller details are lost as the larger picture takes form. Colors and contrasts are clear, but less sharp than in the foreground. Single trees are less likely to stand out – instead, the viewer sees a woodland or forest.


April 2011

WordVisual quality assessment definitions MeaningBackground: In a visual analysis, this distance zone is where surfaces of

Background is the distance view. Forms in the view blend

landforms lose detail distinctions and the emphasis is on outline or edge. The background becomes an effective backdrop against which foreground and middleground is more clearly seen (>1.0 mile).

together. Edges and outlines, rather than details, are seen. Colors become softer and more muted. Individual trees can no longer be seen, and the woodland or forest becomes a “green mass.”

high-occupancy High-occupancy vehicle is a special vehicle designation for a bus, carpool, or vanpool

provided as an encouragement to increase ride-sharing. Specially designated HOV lanes and parking are among the incentives for persons to pool trips, use fewer vehicles, and make the transportation system more efficient. HOV lanes are generally inside (left-side) lanes, and are identified by signs and a diamond on the pavement. Currently, two or more (2+) occupants are required to use the I-405 HOV lanes. Motorcycles are allowed to use freeway HOV lanes as well.

intactness The visual integrity of the natural and human-built landscape and its freedom from encroaching elements. High intactness means that the landscape is free of eyesores and is not broken up by features that are out of place.

landscape cover This refers to what is on top of the land. For example, the landscape cover of a hillside may be vegetative (forested, brush, grass, etc) or manmade (urban, suburban, industrial, etc.). Subcategories of landscape cover types are defined as necessary.

landscape form, A defined topographic feature, such as landform an island, specific hill, or range of hills.

A landscape is considered “intact” where the visual elements fit together in size, shape, color, and position without other elements encroaching – where nothing looks out of place. An intact landscape can be natural, manmade, or a combination of the two.

landscape type Similar combinations of landscape form and landscape cover. Forested plateaus, valley bottom farmlands, and wooded bluffs are all landscape types. There are also manmade landscape types, such as strip development along urban roadways.


WordVisual quality assessment definitions Meaning

landscape unit Places or districts with clear landform or landcover boundaries that form an outdoor area with similar visual character and visual continuity. For example, a landscape unit can be a single neighborhood, or several neighborhoods combined.

local values and goals

The landscape setting and its visual resources may be valued by local viewer groups for reasons not evident in an assessment based strictly on visual resources and not widely known outside the community.

A visual quality assessment should consider local values in addition to the technical evaluations of what can be seen.

observer viewpoint

A point from which a select view is evaluated.

A viewpoint is simply where people are located when they see something. Within this assessment, a viewpoint is used to indicate where photographs are taken to represent views characteristic of what many people in the area will see.

scale Within the context of a visual analysis, the apparent size relationships between landscape components or features and their surroundings.

The relative size of what is seen.

semi-urban landscape

Landscape characterized by intermixed built and natural or naturalized elements, with built elements prevailing.

Used to characterize a landscape unit or a characterization from the WSDOT Roadside Classification Manual.

sightline An imaginary straight line between a person’s eyes and a distant object.

slope The change in elevation over a distance, or an inclined land form.

An area of landform surface differentiated from other areas by its degree of slope. It is a component of landforms but not limited in place or extent. Example may include a cliff, gentle slopes, and flat plain.

topography The physical features of a geographic area taken collectively; especially, the variations in elevation of the earth's surface.


April 2011

WordVisual quality assessment definitions Meaning

transportation facility

Roadways, access ramps, noise walls, retaining walls, traffic barriers, transit stations, park-and-ride structures, non-motorized facilities, signage, lighting, stormwater treatment and conveyance, and landscaping within the project area.

unity The visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape when considered as a whole. High unity frequently reflects the careful design of individual human components and their relationship in the landscape.

The degree to which the visual resources of the landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. Unity refers to the compositional harmony or inter-compatibility between landscape elements.

urban landscape A landscape characterized predominantly by built elements.

view That which can be seen either from or Views are narrowed down to toward the transportation facility. representative viewpoints for

analysis.

viewer The degree to which a viewer notices the awareness landscape.

