The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 01-22-2007 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee January 22, 2007 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 18,2006 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS c. 2007-2008 Litter Control Services Agreement . h . ._. . . . South 3481 Street at 1 sl Av.enue South)ntersection Improvement Project - 30% Design Status Report Lakehaven ILA - Preliminary Engineering Services Amendment No.2 Amendment to the Sound Transit Agreement SEP A Planned Action Ordinance Action 5 min/Miller Action 10 min/Salloum Action 10 min/Salloum Action 10 min/Doherty Action 45 min/Doherty A. B. D. E. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members Jack Dovey. Chair Eric Faison Dean McColgan City Sta ff Cm)! M. Roe. P.E.. Public Works Director Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas (11/(/ Summaries :007\01-1J-07 LUTe Agemltl.lloc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee December 18, 2006 5:30 pm City Hall City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey, Committee Member Dean McColgan, and Committee Member Eric Faison; Council Member Linda Kochmar and Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; City Manager Neal Beats; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; City Attorney Patricia Richardson; Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The December 4, 2006, minutes were approved. Moved: Faison Seconded: Dovey Passed: UnanimQusly 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS The business items were amended to the following order: C, D, E, F, G, B, and A. C. Pacific Hig.hway Phase II - Proiect Acceptance Brian Roberts provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the January 2, 2007, City Council Consent Agenda for approvlll. D. South 320th Street at ISlA venue South Intersection Improvements Proiect - 100% Design Status Report Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. Council Member Faison expressed his concern that there are other city projects that are of a higher priority and the city should consider funding one of those projects instead. Council Member Kochmar asked what this project will accomplish. Mr. Roe replied that it will improve the traffic flow that is often backed-up on the weekend due to turning traffic. Council Member Burbidge expressed concern over the size of the intersection due to these proposed improvements. She asked if staff has considered any alternatives. Mr. Roe stated that staff has considered South 32Sth Street/5th Avenue South as an alternative, but use of this street would send more traffic into a residential neighborhood and would require a traffic light at the intersection of 1 st and 3281h. The Committee discussed this project in regards to the level of service. Council Memb'er Faison commented that the overall question is what so we want our community to look like. You cannot always build your way out. Council Member McColgan commented that we are always building our way out. The only alternative is fewer cars. Because further discussion dealt with level of service issues, it was decided to table this issue until after the discussion on the Transportation Level of Service Standard. G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas ~nd Summaries 2006\12-18-06 LUTC Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 December 18, 2006 Once discussion returned to this issue, Council Member Faison asked if it would be possible to not purchase the right-of-way at the northeast quadrant at this time. Mr. Salloum commented that this issue would return to the Committee for authorization and a decision could be made at that time about what parts of the project to purchase or not. Council Member McColgan expressed his concern that with only part of the project right-of- way purchased, the city would not be well situated for grants. Council Member Faison asked that when this project returns for final authorization, that alternatives for the funding be provided. M.oved: J\lIcColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimousl)' Committee .PASSED Option 1 to the January 2, 2007, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. E. 21 5t Avenue SW extension ~ SW 356th Street to nnd Avenue SW Improvements Proiect - Bid A ward Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion. F. . Lakehaven Utility District Interlocal Agreement: 21 st A venue SW Extension Proiect Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion. G. Acceptance of Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Proiects Marwan Salloum provided the background information on this item. There was no discussion: Moved: Dovey Seconded: ji'aisoll Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSKD Option 1 for items 1':.F, and G on to the Januuy 2, 2007, City Council Consent Agenda for approval. B. Amendment to the Sound Transit Agreement Patricia Richardson provided the background on this item. Sound Transit brought t.his proposed amendment to the city without staff input. The version provided to the Committee has been reviewed by staff. Council, Member Faison suggested that a decision be tabled until the COm.m1ttee can have a Sound Transit representative present. He asked to what extent the city was involved in the request for proposal. Council Member McColgan asked if Sound Transit would rather the city handled this project. Ms. Richardson commented that she has not talked to Sound Transit about this issue. Chair Dovey asked what the timeline for, this project is. Ms. Richardson responded that Sound Transit has 18 months from February 2006 to find a developer, and then five years to start construction. Chair Dovey asked why they need more. time. What are ,. they offering the city for this change? Council Member McColgan asked if the city would be better off to control this property. Would the city have a better result if Economic Development Director Doherty were in charge? Council Member Faison asked what the technical limitations are. Council Member Kochmar requested a copy of the request for proposal and original agreement. It was decided to table this issue to the first meeting that a representative from Sound Transit could attend. ''-, !' . ! A. Transportation Level of Service Standard Rick Perez provided the background on this item. Council Member Faison thanked the staff for the education on this subject. He stated that level of service is a means to an end. The question is what we want our community to look like. Widening streets changes the feel and look of our community, but he recognizes that not widening streets can lead to more congestion. Council Member McColgan commented that quality of life is important, but citizen's top two concerns are public safety and traffic. He stated that citizens had concerns about the median on 99, but now many say it has improved traffic flow. Chair Dovey asked about how much land is available for development west of99. Mr. Roe commented that there is some land available for development, but not much. Development in Northeast Tacoma has a big impact on our traffic corridors. We will see continued growth in Northeast Tacoma and we do not have much control over that development. Chair Dovey commented that he is also concerned with the quality of life, but we have to deal with the traffic. Council Member Faison commented that most complaints he has heard deal with getting off the freeway and to 99. It seems our time would be better spent focusing on how to get people off the freeway. Staff is seeking the council's direction on whether the level of standard should be revised. The 2030 forecasts are being developed and that makes this a good time to consider what if questions. How would a change in the level of service change the Transportation Improvement Plan list? There is software that can graphically show what a different level of standard would do. Staff also suggests the council reconsider a Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF). A TIF is more predictable, captures all trips (rather than just one peak), would not have to direct the funds to a specific project, and generates more revenue. Council Member Faison expressed G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\ 12-18-06 LUTe Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 December 18, 2006 concern that TIF funds must be used within six years. He suggested the city stay with the current level of service and reprioritize the funds. Mr. Roe commented that the city likely would not be concurrent if we reprioritize the funds. Council Member Faison commented that we are not concurrent now and are unlikely to be concurrent in the future. Chair Dovey commented that the city needs to fund projects where people live so they can get to and from the freeway. Council Member Faison suggested a survey be done of what citizens' feel is important to fund for transportation. Council Member McColgan commented that we would eventually need additional access off the freeway, given how long that would take; we need to start the process now. The Committee showed no interest in changing the level of service at this time. Chair Dovey would like additional information on the TIF, in addition to land available for development to the west of99. Council Member Faison commented that any legal questions regarding a TIF should be answered before any further discussion on a TIF. 5. FUTURE MEETING The next meeting will be scheduled at a later date. