The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUTC PKT 04-30-2007 ORIGINAL City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee April 30, 2007 5:30 p.rn. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. BUSINESS ITEMS A. City Center Access Study - Authorization to Proceed Action 45 min/Zukowski 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison Dean McColgan City Staff . Cary M. Roe. P.E.. Public Works Director Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant 11 253-835-2701 G:\LUTClLUTC Agelld"s "lid Summ"ries J007\04-3~07 LUTC Agelldll.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 15,2007 _..M............................................... .........._..._......._...........___.__._ ........_....._.................. ................__...............__.._.............................. ITEM #:_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: CITY CENTER ACCESS PROJECT - AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council authorize staff to begin work on Phase II of the City Center Access Project (CCAP), the Environmental Assessment (EA) and the final Access Point Decision Report (APDR)? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: April 30, 2007 CATEGORY: o Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing ~ City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other ~T AFF RE~Q!!'!_!!~: M_arya~~?_~9_~~~~_.~:_~:L~~~!.9.!.!.!~.f!i~}~~g,ine_er .__.__~~!.~:_._~_~~~~~.~~ks ._________ Options Considered: 1. Approve authorization to proceed with the City Center Access Project Phase II, the final Access Point Decision Report and Environmental Assessment consistent with the 2007-2008 Biennium Budget. 2. Do not approve authorization to proceed with the City Center Access Project and provide further direction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1 be forwarded to the May 15,2007 City Council Business Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: Council DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: B4tIIv Committee Council &~ Dean McColgan, Member POSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to authorize staff to proceed with the City Center Access Project Phase II, the Environment Assessment and the final Access Point Decision Report consistent with the 2007-2008 Biennium Budget." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: April 30, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTe) Neal Beats, City Manager Maryanne Zukowski, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer City Center Access Study, Authorization to Proceed BACKGROUND: In December of 2006, City Council approved the 2007-2008 Biennium Budgets which included a $1.6 million expenditure for 2007 and $1.2 million expenditure in 2008, and a Carryforward of $200,000 from the 2006 budget, for a total of $3.0 million for Phase II of the City Center Access Project, Final Access Point Decision Report (APDR) and Environmental Assessment (EA). The City of Federal Way, in conjunction with project partners, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Federal Highways Administration (FHW A), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), the additional supporting agencies (the "Core Support Team"), and the Public Stake Holder Team performed a feasibility study to determine viable access solutions to the safety issues and the congestion at the interchange of S 320th Street and Interstate 5 (1-5) (access to Federal Way City Center). Purpose and Need The Purpose and Need Statement adopted for the project is: "Purpose for Action: In order to enhance access to and circulation within the City Center, the City of Federal Way seeks to improve safety and reduce congestion on the transportation network. " The S 320th Street at 1-5 interchange is experiencing significant congestion many hours of the day and is currently at capacity. If a successful and viable access solution is approved, Federal Way could proceed in completing a Final APDR to submit to WSDOT. With City and State approval, the report would go to the FHW A. An APDR is the initial step required by FHW A before modifying an Interstate Highway Interchange. This feasibility study began November of 2003 with forty-seven (47) options to evaluate. These options were submitted by the public and an expert technical team. In March of 2005, City Council, WSDOT, FHW A, the "Core Support Team", and the Public Stake Holder Team approved two alternatives ("Build" Options) selected from the feasibility study to move forward for additional analysis, which includes: . Access Point Decision Report (APDR) - submitted to WSDOT and FHW A, Environmental Assessment (EA) - to determine a final preferred alternative . The feasibility study, previously completed, included a significant amount of public process that assisted in identifying issues and concerns from the public that would be addressed