A viewer’s receptivity to the visual character of the landscape can be affected by elements and relationships in the landscape setting itself or by expectations about the setting. Visual experience contrary to expectation may be suppressed or heightened, depending on the degree of disagreement.

viewer exposure How many people see something from a particular viewpoint and over what duration they see it. View duration considers how often viewers observe the view, the frequency of views, and whether the viewers or the objects are stationary or moving.

viewer groups Groups of people who are differentiated Classes of viewers differentiated from others by their viewing by their visual response to the characteristics or visual response to a I-405 facility and its setting; landscape feature. For example, local response is affected by viewer park users are one class of viewer, and activity, awareness, and values. are likely to have a different visual response to a landscape feature than people viewing the same feature from an industrial setting.


Visual quality assessment Word definitions Meaning viewer response A positive or negative measure of how Factors affecting how a viewer

people react to changes in what they responds to change in visual see. resources include viewer

exposure, viewer sensitivity, cultural significance, and local values.

viewer sensitivity The degree to which people respond to what they see. A viewer with high sensitivity to a particular view will respond strongly to any change in the view. Viewer sensitivity does not imply support for or opposition to a proposed change in the view.

The viewer’s variable receptivity to the elements within the environment that he/she is viewing, affected by viewer activity and awareness. A person cannot readily notice every object and all the attributes of the objects that compose the total visual environment.

viewshed The area that can be seen from a given viewpoint or group of viewpoints; it is also that area from which that viewpoint or group of viewpoints can be seen.

visual The visible portion of the landscape unit A portion of the area visible or assessment unit that contains the transportation facility. potentially visible from a highway

project or from which the highway project may be seen; to be useful in visual assessment, it should be identified on the basis of visual distinctions, such as landscape unit boundaries.

visual character The visual patterns formed by everything that can be seen and how those patterns fit together in the visible landscape. The description of character considers dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity to further define the visible landscape.

The visual character of a landscape is formed by the order of the patterns composing it. The elements of these patterns are the form, color, line, and texture of the landscape’s visual resources. Their inter-relationships can be objectively described in terms of dominance, diversity, continuity, and so on.

visual corridor The changing views along the facility experienced by users.

A continuous succession of visually and spatially distinct experiences.

visual effect The degree of change in visual resources and the viewer response to those changes caused by facility development and operations.

A combination of the change in visual resources and people’s response to the change.


April 2011

Wordvisual quality

visual resources

Visual quality assessment definitionsA subjective measure of the character of the visual resource. The many factors that contribute to a landscape’s visual quality are grouped under intactness, unity, and vividness.

The collection of all features and things that can be seen in an area.

Meaning

The appearance of the features that make up the visible landscape. Includes land, water, vegetative, animal, and other features that are visible.

vividness

windshield survey

Describes how the landscape elements combine to form a colorful, striking, or otherwise memorable composition.

The process of driving by an area to look at properties for general housekeeping and verify property addresses; a method of observing a study area by driving the area in a vehicle.

The memorability of the visual impression received from contrasting landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive visual pattern.

Basic method for “field reconnaissance” to narrow down representative viewpoints for analysis.


REFERENCES

GIS data sources

Exhibit 5 Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium, LiDAR, 2002.http://pugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/About_PSLC.htm

HDR. 2006 2007. Viewshed.

Exhibit 6 HDR. 2006 – 2007. Viewpoint.

Exhibit 7 David Evans & Associates. 2001. I 405 Corridor Program Visual Resources ExpertiseReport prepared for the WSDOT I 405 Corridor Program. Updated 2007 by HDR;Landscape Unit.

Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium, LiDAR, 2002.http://pugetsoundlidar.ess.washington.edu/About_PSLC.htm

Exhibits 8 through 12 HDR. 2006 – 2007. Viewpoint.

Base data All GIS exhibits contain one or more of the following as base layers:

GDT (Geographic Data Technology, Inc.), April 2005. GDT – Dynamap Transportation.