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m. f I !_ ,".', G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006112-18-06 LUTC Minutes doc ...._.___.._____._.._________....____..__...__._._.m...__~___...___.~_._....._...____._..~.._..___...____.._._.._.___.______....w_____...................._..........__......_..___.._...._.._..-..--......--.....--....-.----.....---- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 6, 2007 ITEM #:- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2007-2008 LITTER CONTROL SERVICES AGREEMENT POLICY QUESTION: Should the City enter into a new maintenance and labor agreement with Vadis for Litter Control Services for 2007-2008? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: January 22, 2007 CATEGORY: [gI Consent o City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing Other .~TAFF REpORT By: Ken Miller, P.E., D9.?.uty Pubiic Works Director . . Attachments: LUTC memorandum dated January 22,2007. Options Considered: . . 1. Authorize the CIty Manag~r to enter into a new two-year maintenance and labor agreement with Vadis to provide Litter Control Services, with annual funding set at $50,000 for 2007 and 2008. 2. Do not authorize entenng into a new maintenance aDd labor agreement with Vadis for Litter Control Services and provide direction-to staff. DEPT: Public Works . -.-...--.--.------------ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: Council DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 to the February 6,2007 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan,Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move authorizing the City Manager to execute a maintenance and labor agreementfor Litter Control services for 2007 and 2008 with Vadis.". (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED . 0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL II 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE II RESOLUTION II CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: January 22, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beats, City Manager Ken Miller, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director Litter Removal Maintenance and Labor Agreement for 2007-2008 ~ BACKGROUND: Since 1993, a company known as Vadis has provided litter removal services for the City of Federal Way. Vadis provides a crew of five developmentally disabled individuals, a supervisor, and a transport vehicle dedi9ated to collecting litter from roads and City facilities throughout Federal Way. This arrangement provides labor cost savings to the City, while granting useful employment to specially-challenged individuals. SerVice is scheduled so that the Vadis crew regularly removes litter and debris from all major right of ways in Federal Way, while also assisting with Surface Water Management facility clean-up as needed during dry periods. Based on feedback provided by Public Works Maintenance Supervisors and the marked reduction of litter complaints since service inception, the work provided by Vadis has represented an excellent value. Vadis has provided similar services to the cities of Auburn, Puyallup, and SeaTac, the Sumner School District, and the King County Library System. The labor and maintenance agreement was last updated in 2004. Per the recommendation ofthe City Attorney's Office, a new labor and maintenance agreement is needed to ensure that the City's current agreement provisions are included. During a prior agreement update, the City Attorney's Office provided an opinion that this type of service is not subject to competitive bidding or prevailing wage. However, City Purchasing Policy directs that a agreement of this amount be approved by the City Council. The contractor's maximum annual compensation level 0[$50,000 will reflect a 21.4% increase over 2006 funding. Vadis will in turn provide increased staffhours and also deduct for worker absences. Funds for this service are primarily budgeted in the Solid Waste and Recycling Fund, with additional fundmg from the Surface Water Management Fund. cc: Project File K:\LUTC\2007\02-06-07 Litter Control - Vadis Memo.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 6,2007 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: S 348th Street at 1 st Avenue South Intersection Improvement Project - 30% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to proceed with design of the S 348th Street at 1st Avenue South Intersection Improvement Project and return to the Council at the 85% design completion for further reports and authorization? . COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee' MEETING DATE: January 22, 2007 CATEGORY: IZI Consent. o . City Council Business o Ordinance o Resolution' D o Public Hearing Other. STAFF ~PORT By: Marwan Salloum, P :..~ Street ~ystemsManager DEPT: Public Works ._________ Attachments: LUTC Memorandum; S348th Street at 1st Avenue S. Intersection Improvement Project - 30% design Status Report. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S. 348th Street at 1 st Avenue South Intersection Improvement Project and return to LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. 2. Do not authorize staff to proceed with finalizing the present design of this project and provide direction to staff. -.--------'" STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: . DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: {hw1... Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the February 6, 2007 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S 348th Street at 1'1 Avenue South Intersection Improvement Project and return to LUTC Committee at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: . January 22, 2007 . Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beats, City Manager . ~ . Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager~ S 348th Street at 1 st Avenue S Intersection Improvement Project -:- 30% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project will add a 2nd left-turn lane eastbound' and westbound and will add a right-turD lane southbound and westbound. The traffic signal system will be replaced to. accommodate the added lanes. Other improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalk, planter strips between the curb and sidewalk and drainage modifications. The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on this project to date. Currently, the project design is approximately 30% complete, which includes the following completed tasks: . . The Topographical Surveys · Right of Way Plan · Channelization Plans · Project Design to 30% Ongoing Tasks Include: · SEP A Submittals · Value Engineering Study (Scheduled for the week of 7 -17 -07) · Right of Way Requirements (property Appraisals, Review Appraisals, Negotiation and ~~~~ . . · Project Open house scheduled for August 2007 · Project Desigri to 85% This project is scheduled to go to bid in April 2008 with construction beginning June 2008 if grant funding from the State Transportation Improvement Board (TIE) is 'obtained. . PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design ROW Acquisition 2008 Construction Cost ( estimate) 10% Construction Contingency Construction Management TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 350,000 350,000 2,500,000 250,000 330,000 $ 3,780,000 Land Use and Transportation Committee h ' . S 348t Street @ 1 SI Ave. S Intersection Improvements January 22, 2007 Page 2 9f2 AVAILABLE FUNDING: Utility Tax (2006) REET (2004) Mitigation Interest TOTAL A V AILABLE BUDGET 432,000 79,000 177,000 30,500 $ 718,500 At this time, staff anticipates obtaining Transportation Improvement Board (Till) funds at 60% funding, . or approximately $2;268,000. IfTffi funding is approved this project budget will still have funding shortfall of $793,500. . K:\LUTC\2007\01 -22-07 S348th Street at 1st Ave S. - 30% Design Status Report.