in an EA. The public process included, but was not limited to: · An initial project Town Meeting. · (12) Public stakeholder meetings and (14) agency project meetings attended by members of the public stake holder team. April 2, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee City Center Access Project - Authorization to Proceed Page 2 . (6) Briefing meetings to the LUTC and (3) full council milestone decision making presenta ti ons. . (2) Public open houses with comment surveys with the second open house held had 101 citizens in attendance and several special presentation sessions that included Belmore Park with 130 residents in attendance and also regional transportation committee presentations. The No Build Alternative included all of the planned Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects adopted in the 20 year Comprehensive Plan. This was a requirement of evaluation from FHW A and the WSDOT. This previous study looked at 47 alternatives including 19 possible transportation improvements inside the city. The requirements of FHW A and WSDOT were to evaluate any and all possible local improvements to solve the current safety and congestion issues at the S 320tl1 St and 1-5 interchange. The study found, that local improvements alone will not solve the safety and congestion issues at the interchange location. Two viable Build Alternatives emerged. These two alternatives (modifications to the interchange) could only be approved to proceed in an EA by FHW A and WSDOT after showing the No Build option would be unsuccessful and that the safety and congestion issues at the interchange canl10t be resolved by improvements to the city street system alone. The two "Build" options identified as the alternatives to be evaluated further are: . Mod. 1 Option:'S 320lh Street / S 312'h Street . The Mod. 1 Option includes Collector Distributor (CD) ramps accessing S 320th Street and S 312lh Street. In the southbound direction, a braided ramp configuration allows for access to both S 312'h Street and S 320th Street. In the northbound direction a connection is provided to S 312th Street. via a north bound off-ramp alignment that travels under S 320th Street before heading to S 312'h Street. A graphic schematic of the Mod. 1 Option is provided in FIGURE 1. There were many positive responses to the S 312th Street crossing such as the ability to move 1200 vehicles from S 320th Street in the PM peak hour and additional Emergency Response access to the areas east of the city planned for annexation. FIGURE 1 'tt/it"" ~.'. !c- ~: ,.,) f;, :J",~ ,- (/); I ~ . ~ SeoTec f' :..:r 0 ._, ' ~., l'l Mal ,. ~t " ,j'S, t. ~ ,"1 \ ~- . ....... , t.. :; :~ ,~. J t, ' -,; MOD. 1 i C2Vl BRAIDED - -.,-....--- l I : :F~' :- - - I ~,= ! \ 1- -~ ~ ~. _.~__ 23riiAve.S 1 , I ',- " ..~\ . ' " -; . 1 I Ii, -" \.. 1 . I , ,.' . ~ . t .., ,.~;.'l,. ': ....'. ti: ,~) ...., .. , ," .~' J :_' '-'_~.,' ~ ~ ;::- c,1,_ ..;,......, i '0 )i" ll~:,- - ,I(! .....-":'~....)>,.c~T[ri '.~ ..~____.. .~"). }\ A'_~ '"'' ~ Ii 1 \' .. -~~:,.,,')t ,':':.~'l':t ;\:"'~~~;'" "! ...";:: L _"" __.oj I:::::i' '~1'S} ,"',' .'-I~~'Jli'51" it-.. :.. .j .(~"J~" r>:: " .; ~ ~ I I l' 1 ~. 'L. 'f. "~re, ,',1., " .-.:.., ~~':c':'- ;".::" "1> ''.. ~1~-"'" 'j . I . ~ '.:: : . ., '-'.,-':':;;~7.";"~~'~ \ _.... o '.,..1 ;. - \ '}_' ' .. .IJ' ~,_ lQ_ ~ L ll'" ".'rlJ ) .5~-) ',-,', :z.!\.,-,~ _,-> '-." -~ <J~, " .' . ~'. '.,:~,__ !' ~';;';' '),~ '!"', . 'I -, ":~.~. <~~ ~~~~. '~A~'~":~ ~ "':;'i':~28ui~~~[~', . \ ".'o,'''{r} ~~~ . ,:' " ;.; c.. '.' ~W" ~~- ' 'f :'.-J~'~ ,1~~""-:\,,::~~~~ .~,~ ; ., , I . (/).. ,. . ., ~ '. ., . i ; >':~~:~' ,fa .,' ~.."""'."". ~S.31'" l,:,'.',... " , sa sa' .....'......-...~......~...:....... _.~,.~.~A. ve; S NIl -== "'6.'" . i l I~, ',: l . LEGEND SCH.E CITY OF FEOERAL WAY _...A =~ ,. Q OOID .. CIlYCENTERACCESSSTUOY FodcmlWay .... 2l>>tNlClOlllP.ftNlD.Oll)lt a_ ~orlNl[ll , I :... J , ~A/" ( r " i ~z____ ... '. ..) MOD. 1 0PTl0N: S. 3201hIS. 3121hBRAlDED CD CII2MHILL April 2, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee City Center Access Project - Authorization to Proceed Page 3 . Mod. 2 Option:. S 3241h Street /S 320lh Street The Mod. 2 Option includes Interstate access at a new S 3241h Street bridge crossing and braided ramps in both directions to allow full access from S 3241h Street and S 320lh Street. The eastern extension of the proposed S 3241h Street crossing intersects with S 323,d Street at 32nd Avenue S. A graphic schematic of the Mod. 2 Option is provided in FIGURE 2. There were many positive responses to the S 31 zth Street and the S 3241h Street crossings, such as the ability to move 500 vehicles from S 320lh Street in the PM peak hour and additional Emergency Response access to the areas east of the city planned for annexation. FIGURE 2 .") " '\ MOD. 2 04 BRAIDED 23nl Ave. I; I ; . ';'~ ~ :., ; ~. f' ~ ..11 J. " , , .