King County Standard GIS Data Disk, extract June 2006:

2005. Trails in King County. Data updated by I 405 staff to match fieldwork,2002 LiDAR and orthorectified aerial photography.

USGS (United States Geological Survey). June 2002. Color Aerial Photography.http://edc.usgs. gov/products/aerial/hiresortho.html

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). March 2001. Aerialphotography program.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), Spatial Data Catalog, 2006,City Limits.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), Spatial Data Catalog, 1997,Railroads.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation), Spatial Data Catalog, 2006,Water.


April 2011

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2006 – 2007. I 405 Staff;Parks. Merged data from King and Snohomish counties standard data and cities ofBellevue, Kirkland and Bothell standard data, 2006.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2006 – 2007. I 405 Staff;Streams.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2006 – 2007. I 405 Staff;Tenth Mile Posts.

Text references and verbal communications DEA (David Evans and Associates, Inc.). 2001. I 405 Corridor Program Draft VisualResources Expertise Report.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1981. Visual Impact Assessment forHighway Projects (FHWA HI 88 054).

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 1996. RoadsideClassification Plan.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2005a. I 405, SR 520 to SR522 Kirkland Nickel Environmental Assessment.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2005b. I 405, SR 520 to SR522 Kirkland Nickel Project Visual Quality Discipline Report.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2006. EnvironmentalProcedures Manual.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2010. I 405, Bellevue toLynnwood Improvement Project; Cumulative Effects Analysis Technical Memorandum.




April 2011

APPENDIX A DETAILED STUDY APPROACH

What tools and vocabulary did we use for this assessment? Tools used for this assessment included:

GIS to determine the topographic viewshed;

Field reconnaissance and observation of the study area to determine visible areasand representative views from and toward I 405;

The Visual Quality Rating Matrix (see Appendix B), based on the FederalHighway Administration’s (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projectsmanual (FHWA HI 88 054) (FHWA, 1981);

Photographs from within the viewsheds (see Appendix C);

Design information to determine the project related changes and visual effects.

The vocabulary used in the assessment follows the FHWA Visual Impact Assessmentmanual (FHWA, 1981). As noted above, we evaluate visual resources by examiningvisual character and visual quality to determine resource changes, and by assessing viewerexposure and viewer sensitivities to determine viewer response. Resource change and viewerresponse are, in turn, used to determine visual quality effects of the project. The visualassessment approach and the relationship of these elements are shown below.

Exhibit A-1: Visual assessment approach

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Page A-1 Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

Visual character Visual character refers to the visual patterns formed by everything that can be seen andhow those patterns fit together in the visible landscape. The affected visual environmentcontains landscape components that include topographic features (e.g., mountains,valleys) and land cover. Land cover includes water, vegetation, and the builtenvironment. We can categorize these components in distinctive landscape characterunits based on patterns created by dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity ofelements in the landscape. Dominance refers to the position of an individual element orits extent or contrast in relation to other elements. Scale refers to apparent sizerelationships between an element and its surroundings. Diversity is a function of thenumber, variety, and intermixing of elements in a view. Continuity refers to themaintenance of visual relationships between connected or related landscape features.

The viewshed analysis defines the physical limits of the visual resources that can beaffected by the project. The topographic viewshed is the visible area without regard forscreening effects from vegetation or structures. The viewshed is the area from which theproject can be seen and the area that can be seen from the project. The basis for theanalysis is a simple line of sight determination based solely on topography. Thisunobstructed line of sight determination is applicable for views from the road andviews toward the road. The existing viewshed is the visible area including the screeningeffects of vegetation and structures.

Visual quality We can determine the visual quality of the affected environment by analyzing thelandscape using a set of proven evaluative measures to assess three components ofvisual quality: vividness, intactness, and unity. These measures are used to evaluatevisual quality of key viewpoints.

Vividness describes the way landscape components combine in distinctive andmemorable visual patterns. Four aspects of vividness can affect the landscape:topography, water, vegetation, and constructed elements. The distinctiveness or qualityof a specific element within a landscape scene defines this element. Vividness is rankedon a scale of 1 to 7, with a rating of 7 indicating a high (desirable) degree of vividness.