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 6, 2007 ITEM #: . CITY OF 'FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Lakehaven Utility District InterlocaI Agreement: Preliminary Engineering Services Amendment No.2 POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to enter an Amendment to the interlocal Agreement between The City of Federal Way and Lakehaven Utility District for Preliminary Engineering Services for Water: and Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Rel:;lted to Transportation and Surface Water Management Projects to extend the term to December 31, 2007, to revise the Payment, and to authorize the City Manager to approve, sign and execute all written agreements amending Paragraph III, Payments and Paragraph V, Duration? . COMMITIEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee I MEETING DATE: Jan. 22,2007 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent O. City Council Business o o Ordinance Resolution. o o Public Hearing Other STAFF REpORT' By: Marwan Salloum, S_treetBystems Manager DEPT: Public Works Attachments: L StaffLUTC Memo dated January 22,2007. 2. Draft Second Amendment between the City of Federal Way and Lakehaven Utility District. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to execute an Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between The City of Federal Way and Lakehaven Utility Distr~ct for Preliminary Engineering Services for Water and Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Related to Transportation and Surface Water management Project to extend the term to December 31, 2007, to revise the Payment, and to authorize the City Manager to approve, sign and execute all written agreements . amending Paragraph III, PaY)llents and Paragraph Y, Duration. . . . 2. . po not authorize staff to enter an Amendment to. the Interlocal Agreement between The City of Federal Way and Lakehaveh Utility District for Preliminary Engineering Services for Water arid Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Related to Transportation and Surface Water management Project to extend the term to December 31, 2007, to revise the Payment, and to authorize the City Manager to approve, sign and execute all written agreements amending Paragraph III, Payments and Paragraph V, Duration. Provide further direction to staff. STAF:F RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with Option 1. CITY MANAGERApPROV AL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ Committee . Council Council COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION: Committe.e authorizes staff to forward Option 1 to the January 2, 2007 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. . Dean McColgan, Member Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member . PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "A",tJiorize stajJto execute an Amendment to the InteT/ocal Agreement befl.1leen The City of Federal Way and Lakehaven U(ility District fo~ Preliminary Engineering Services for Water and Sanitary . Sewer Infrastructure Related to Transportation and Surface Water management Project to extend the term to December 31., 2007, to revise the Payment, and to authorize the City Manager to approve, sign and execute all written agreements amending Paragraph III, Payments and Paragraph V, Duration. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED. o DENIED o T ABLED/DEFEnREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordin(lnces only) REVISED - 0210612006 COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: January 22, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beats, City Manager . tL _ .-/' Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager ~ . Lakehaven Utility District Interlocal Agreement: Preliminary Engineering Services Amendment No.2 BACKGROUND: The Interlocal Agreement between the CitY of Federal Way and Lakehaven Utility District for Preliminary Engineering Services for Water and Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Related to Transportation and Surface Water Management Projects was executed on November 17,2005. The term of this agreement is January to December, and amended yearly. This Amendment No; 2 extends the term to December 31,2007, removes the limit ofpaytilent, removes LUD Board approval for payment and authorizes the City Manager to approve, sign and execute all written agreements amending Paragraphs ill, Payment, and V, Duration.. K:\LUTC\2007\OI-22-07 LUD ILA Preliminary Engineering Services Amendment No 2.doc SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AND LAKEHA VEN UTILITY DISTRICT FOR PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WATER AND SANITARY SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED TO . TRANSPORTAtiON AND SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS This Second Amendment ("Amendment") is dated effective this fIrst day of January, 2007 and is entered into by and between the City of Federal Way (hereinafter. "City"), and Lakehaven Utility District, (hereinafter "District"). A. The City and District entered into an Interlocal Agreement dated effective November 17, 2005. B. Paragraph VI (C) of the Agreement provided that the Agreement may only be amended by written agreement signed by the parties. . . C. The parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. Payment. Paragraph m,p A YMENT of the Agreement shall be amended as follows: A. No maximum yearly amount is established under this Preliminary Engineering Services agreement. Any preliminary engineering work requiring District reimbursement is to be performed only upon a request by the District. C. All payments shall be due from the District to the City within thirty (30) days after approval by tlte District's General Manager or hislherdesignee of said. sums. billed to the Djstrict. Amounts unpaid after said due date shall accrue interest at a rate of one (1) percent per month. 2. Term. , Paragraph V, . DURA TION of the Agreement shall be amended to extend the term of the Agreement until December 31, 2007." . 3. Written Agreement Paragraph VI, OTHER PROVISIONS. Subparagraph C, shall be amended to authorize the City Manager to approve, sign and execute all written agreements amending Paragraph ill, PAYMENT and Paragraph V, DURATION. 4. Full Force and Effect. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not modifIed by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. Page 1 of2 DATED the effective date set forth above. CITY OF FEDERALW A Y LAKEHA YEN UTILITY DISTRICT Neal J. Beets, City Manager Don Perry, General Manager 333258th.AvenueSouth PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-2401 31627 1 st Avenue South POBox 4249 Federal Way, W A 98063-4249 (253) 941-1516 APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney General Counsel, Steven H. Pritchett ATTEST: Laura K. Hathaway, CMC, City Clerk K:\CONTRAC1\200S\OS-I77b Lakehaven lLA.doc Page 2 of2 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 6, 2007 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Amendinent to Agreement between Sound Transit and City of Federal Way POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way approve amendments to the. Agreement between Sound Transi.t and the City of Federal Way to allow Sound Transitup to seven (7) years for construction:to commence . on. de~elopment of. the ~<}stern TOD site? Currently the Agreement allows five (5) years for construction to' . pOnimerice on dev,el9pmept of both the eastern and west~rntqD sites. . . ..... ,. . . . .", '.,". .I.... .... .'