~;. I . I .. ,; , i;t '.,'. , , '.1":21 ~.'. 'J.'- ,:..! , .'" ..... ~ -'-~'" ->;;~ . ."..... .. .., ":l ' j ": . ,- 11.. - ~ 4 ..... i .., _".:: J. ( " .,. \ ~...,,~.:~~ ~" '"~;:.;-;,~-! ..,(:. J~. ""....""'- - : I, :' ~ /' ~~ -" . 1~~ ~. '~--...., ~~-:r-: ',' \ .-,... ~ , -. -, . ~': \-" ,c~. J'~ : A<_ , i , . .. r~_~O-:J -----..,'i f:,~ - L . I . : - i . ,,/11 .~:) _' _" 1_", ..' ..!:,: ~-, ..--~ " "::'~""':'~~''''':';~:7~'~~~~ (~ . ,~:,~. /-. ;.~ . ~ - -i~1 .~_ , ""~r~.fj-:-' :.~ ..,.~.,. ... _ .. i ::.:-- I. t ...._._."....1:...:-:-.1.,,.-] << .~Z~,;: -.-..j '~' ! ,'.' '~; :' - ~'- }~;f!11 '.I I "> ... ~.. ..... >::--;. '\' !I !1Ji .; ~ (4. .,. 25lh"Ave. s~ 1-'. '.'" L ~. \ I ,,~-., . - .~ . ..". .'. ~ .: . ........., " . , .... , . <::: ]~~:>~!~"-; .,... .'. '.- .L ~ ..-:'. "ii . "'. '<:: ~-'...-';. '"'-" - ... ..... .1 ' SoW,. liP, :~ \ 10 J '.~w.Ys;;.,._.i .. NO ~Way """'" ~ _. - CICIMHILL Since the key conclusion of the study was that local street improvements alone cannot sustain the transportation needs of S 320111 Street at the 1-5 interchange and address the current and future safety and congestion issues, FHW A and WSDOT concur that interchange improvements are appropriate. Since March of 2005, the City of Federal Way staff completed a Draft APDR December 2005. The Draft APDR completed a review process by FHW A and WSDOT in January of2007. FHW A has no correction requests to the document and are considering the completed work as the justification for proceeding with the EA and the Final APDR. Additionally, FHW A is using the City of Federal Way Draft Report as an example for future Feasibility Studies prepared nationally.. The FHW A stated that the City of Federal Way Feasibility Project was one of the finest examples of "Context - Sensitive" design that the FHW A had ever seen. WSDOT and FHW A have approved proceeding with the EA and Final APDR. April 2, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee City Center Access Project - Authorization to Proceed Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a stepped, integrated, and comprehensive process. Some level of Preliminary Engineering (PE) is required to determine significant issues and impacts. With this project, an APDR report is completed simultaneously with the EA. The APDR contains the Federal Transportation Planning Process with detailed answers to significant questions that are evaluated by WSDOT and FHW A. The EA process is outlined in procedures through the WSDOT Design Manual and Environmental Manuals. The public has input into this process. The EA process is designed to gather additional and detailed information in order to address environmental issues and concerns of the public. This provides key decision makers the tools to select a viable solution. The first step in this process was the feasibility study completed in March of 2005. In the EA process the traffic analysis is updated and refined as designs are refined and analyzed. The other process of the EA evaluates the issues and concerns of the public and agencies. Similar to SEP A analyses, impacts are evaluated, potential mitigation is identified, and alternatives may be modified to reduce impacts. A few of these issues, which are common in all EA processes are: environmental justice (displacements), protection of threatened and endangered species (impacts to wetlands and critical areas), and impacts to parks (Steel Lake Park). Environmental Justice (Displacements) Environmental Justice is a look at fairness on impacting economically disadvantaged people displaced by a transportation project. At this time only conceptual schematics have been created and staff has tried to speculate possible impacted properties. Phase II of the project would paint a clearer defined picture and possible aversions to causing displacements. Some of the major issues brought up during the feasibility study with regards to Environmental Justice focused on senior and low income housing impacts. Until the Phase II preliminary designs are created, it is difficult for staff to predict what true impacts the project would cause. Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species An EA looks as issues that include fish habitat, critical and sensitive environmentally protected wetland plant life, and for this project specifically a sphagnum bog. With the information we have today from the initial work on the feasibility study, both projects would have wetland and storm water impacts that would require mitigation. The EA would provide a clearer definition of potential impacts and mitigation. Again, almost all EA's include some environmental mitigation. . Impact to Parks All three of the proposed alternatives include the S 312th Street Bridge since the current adopted City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan programs this improvement. The S 31th bridge has been an element of the adopted