Intactnessmeasures the visual integrity of the natural and human made landscape andits freedom from encroaching elements. High intactness means a landscape is highlynatural and free of eyesores, or is not broken up by features that are out of place.Intactness is subdivided into two categories: the level of human made development andthe degree of encroachment. A rating of 7 indicates a landscape that is highly intact andcontains no encroachments.

Unity describes the visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscapeconsidered as a whole. It refers to the fit between elements of the landscape, but does

A-2 I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

not connote uniformity in design or character. One aspect of this criterion is the unitybetween constructed and natural pattern elements, which usually attests to the carefuldesign of individual components in the landscape. Unity is ranked on a scale of 1 to 7,with 7 representing a landscape with a coherent, harmonious visual pattern (desirable).

An overall visual quality ranking is determined by taking a numerical average of thethree rankings for vividness, intactness, and unity.

ViewersViewer analysis considers who will see the visual resources of the project area and thechanges that will result, as well as the circumstances under which the viewer sees them.

Location is a key factor in viewer analysis. Viewer location is evaluated in terms ofwhere the viewpoint is relative to the visual resource. The view position is described assuperior (above, or looking down at, the resource), normal (level with the resource), orinferior (below, or looking up at, the resource). An example for superior may be a viewfrom an overpass or pedestrian bridge, a normal view might be from the road, and aninferior view might be from a park or trail at a lower elevation. The distance of visualresources observed from a viewpoint is characterized as foreground, middle ground,and background.

The duration of viewer exposure considers how long a viewer is exposed to a viewduring a single instance (examples might include an individual making his morningcommute to work or an individual looking out the window from her residence). Theview of a commuter on I 405 may be relatively brief, while that of a resident may belonger. The frequency of viewing considers how often viewers are exposed to a view.

Perceptions of the visual environment vary among viewer groups. This variableperception is referred to as viewer sensitivity, and it is influenced by viewers’ visualpreferences and the circumstances under which they encounter a view. Vieweractivities, such as driving in heavy traffic on a daily basis, may distract viewers ordesensitize them to much of the visual environment. Viewer awareness can beheightened by encountering a visual change, such as entering an urban area orencountering a dramatic view of water or a mountain.

Visual resource change Visual resource change evaluates the degree of change in a visual resource without regardto viewer response. Therefore, we first identify project related changes to views, thenevaluate the visual quality of the view in relation to those changes (using the same threemeasures in evaluating the view’s existing condition: vividness, intactness, and unity).We use a visual quality ranking matrix to compare the visual quality of the view withand without the project, allowing the change to be expressed as the difference betweenthe two. The change, combined with the viewer sensitivity for a particular area andproject result in a high, medium, or low visual effect. A standard baseline, like an

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Page A-3 Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

undeveloped forest, for example, is not used. The visual effect, like the scoring in thefield, is assigned relative to the baseline and the projected changes in the project area.

Viewer response Viewer response is the evaluation of how viewers respond to the changes in visualresources. For the I 405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project, we categorizedviewers as I 405 users (views from the project) and I 405 neighbors (views toward theproject).

A-4 I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

APPENDIX B VISUAL QUALITY RATING MATRIX Exhibit B-1: Visual quality analysis – baseline conditions

Representative Viewpoints

NE

60th

Str

eet I

-405

A

.fa

cing

sou

th

B.

NE

60th

Str

eet I

-405

fa

cing

nor

th

NE

124t

h St

reet

C.

faci

ng n

orth

NE

160t

h St

reet

D.

faci

ng n

orth

east

E.So

nom

a Vi

llero

Con

dom

iniu

ms

faci

ng

wes

t

SR

522

(UW

Bot

hell)

F. fa

cing

eas

t

SR

527

Inte

rcha

nge

G.