. ,. . , . . '.t . . COMMITTEE: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION MEETING DATE:' 1/22/07 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent tJ City Council Business . STAFFREPORTBy: PATRICK DOHERTY D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Heating:. Other ,:' ,'; :,". . DEPT: GIrt MANAGE.K,';. , . ,,", i Attachments: Proposed draft "First Amendment to the Agreement Between Central Puget Sound 'Regional '. . . Transit Authority ancithe City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit-Oriel1ted Development at the Federal Way Transit Center," . . . Summary/Background: The City and Sound Transit entered the "Agreement between Central Puget Sound. Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit Oriented Developinent at the Federal Way Transit Center" effective October 25, 2004, ("Agreement") whereby Sound Transit agreed to design and construct the Federal Way Transit Center Project and pursue development of' future Transit Oriented Development ("TaD") opportunities on the TaD Properties located to the immediate east and west ofthe Transit Center. The Agreement, and that Sound Transit would exert itsbest efforts, in consultation with the City, to obtain a qualified developer(s) to develop the TOO Properties. The Agreement provides that Sound Transit will secure a commitment from a qualified developer within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy of the Transit Center, which occurred on February 1, 2006. The Agreement also provides that Sound Transit must secure a commitment from a qualified .TaD developer to commence construction on development of the TOD Properties within five (5) years of occupancy of the Project. To date Sound Transit has secured a qualified TOD developer for the East TaD Property (a joint proposal by the Korean Women's Association/Easter Seal of Washington/Common Ground), however, the selected TOD developer requires an additional two (2) years, to the five (5) provided in the Agreement, to secure funding for, and commence construction of, its TaD proposal. The proposal is to amend the Agreement to provide Sound Transit an additional two' (2) years, for a total of seven (7) years, to commence construction on development of theTOD proposal for the East . TOD Property. The existing provision allowing for five (5) years to develop the West :rOD Property,! would remain as is. .~.. Options Considered: 1. Approve amendment to the Agreement, as proposed in attached draft "First Amendment to the Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit-Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center." . 2. Reject the proposed amendment. 3. Approve the proposed amendment with the folloWing changes: .' StAFF RECOl\1~E~D.AtION: Option 1. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Council . Council COMMiTTEE RECOMMENDATION: "] move to recommend to City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the 'Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future DeveloPTrzent oj transit-Oriented Deveiopment at" the Federal Way Transit Center. "' . ..." . = <' . ~ .. . " .',\ Compljttee Ch<l~r . Co.mmittee Member. Committee Member. . '. . : PROPOSED COUNCIL 'MOTION: ~'] move approval of th~' LUTe recommendation to approve the proposed amendment to the 'Agreement Between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Developmf!nt of Transit-Oriented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center. "' .'\:.... COUNCIL ACTION:. o AP.PROYED . o DENIED, o T ABLEDIl>:EFERREDINO ACTION . o MOVEn TO'SECOND READlNG (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/200"6 .' . (BELOW TO iJJiCOMPLETED BY ciTY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL # 1ST reading . Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESQLUTION # First Amendment to AGREEMENT BETWEEN CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AT THE . . fEDERAL WAY TRANSIT CENTER. This.FIRST AMENDMENT ("First Amendment") is made and entered into this day of by" and between the CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY' ("Sound Transit") and THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ("the City"), a municipal corporation, (collectively, the "Parties"), regarding the development of a transit center project ("Project"). RECITALS WHEREAS, The City and Sound Transit entered. into an agreement entitled "Agreement between Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and the City of Federal Way for Future Development of Transit 6ii.ented Development at the Federal Way Transit Center" effective October 25,2004, ("Agreement") whereby Sound Transit agreed todesign and construct the Federal Way Transit Center Project al-J..e.wincluding development of future Transit Oriented Development ("TaD") opportunities on the TaD Properties identifie<i in the Agreement, and that. Sound Transit would exert its best efforts, in consultation with the City, to obtain a qualified developer(s) to develop the TaD Properties; and WHEREAS. the City issued the Certificate of Occupancy for the Proiect on February 1.2006; and WHEREAS. tile Agreement provides at sections 2.1.C and 2.2 A and 2.2.B. that Sound Transit will secure a commitment .from a. qua1i:fied developer within eighteen (18) months of i.ssuance of the Certificate of Occupancy; and . WHEREAS, the Agreement provides at sections 2.l.B and 2.2.B. that Sound Transit'must secure a commitment from a. qualified TOD developer to commence constructioneevelep ofthe East TaD Property within five (5) years of occupancy of the Project, and WHEREAS, Sound Transit. has completed construction of the Project and has secured a qualified TaD developer for the East TODProperty (a joint proposal by the . Korean Women's AssociationlEaster Seal of Washington/Common Ground), however, the selected TaD developer requires an additional two (2) years, to the five (5) provided in the Agreement, to secure funding for.and commence construction of its TaD proposal; and WHEREAS, 'the Parties agree that it is in their mutual best interests to allow an additional two (2) years (to 2013) for the selected TOD developer to develop the East TaD Property; and WHEREAS, the -parties also agree that if the proposed development does not proceed as scheduled,' Sound Transit will not have secured the commitment from a qllalified develo-per within eighteen (18) months and will, therefore, convey the East TaD Property to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration ofthe covenants and assurances set forth herein, it is mutually agreed as follows: 2 Section 1. Amend Section 2~1.B of the Agreement Sound Transit and the City agree to amend Section 2.1.B of the Agreement by replacing the Section in its entirety as follows: B.. . Sound Transit shall exert its best efforts, in consultation with the City, to obtain a qualified developer(s) who will develop the West TaD Property within five (5) years and the East TaD Property within five (5) seven (7) years of occupancy of the Project, consistent with Sound Transit's adopted policies for TaD development. In the eVent that Sound Transit determines, in its sole judginent; that a qualified TaD developer cannot be obtained through these good faith efforts, Sound Transit shall prepare and issue a Request for Proposals C'RFP"), at its sole expense and in consultation' with the City, for development of the TaD Properties consistent with all applicable federal, state and local .' .. policies and regulations and at lease twelve (12) months prior to the anticipated occupancy ofthe Project. Section 2. Amend Section 2.2 of the Agreement. Sound Transit and the City agree to amend Section 2.2.B ofthe Agreement by replacing the Section in its entirety as follows:' . . B. East TOD Property In the event that Sound Transit determines within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Project that it is not able to secure a commitment from a qualified developer, who will agree to develop the East TaD Property within five (5)seven ill years of occup~cy of the Project on terms .and conditions acceptable to Sound Transit in its sole judgment, Qr the developer does not