City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan since the city first incorporated and was included in the King County Comprehensive Plan prior to the City's incorporation. The Mod 1 Alternative includes access to the City Center at S 312th Street and S 320th Street, whereas the Mod 2 Alternative includes an additional S 324th Street Bridge with access to S 324th Street and S 320th Street as well as the S 31th Street Bridge with no access to 1-5. The No Build Alternative includes all the 20-year CIP projects as well as the S 312th Street Bridge crossing and new local intersection improvements. April 2, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee City Center Access Project - Authorization to Proceed Page 5 Some of the major issues brought up during the previous feasibility study focused on the impacts to Steel Lake Park. Those impacts voiced were a high water table, increased traffic, increased air pollution, increased noise from traffic, possible impacts to the skateboard park, splitting the park in two pieces, and increased safety issues for pedestrians crossing S 31 ih Street. An Environmental Assessment would evaluate these issues and propose mitigation if the main project shows detrimental effects to the park beyond those anticipated in the current Comprehensive Plan. The street section of S 31 ih Street that bisects the park is currently in the 20 year CIP and adopted comprehensive plan. In addition, the Parks Plan shows a bike trail that crosses S 31 ih Street mid block between 23rd Avenue S and 28th Avenue S. Mitigation could include a walking path internal to the park that wo~ld function as a shared use path, creating a safe pedestrian environment separated from traffic on S 31ih Street. Safety enhancement consideration would also be consistent with the Parks Plan to create an above grade or below grade shared use crossing area of S 31ih Street. The EA traffic analysis would compare the increased traffic from the Mod 1 and Mod 2 Alternatives to the No Build Alternative (the current comprehensive plan) for a 2030 design year. KEY ISSUES Some of the key issues that surround the project are the shelf lives of the work within the EA and APDR as well as funding and conceptual planning costs. Shelf Life An Environmental Assessment does not have a prescribed length of a shelf life. Major changes like federal or state regulations, density increases, and major projects not accounted for in the project vicinity may cause revisions to sections of the EA document. Other jurisdictions have seen the life of an EA to run 8 to 15 years with minor updates. Typically, EA's are updated to match any regulation changes. The APDR is a report that is finalized with a pubic hearing for impacted property by a transportation project that modifies access to an interstate Highway governed by the FHW A and WSDOT. The report is completed with the SEP A/NEP A process. Typically reports can be updated if minor changes within the scope of the analysis occur. FHW A would determine if a report needs major revisions to coincide with an extended shelflife running concurrently with the EA. Funding Completing an Environmental Assessment for the City Center Access Project satisfies and covers all the phases of the project that include the segments specific to the current TIP and CIP. Funding such a program of improvements will be challenging in an era where competition for grants, and regional, state, and federal funding is intense. In addition, there is concern that we may be entering a low point in a 10-15 year cycle of major transportation funding initiatives. It is noted that the 2003 "Nickel Package" was the first new state funding since 1990, which has been supplemented by the Transportation Partnership Account in 2005, and may be supplemented further by the Regional Transportation Investment District this year if approved by voters. Unfortunately, the City Center Access Project had not evolved to the point where it would have been competitive in these funding packages. However, it should be noted that it is rare that any large package of improvements is funded all at once. As an example, the SR 99 Corridor Redevelopment Study began in 1995 and has resulted in a regionally- significant package of projects that will be completed by 2012. Anticipating that this would be the case for City Center Access Project, staff has broken this project into several phases, each of which can April 2, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee City Center Access Project - Authorization to Proceed Page 6 function as stand-alone projects. Most of these phases could attract grant funding. In addition, by positioning the project to be construction-ready, the project will be more competitive for outside funding sources. Finally, the project fits well with the region's current emphasis (being renewed on state and federal levels) of supporting