faci

ng e

ast

Viewer Orientation To the Highway X X X X

From the Highway X X X

View Distance Foreground X X X X X X X

Middle ground X X X X

Background X XViewer Position Inferior

Normal X X X X X X

Superior X

Vividness Landform 3 3 2 2 2 5 2

Water NA NA NA NA NA 5 NA

Vegetation 2 2 1 3 4 5 3

Human-made 3 3 2 3 3 4 3

Average 2.7 2.7 1.7 2.7 3 4.8 2.7

Intactness Development 2 2 3 3 3 4 2

Encroachment 3 3 2 4 3 4 3

Average 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 3 4.0 2.5

Unity 3 3 2 2 2 5 2

Total Visual Quality 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.7 2.7 4.6 2.4

7 = very high; 6 = high; 5 = moderately high; 4 = average; 3 = moderately low; 2 = low; 1 = very low.

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Page B-1 Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

Exhibit B-2: Visual quality analysis – projected conditions

Representative Viewpoints

NE

60th

A.

Stre

et I-

405

faci

ng s

outh

NE

60th

Str

eet I

-405

B

.fa

cing

nor

th

NE

124t

h St

reet

C.

faci

ng n

orth

NE

160t

h St

reet

D.

faci

ng n

orth

east

Sono

ma

Ville

roE. C

ondo

min

ium

s fa

cing

w

est

SR

522

(UW

Bot

hell)

F. fa

cing

eas

t G

.SR

527

Inte

rcha

nge

faci

ng e

ast

Viewer orientation

Toward the highway X X X X

From the highway X X X

View distance Foreground X X X X X X X

Middleground X X X X

Background X X

Viewer position Inferior

Normal X X X X X X

Superior X

Vividness Landform 3 3 2 1 2 5 2

Water NA NA NA NA NA 5 NA

Vegetation 2 2 1 2 2 5 3

Human-made 3 3 2 2 2 4 3

Average 2.7 2.7 1.7 1.7 2 4.8 2.7

Intactness Development 2 2 3 3 2 4 2

Encroachment 3 3 2 3 2 4 3

Average 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 2 4.0 2.5

Unity 3 3 2 2 2 5 2

Total Visual Quality 2.7 2.7 2.1 2.2 2 4.6 2.4

7 = very high; 6 = high; 5 = moderately high; 4 = average; 3 = moderately low; 2 = low; 1 = very low.

B-2 I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

effects determination

5,

Baselinevisual quality

2.7

Projected visual quality

2.7

Degree of

visual change

0

Primary viewer groups

Highway users

Number of viewers

High

Viewer sensitivity

Low

Type/duration of exposure

Short

Visualeffect

Low

5, 2.7 2.7 0 Highway users High Low Short Low

cing 2.1 2.1 0 Local roadway users High Low Short Low

cing 2.7 2.2 -0.5 Highway users High Low Short Low

g 2.7 2 -0.7 Condominium residents Low High Long Medium

l), 4.6 4.6 0

Local roadway users, college students, and staff

Moderate High Medium Low

Retail customers ge, 2.4 2.4 0 and local Moderate Medium Medium Lowroadway users

derately high; 4 = average; 3 = moderately low; 2 = low; 1 = very low.

ood Improvement Project B-3Memorandum


B-4 I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

APPENDIX C REPRESENTATIVE VIEWS Representative View A: NE 60th Street at I-405, view facing south

Representative View B: NE 60th Street at I-405, view facing north

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project C-1Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

Representative View C: NE 124th Street, view facing north

Approaching Representative View D: NE 160th Street Representative View D: NE 160th Street northbound northbound ramp to I-405, view facing northeast ramp to I-405, view facing northeast

C-2 I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

Representative View E: Sonoma Villero Condominiums, view facing west

Representative View E: Sonoma Villero Condominiums, view facing west

I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project C-3Visual Quality Technical Memorandum April 2011

View F: SR 522 (UW Bothell), view facing east

Representative View G: SR 527 interchange, view facing east

C-4 I-405, Bellevue to Lynnwood Improvement Project Visual Quality Technical Memorandum

April 2011

Documents

APPENDIX R: VISUAL QUALITY TECHNICAL … Viewpoint E, Sonoma Villero Condominiums 39 How will project construction temporarily affect visual quality? 40 How will the project operation