commence construction of the TaD on the East TOD PropertY within five (5)seven (7) years of occupancy of the Project, Sound Transit shall convey the East Tbn Property to the City consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations for such conveyances, the terms of this Agreement, and for valuable consideration in the form of the City's assurance that any future . development ofthe East TOD Property will be consistent with the definition of TOD in this Agreement. The City shall have seven. (7) years from the. time of the conveyance to de,velop. a TOD project on the East TaD Property. The City agrees to consult with Sound Transit's Chief Executive Officer~ or designee, when reviewing proposed projects and no City-led project shall proceed unless he Or she concurs with the City that the proposed project is consistent with the definition of TOD in this Agreement which concurrence. shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If the City is unable to develop a TOD project that Sound Transit agrees is .consistent with the definition of TaD in this Agreement within seven (7) years of the conveyance to the City, the Ciiyshall either (1) retain ownership of the East TaD Property and pay Sound Transit the full market 3 value of the property as determined by a mutually selected certified appraiser, less the value of permanent utility, access, and signage easements . . over, across and through. the East TOD Property necessary for Sound Transit's continued use and enjoyment of the Project property as mutually determined by the Parties, or (2) transfer the East TOD Property back to Sound Transit at no cost to Sound Transit. In the event the City desires to develop the East TOD Property in a manner that is not consistent with the definition of TOD in this Agreement within seven (7) years of conveyance to' the City, the City shall pay Sound Transit the full market value of the property as determined by a mutually selected certified appraiser, less the value of permanent utility, access, and signage easements over, across and through the East TODProperty necessary for Sound Transit's continued use : and enjoyment of the Project property as mutually determined by the Parties. . Section ~J.. Other Provisions of the Agreement Unchanged All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain, in their entirety, unchanged. . CENTRALPUGETSOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY ("SOljND TRANSIT") CITY OF FEDERAL WAY: . Jorii M. Earl. Chief Executive Officer Neal Beets . City Manager Date Date Attest: Laura Hathaway, CMC . Approved as .to forin: Approved as to form: Patricia A. Richardson City Attorney Stephen G. Sheehy Sound Transit Legal Counsel 4 .._.._._...w....__._....__w__..__w_H_.w,w._..____.____..._.__._._____w.H_________..__._._.w_......-___.__w....__._._._....W..__.__._..___.._.._._______________.W_____._.___. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 6,2007 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: City Center SEP A Planned Action Ordinance POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council approve a SEPA Planned Action Ordinance, creating a streamlined land-use and environmental permitting process for qualifying projects within the Planned Action Area of the City Center? COMMITTEE: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION (LUTe) MEETING DATE: 1/22/07 CA TEGORY: o Consent o City Council Business 1Zl. Ordinance D Resolution. D D Public Hearing Other ~],f-\FF-;I~~~ORI BY:J~~I~~<;:~ DQ!:!~RJY___.,.-.._-.-._-_--_.-----.~-- DE:~~ CI~~_MA~~GE~__~______ Attachments:' Memo to LUTe, inc1uding"Appendix A;" draft Ordinance approving Planned Action, including "Mitigation Document." Summary/Background: 1. Please see attached Memo to LUTe. . . .w.__.._.._w_______.____.__._w~._.___...___._..__._w_______.._.__....___._._w___._____..__._.___..._._________.._..w._._.__._____.w_..._..__w__.__._.__..__'___.____..._~._.._._... STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecoplmends approval ofthe following options from the afore- mentioned "Decision Options" framework detailed in the attached Memo to LUTC: Option 1 - Adopt Planned Action Ordinance, with the following subordinate decisions: . a(i) -Accelerate the S 312 St & Pac Hwy S improvement project (CIP 01-05) to the next-year TIP. .. . . . a(ii)(l) - Pro-rata per-trip contribution is based on full projected cost of all TIP projects and CIP project 0l~05, estimated to be $~,827.00/PM Peak Hour trip. . b(iii) - Projects are exem om mitigation of Saturday traffic impacts. DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: Council . CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: COllllcil COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: "J move to recommend to City Council first reading of the Planned Action Ordinance on 2/6/07, including approval of the following options: . Accelerate the S 312 St & Pac HwyS improvement project (CIP 01-05) to the next-year T1P. . Pro-rata per-trip contribution is based on full projected cost of all TIP projects and CIP project . 01-05, estimated to be $2,827.00/PM Peak Hour trip. . Projects are exempt from mitigation of Saturdczy traffic impacts. ,,, Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move the City Center Planned Action Ordinance to second reading." - (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BiLL # 1 ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE #. RESOLUTION # ~ Federal Way DATE: TO:' VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Janliary 22, 2007 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beets, City Manager !"f:tJn patrickDoher~nomic~pment Director . City Cent~r SEPA Planned Action Ordinance POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council approve a SEPA Planned Action Ordinance, creating a streamlined land-use and environmental permitting process for qualifying projects within the Planned Action Area of the City Center? BACKGROUND Comprehensive Plan In 1995 the City Council approve'd the City's first Comprefwnsive Plan, pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA). In order to engage public involvement and input into the comprehensive planning process, the City hired consultants who conducted a process called "CityShape" that offered active. opportunities for community .input Through this input, the public expressed its preferences about the City Center that are encapsulated in the Comprehensive Plan's "City Center" chapter. Chief amorig those preferences are the following statements: . · Create an identifiable downtown that is the social and economic focus of the City; · Strengthen the City as awhole by providing.for long..term growth in employment and housing (in the City Center); . . · Promote housing opportunities close to employment; . · Support development of an extensive regional transportation system; · Reduce dependency on automobiles; · Consume less land with urban development; · Maximize the benefit of public investment ininfrastructure and services; · Provide a central gathering place for the community; and · Improve the quality of urban design for all developments. Actions to Promote City Center Development Since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the City has pursued numerous actions to ready the City Center environment for investment and/or even bffer incentives for redevelopment in fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan vision. Several of these actions are: · Allowance of five stories of wood frame construction over a concrete base, up from only four; · Substantial Zoning Code Changes, approved February 2006, to facilitate Comprehensive Plan- compliant redevelopment and remove barriers to multifamily and mixed-use development. In addition, in December 2006 the height limit for residential and mixed-use structures within the City Center Core zone was raised from 85 feet to 200 feet; · Continued City investment in substantial infrastructure'improvements in the City Center; · City engagement of the Leland Consulting Group to provide up-to-date market information to support redevelopment and a set of City Center redevelopment strategies; · City Council official commitment to consideration of public-private partnerships and concomitant creation