urban center development. Therefore, staff believes that keeping this project moving is feasible. Conceptual Planning Costs TABLE 1 represents conceptual planning costs. The City Center Access Project contains local improvements programmed with the current adopted Comprehensive Plan. The table reflects the current Comprehensive Plan local improvements that are common to the "No Build" and both "Build" options. Tables lA and IB note separately the "Build" options for access to 1-5. All three options include the S 31th Street Bridge currently adopted in the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. CIP with an Title Abbreviated 2005 cost estimate Sub Total assigned Phase description Project Costs RIGHT OF DESIGN WAY CONSTRUCTION Phase 2 City Center Final APDR, Access Project (APDR, EA, Environmental analysis and Preliminary to improve access to City 0 0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Engineering) Center Add 2no left - turn lane, Phase 3 S 320th St @ 1-5 3'0 right-turn lane on the $600,000 0 $2,600,000 $3,200,000 SB off ramp S 320m St @ 1- Widen Bridge Structure, Phase 4 5: HOV lanes: loop ramp retrofit, and 25th Ave S- modification to ramps $5,200,000 $1,000,000 $23,700,000 $29,900,000 32nO Ave South south of interchange. Phase 5 S 312th St: 28th Extend 5-lane arterial, Ave - Military S 312th St Bridge $7,200,000 $1,100,000 $32,900,000 $41,200,000 Road Crossing 1-5 32no Ave South; Phase 6 Military Rd S- Extend and widen to 3 $1,030,000 $ 1,545,000 $4,120,000 $6,695,000 S 320th St lane collector S 312m Street; Phase 7 23'0 Ave S- Widen to five (5) lanes $1,125,000 $1,785,000 $4,500,000 $7,410,000 28th Ave S TOTAL 2005 COSTS $91,405,000 TOTAL 2007 COSTS (assumes 20% inDation from 2005 as currently trends show and rounded to the nearest thousand) $110,000,000 TOTAL 2017 COSTS ( assumes a 7% construction cost inDation rate per year and rounded to the nearest thousand) $216,000,000 TABLE 1 CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENTS April 2, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee City Center Access Project - Authorization to Proceed Page 7 TABLE 1A MOD 1: ACCESS RAMPS TO S 320th, ST, 1-5, AND S 31th ST Title Abbreviated 2005 cost estimate Sub Total description Project Costs MODI ACCESS RAMPS DESIGN RIGHT OF CONSTRUCTION ALTERATIVE AND CD'S WAY Mod I Ramps and CD's $7,200,000 $1,500,000 $32,800,000 $41 ,500,000 TOTAL 2005 COSTS $41,500,000 TOTAL 2007 COSTS (assumes 20% inflation from 2005 as currently trends show and rounded to the nearest thousand) $49,800,000 TOTAL 2017 COSTS ( assumes a 7% construction cost inflation rate per year and rounded to the nearest thousand) $98,000,000 TABLE 1B MOD 2: S 324th ST BRIDGE; ACCESS S 324th ST, 1-5, AND S 320th ST Title Abbreviated 2005 cost estimate Sub Total description Project Costs MOD2 S 324 H ST BRIDGE DESIGN RIGHT OF ACCESS RAMPS CONSTRUCTION AL TERA TIVE WAY AND CD'S Mod 2 Bridge @ S 324th St $7,200,000 $1,100,000 $32,900,000 $41,200,000 Mod 2 Ramps and CD's $7,300,000 $500,000 $33,200,000 $41,000,000 TOTAL 2005 COSTS $82,200,000 TOTAL 2007 COSTS (assumes 20% inflation from 2005 as currentlv trends show and rounded to the nearest thousand) $98,700,000 TOTAL 2017 COSTS ( assumes a 7% construction cost inflation rate per year and rounded to the nearest thousand) $194,000,000 Cost SUmmary Current Comprehensive Plan Costs and Mod 1 Cost in 2005 = $132,905,000 Current Comprehensive Plan Costs and Mod 2 Cost in 2005 = $173,605,000 WHY ACT NOW? Phase II of the project will: · Build upon the previous study's investment, taking advantage of that success. · Take advantage of this opportunity with the consensus of FHW A and WSDOT for gaining access to 1-5. · Effectively manage future traffic growth by improving safety and reducing congestion within the City Center and the S 320th St interchange area, thereby enhancing economic development. · Maximize our position for future funding and initiatives for project phases. April 2, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee City Center Access Project - Authorization to Proceed Page 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff will return with a request for an approval of the Draft Public Involvement Plan which will outline the scope and schedule of updates regarding the project as well as key areas of decisions to be made. The initial steps are: · Organizing the "Core Support Team" · Selection and organization of the Public Stake Holder Team · Developing a Draft Public Involvement Plan · Drafting the Scope of Work for the Project · Advertising and selecting a Consultant Staff recommends authorization to proceed with the City Center Access Study Phase II, the final Access Point Decision Report and the Environmental Assessment as already contained within the City's 2007 and 2008 budget and placing the item on the May 15, 2007 City Council Business Agenda for approval.