of a $5-million City Center redevelopment fund; Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22,2007 Page 2 of 13 · Substantial marketing of the City Center redevelopment opportunities through brochure, advertising, press releases and personal contacts; AND · City Center SEPA "Planned Acti<;>n" and Environmental Impact Statement (fIS) SEPA Planned Action and EIS ". Pursuant to City Council direction, dating back to 2001 ;"the City embarked on gevelopment of a SEPA'. . "Planned Action"-aRd supporting EIS to cover the central portion of the City.Center (see attached map, "Exhibit A"), covering both City Center-Core and City Center-Frame zoning districts. State law (RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164) enables Planned Actions as a means offostering redevelopment and growth in urban centers, pursuant to the Growth Managemeot Act. Once a City completes the'. . . .. I . " ." . . ,', " . '. . '.' . reqtHred'EiS, i.t may adopt a "Planned Action Ordinance" that offers a substantially streamlined' , environme'ntalani:fland use permit review process.' . ., . . The Federal Way City Center Planned Action EIS anaiyzes the impacts from development in the City' Center "Planned Action" area over a ten-year period, as follows: -. ~ ~ I r-- USES Retail Office Lodging Residential Civic Structured Parking DEVELOPMENT "ENVELOPE" 750,000 SF 350,000 SF 600 rooms 750 uriits 100,000 SF 750 stalls . . The Federai Way City Center Planned Action Draft EIS was issued on June 26, 2006. A public hearing on the EIS was held on July 13, 2006 at the Federal Way City Hall, Council Chambers, and the associated public comment period ended on July 25, 2006: A Final EIS 'was issued on September 8, 2006. The Planned Action OrdinClnce will establish an expedited SEPA review process for development projects that conform with the Planned ActiOn EIS.Those projects will be exempt from individual, .independent SEPA review and will otherwise undergo a simpler and more expedited review for compliance with the Planned Action. Measures mitigating environmental impacts have been pre-identified in the EIS and are spelled out in the "Mitigation Document" which is an apper1dix to the Planned Action Ordinance, to be approved by City Council. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIS ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT Air Quality ~UMMARY OF IMPACTS Increased development potential may lead to increased vehicle trips (see below), leading to increased automobile-generated pollutants. EIS analysis indicates that pollutants would remain below allowable air quality standards. Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, .2007 Page 3 of 13 land Use. . ' ;: . ..~. . . r--=-----~..-'---"-------. Population, Employment and Housing Aesthetics, LighVGlare, Views, Shadow Transportation Public Services Existing land use patterns will intensify. and the mix of uses will increase to create a greater div.ersity in land wse.pattern. As vacant land is developed .and other properties see building demolition and are redeveloped, uses that are currently separated and buffered from each other will be. required to coexist in closer proximity. The potential for conflict between uses with differing activity levels will increase. . Over time, the scale of buildings will increase as new development occurs and building heights are maximized c;llong with density. In some areas there will be a more marked tralilsitionbetween.older, low~scale buildings and newer, taller buildiriQS wquld .be likely. ", Future residential and employment populations will increase. -- The visual character of the project area will change over time from that of a typicallow"scale, commercial center to a more intensive, midrise and highrise mixed-use centeL . . Light generated from traffic, streetlights, parking lots and buildinGs wOljJd increase as a resultofredeveloprnent: There is potential 'for increased glare from reflective building surfaces. . . . Development of new high- and midrise buildings could result in decreased views for the remaining lowrise puildings located near these sites and from public rights-of-way. There is potential for increased shadow. impacts from tall€)r bl,Jildings, especially noticeable at e>.<isting iowrise sites. No significant public spaces are anticipated to be shaded. The Planned Action analyzes likely development over a ten-year period, with a total of 2,727 additional PM peak hour trips distributed throughout the City roadway system by 2009 (or the at such time. as the equivalent development is realized) and a total of up to 5,097 PM peak hour trips distributed throughout the city roadway system by2014 (or the at such time as the equivalent development is realized). .. In the unmitigated condition, this additional level of PM .peak hour trips would congest several intersections to level of service F. As a consequence, all of the projects slated for th.eCity's Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) are recommended to be constructed, plus two additional mitigation projects: · Add 2nd northbound L turn lane at S 31 ih/Pac Highway · Optimize signal timing at S 3361h/Pac Highway (See expanded summary below regarding transportation impacts and mitigation.) '. Greater employment and residential population will result in marginally greater need for police, fire, and parks services. No significant, unmitigable impacts are foreseen. Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22,2007 Page 4 of 13 Utilities . . ~ Mitiqation : ,ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENT . , Air Quality . Land Use Aesthetics,.UghUG lare, Views, Shadow. Transportation Public Services Utilities Lakehaven Utility District indicates that it will have available capacity to provide domestic water and sanitary sewer service to the CityCenter under the entire Planned Action growth scenarios, including the marginally greater population associated with taller multifamily. structures. Increased demand for energy and telecommunications services will also result, but not to si nificant levels. i: SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES, -- Short-term: . Construction impacts can be mitigated through best practices to reduce . fllgitive dust; sLich as spraying water; minimizing vehicle travel or speed on unpaved surfaces; minimizing track-out of mud onto streets;covering soil piles; avoiding work dUring.high winds; plus PSCAA permitting of other activities such:a:s.bu'rning debris~:etc. .... . Lonq-term: No' mitigation measures required. Existing development standards are intended to mitigate height, bulk and scale, and desigri impacts. HoWever, continued vigilance of these impacts and the potential need for development standard changes should be performed. Continued use of the Community Design Guidelines al'ld process: Increased building height will be.in association with pedestrian amenities and/or open space at street level. . . See more expanded summary below. . . Coordinate with Federal Way Police and South King County Fire District n_ durjng design, construction and operation of future development to ensure reliable emergency access. Also provide advanced notice of construction- .related street closures, blockages, etc. . Coordinate with Federal Way Parks and Recreation to identify opportunities for increased recreational open space in the project area. In addition, . commercial projects seeking greater height will be required to provide on-site plaza space. Reduce public safety impacts through observance. to "Crime Prevention Throuqh Environmental Desiqn" quidelines. Ensure that new development comply with local, state and federal standards for energy conservation. Strive for drought-tolerant landscaping in new developmeht. Encourage new development to incorporate appropriate water conservation measures, such as recyclinq. Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 5 of 13 . Expanded Summary of Transportation Impacts and MitiQation Impacts (Please s,eeAppendix A for a detailed discussion of transportation impacts and mitigation.) . '. . The EIS arialyzes traffic conditions durIng the peak homs of weekday morning, weekday evening, and Satmday in.2009 for three alternative land use assumptions. The Planned Action . horizon year for total build-out of the land use assumptions is forecasted to be 2014. Additional trips from the 2009 to 2014 projec.ted land usedevelopn'1~htare forecasted for the three altefIlative land u~~ 'assumptions for the peak hours of.weekday morning, weekday evening; and. Saturday, but not anaiyzed at the intersection-specific level. It is difficult to accurately predi~t the 'an1o,"unt oflari~ use development that will be complete.~y 2014; therefore, staffwill complete a reality checko.fthe land use development against the 2009 EIS .projections each year following 2009? with tpe 6-year TIP analysis to addre$s/target any,future impacts for increased vehicle trips. . For the period 2004-2009 the projected traffic voll.Jmes can he summarized in the following table: '. . . Summary of Peak Hour Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center (2004-2009) II' I . .' II' I . .' II' I . 'illii:@ ~ ~ ~arum ~ F 7i\lvHpe,a.~~~~ll 2;Qf"a~ 1.1.. "1;;2~ Jftf .~.mTIff(j~'YP~~~I.~l5j:E1'3),~I[___L~&t6, J~j...-~~8H), I. (1j~k3;~ .'~/Pll7li;p.eaK"'l'I!lu!L__~~;\:t6Q"'F"I'::J~?F__ 2~1'L~~1~ z;::922: ",....-:1l1L'=%.5,._.,~?l-2..". For the period 2009-20 14 additional traffic volumes would be generated, as summarized In the following table: . Summary of Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center 2010-2014) I~~. ...r~ls~"'] '~~~i; r':.;~~rl ~~-==---.--J~c"1'11ll'\9J1:~f1r~!F~t..~ q.ll g:-19~11'Q73t''''',J!flI IrfL 2~?I-, ~ ~~~l'MaYNe,a~llB.r ".., :=J~-'-:4~,3?'!2~5~~i__ 2~o.3i~2fQt)2'W ~1tP--- ~3iN ---.J ~Ji)"e'"~g-;~OUL-__~~/'i''l,~f2~~4L3ir.U~''=:JL_ 2~R6J'~Z&:7(Jl',,^ ._-11______ ir~9~,"'!'!r;'!'\'" _----.-J Alternative 3 (No Planned Action) As one can see, even Altemative 3 (No Planned Action) would result in increased traffic volumes over the existing conditions in all three periods (AM, PM and Saturday). Analysis of the traffic conditions in this scenario yielded several intersections that would exceed the City's level of service staridards for those periods, with resulting proposals to mitigate those conditions. All Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 6 of i3 mitigation measures .considered for this Alternative are subsumed irito the mitigation scenarios considered for both Alternative 1 and 2, the Planned Action Alternatives, which are summarized below. Alternatives j and 2 {Planned Action) For the P1ll"Poses of summary, Alternative 1 wili be discussed in this summary as well as in. .' 'Appendix A. Aiternative 1 proposes a slightly greater ntlmber; of PM Peak Hour trips apd;as such, is inchlsive of Alternative 2, . , : .' The following table summarizes the traffic op~rations by 2009 as. a result of Alternative 1. It is important to hote that all currently programmed TIP projects are assumed.to be completed in. this analysis. You will note that those LOS or V olurrie/C~pacity ~atio figures that would exceed: 'City'standards are highlighted in bold. . . \ 2009 Alternative 1 Intersection Operations - ~s 31~.~& _~aclj\ioM'My._~ r~t S 312 ~t & 28 AV! $, ~;P~$ 316 8t &faactflfS. MWM ~ Flit1r~~ 320 $1 &: 21 fA", SW ~~~~3:2~~~1IAv $, ~?3i40__$~~~.a((ilflG MINX S ~ S. 320 ~t & 26}\V S . Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 7 of 13 II II II r((l.~7i: lr -11Jr lr- 11 Ir ;,~ > 2"il1AV: sw ~_~.all\ $;1 & '~a€jficl;;twy S I ;g~. SYM 3.4ID St &140:~ 'ERE! SW lit $W(tlal'tliIl!,\;J;~IDJl & l' ~v: $ ~4. ~'3~PS^t~~DifiB MWM S ~W 3.$.Q '$t.& ,2~' IAI/: SW . ~6,S. 3B.6 St &~adfl$ 'Icl\ S 2'" S. 35.6> St& 'Et1omarnted?k\MY'S . . . . ' ,PM Peak Hour .' . ' . Five intersections wOl,lld be projected to exceed in the PM Peak Hour, namely: . . 8 272 8t & Pacific Hwy 8 8 272 8t & 1-5 southbound ramp 8 272 8t & Military Rd 8 8312 St & Pacific Hwy 8 8 336 8t & Pacific Hwy 8 Mitigation for these conditions, in addit~on to the currently programmed TIP projects, would be warranted for two of these intersections, as follows: S 312 8t & Pacific HwyS - Add a 2nd northbound left-turn lane (currently identified as CIP project 01-05). The City Council options would be to consider accelerating this project from the eIP to the 6-year TIP. . S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S - Optimize the signal timing. (In fact, this optimization has already been accomplished.) AM Peak Hour Two intersections would see increased traffic volumes that 'could exceed City level of service standards: 8272 8t & 1-5 northbound ramp 8 272 8t & Military Rd 8 . However, no mitigation is warranted. Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance . January 22,2007 Page 8 of 13 Saturday Peak Hour Four intersections would see increased traffic volumes that could exceed City level of service' . standards: S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S S320St&20AvS S 320St & 23 Av S Mitigation for these conditions, in addition to the currently programmed TIP projects, would take the form of the following projects: S 316 St & Pacific. Hwy S - eastbound right turn lahe (rSM 12) S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S - northbound right turn lane S 320 St & 20 A v S - southbound and northbound right turns lanes (TSM 2) . Two options for this project were considered: 1) one option deviates from City standard by placing the sidewalk behind the proposed new retail pad to be constructed at the comer of 320 St and 20 A v at a cost of $1 ,550,000; 2) wh.ileanother option places the sidewalk per the City standard, requiring removal of this new building at an e.stimated cost of , $4,199,000. S 320 St &- 23 Av S -- add second northboundrightturn lane (TSM 3) It should be noted that mitigation for Saturday impacts has typically not been sought by the City of Federal Way (with some rare exceptions). Pursuit of such mitigation would entail a policy shift from standard practice. Bowever, in the'summary ofniitigation costs, presented below; Saturday mitigation costs will also be offered for consideration. . . Traffic Impact Mitigation Scenarios Off-Site Improvements PM Peak Hour As mentioned previously, all the currently programmed TIP projects were assumed to be completed during the Planned Action time horizon. Only one additional mitigation project (21ld northbound left-turn lane at S 312 St and Pacific Hwy S - CIP 01-05) would be required to mitigate the PM Peak Hour traffic impacts. For this reason, one way of effecting mitigation is to ,- require that individual development projects contribute on a pro-rata basis to these transportation projects. Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 9 of 13 F our scenarios are presented here: ,Scenario 1: All costs of TIP projects and CIP 01-05. This results in at:l assessment of $2,827.00 per PM Peak Hour trip (using the Alternative 1 traffic impacts). Scenario 2: All costs of TIP projects and CIP 01-05 MINUS funds secured and awarded by grants. This results in an assessment of $2,325.00 per PM Peak Hour trip. Scenatio 3: A City Council-selected assessment per PM Peak Hour trip. Sc~nario 4:No mitigation assessment. In order to understand how the two monetary mitigation assessments would impact development projects, and a comparison with near-by cities, see the following table: Proiect FW Scenario 1 FW Scenario 2 Des Moines Auburn Renton* 50,000 SF Shopping '~~r $ 180,221.25 $148,218.75 $ 150,035.63 $244,500.00 $ 54,748.50 200~unit Condo $ 294,008.00 $241,800.00 $ 244,764.00 $407,262.00 $ 87,900.00 50,000 SF Office $210,611.50 $173,212.50 $ '175,335.75 $303,500.00 $ 41,287.50 *It should be noted that Renton has stated that its traffic impact mitigation fees are outdated, and the City intends to revise these fees in 2007. Other near-by cities that do nothecessarily use mitigation fees (e.g., Kent and such large cities as Tacoma and Seattle) require individual project proponents to engage their own transportation consultants to produce often lengthy and expensive Transportation Impact Assessments (if not EIS's), with project-specific mitigation unknown until the conclusion ofs:uch studies and the consequent decision-making. by city staff. As a result, developers o:ften have no idea what level of mitigation may be required of them until after considerable expenditure and many months' wait. Saturday Peak Hour . As mentioned previously, four mitigation projects have been identified to mitigateSaturday Peak Hour impacts if mitigation is chosen to be applied to Saturday impacts. Three basic scenarios can be considered for mitigating Saturday Peak Hour impacts: Scenario 1: Require developers to pay the full costs of four required mitigation projects as they are not currently programmed in the City's TIP. Total costs for all projects range from Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 10 of 13 $6,465,000 to $8,385,000, depending on the specific aligruTIent ofthe S 320 St & 20 Av S project. Any particular development's mitigation burden cannot be determined at thjs time,. since partial or total project construction may be required for any of the four projects, depending.on the size, location and timing of a development project. Scenario 2: Assess developers for only. the pro..,ratil share of the Cost of these four miti'gation projects, based on a project's specific impacts. This. scenario requires that the City bear the cost of funding the majority of the costs associated with these projects. Per-trip rates would range from $253 to $306, depending on the specific alignment of the S no St & 20 A v S project. Scenario 3: Exempt Saturday traffic mitigation, as is the more common practice. AM Peak Hour No :mitigation is warranted or required. Other Mitigation Measures As detailed in Appendix A, individual development projects will be reviewed during the permitting process and other mitigation measures, aimed at addressing transportation impacts and/or providIng needed infrastructure, will be considered. Many of these measures are already required by City code provisions, such as frontage improvements, grid roadway contributions, transportation-demand measures, etc. These mitigation measures fall into the following categories: . On-si~e hnprbvements . Non-Motorized Mode Improvements . Grid Roadway Development . Right-of-WayDedication . Transportation Demand Management . Neighborhood Traffic Control . Parking PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE Attached you will find a draft of the Ordinance adopting the SEP A Planned Action and establishing the qualifications and review procedures for projects within the Planned Action area . that would be able to benefit from the Planned Action EIS and streamlined project-review provisions. RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197-11-164, 168 and 172 provide the statutory framework for applying and adopting Planned Action Ordinances, and the draft Ordinance follows each of those provisions' requirements. Below is a summary of the Ordinance's chief Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 11 of13 provisions: Section 1:. This Section states the purpose for the Ordinance, being chiefly to. streamline and expedite land use permit review processes for projects that fulfill Comprehensive Plan objectives within designated Urban Centers, pursuant to the Growth Management Act. .; " Section 2, This Section provides the City's findings of fact regarding the legal and policy- framework for pursuing a Planned Action Ordinance, the adoption of the EIS and a statement. . that it 'has ,adequately identified arid addressed the probaple, significant, adverse impacts and provided corresponding mitigation measures. Section 3. This Section provides the procedures and criteria for evaluating and determining which projects will qualify as Planned Actions. Chi.ef among the quaiifications are: ~ The project is located in the :Planned Action area; . · The proj ect' s impacts were addressed iIi the EIS; · The project fits within the overall Development Envelope contemplated by the Planned Action; · One-story builqings of less than 16,000 square feet and re-use of existing one-story blliidings of any size will not qualitY as Planned Actions; o The project would create no impacts in excess of those contemplated for each element of . the environment analyzed inthe EIS; and · The project fits within the anticipated time horizon of the EIS as adopted or amended; This Section also provides the review criteria that spell out how the City staff 'will determine compliance with SEP A regulations. Essentially, if a project is found to comply with the Planned ActIon criteria, it will be deemed as having already fulfilledSEP A compliance, and no additional SEPA analysis or declsion-makirig will be required. This means that project applicants will essentially be unburdened from both the expense and process of SEP A environmental analysis, the unpredictability of potential mitigation measures, and the risk of SEPA appeals. , . This Section also clarifies that all other permit processes required for a particular project will continue to be applicable in substance and procedure. Mitigation measures associated with those pemlit processes (design review, or other code-mandated mitigation) will continue to be applicable.. If a project does not qualify as a Planned Action, it may still benefit from the environmental analysis in the Planned Action EIS through incorporation or adoption. Section 4 requires that periodic monitoring be performed of the Planned Action projects, EIS and need for Ordinance amendment. Section 5 stipulates that in the event of conflicts with other regulations, this Ordinance shall prevail. Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 12 of 13 Sections 6 and 7 are severability and effective date, respectively. . Attached to the Ordinance are the Planned Action Area map and the "Mitigation Document," referred to in the Ordinance at Section 3.E. The "Mitigation Document" contains those mitigation measures identified in the EIS for each element of the environment and summarized in this report. Mitigation measures identified in the "Mitiga~ion Document" will have been . incorporated into Planned Action projects in order to: qualify for Planned Action status. No additional SEP A mitigation measures will be applicable. . DECISION OPTIONS . The following is a summary of the decision points for City Council consideration: 1. Adopt the Planned Action Ordinance with the following subordinate decisions: a. PM Peak Hour Mitigation 1. Accelerate the S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S improvement project{CIPOI- 05) to the next-year TIP; as identified in the EIS. Yes or No. 11. Developers cumulatively pay all costs associated with all TIP projects and CIP project 01-05 identified in the EIS, using a pro-rata, per-trip monetary contribution based on a calculation of each project's incremental contribution to the traffic volumes. Yes or No. i. Pro-rata per-tfipcontribution is based on full projected cost of all TIP projects and CIP project 01-05, estimated tobe $2,827.00/PM Peak Hour trip. 2. Pro-rata per-trip contribution is based on full projected cost of all TIP projects aildCIP project 01-05, MINUS secured and awarded grant funding, ~stimated to be $2,325.00/PM Peak Hour trip. 3. Pro-rata per-trip contribution is $-"PM Peak Hour trip. b. Saturday Peak Hour Mitigation 1. Developers cumulatively pay all costs associated with the four transportation improvements projects identified in the EIS as potential mitigation for Saturday Peak Hour mitigation. Yes or No. 1. S 320 St & 20 A v S project is designed with sidewalk to meander onto Commons site behind future commercial paq - estimated Memo to LUTC Planned Action Ordinance January 22, 2007 Page 13 of 13 cost: $2,279,000, or 2. S 320 St & 20 A v S project is designed with standard City cross- section (requiring removal of proposed building) -estimated cost: $4,199,000. 11. Developers pay pro:..rata, per-trip monetarY contribution towards these four mitigation projects; based on a calculation of each project's incremental contribution to the traffic volumes... Yes orNo. 1. Pro-rata per-trip contribution is based on alternative design of 8 320 8t & 20 Av S improvement project; resulting in per-trip fee of $253.00/Saturday Peak Hour trip. 2. Pro-rata per-trip contribution isbas.ed0n standard design of S 320 8t & 20 A v S improvement project, resulting in per-trip fee of $3 06. OO/Saturday Peak HOllr trip. 111. Projects are exempt from mitigation of Saturday traffic impacts. Yes or No. 2. Do not adopt the Planned Action Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the following options from the afore-mentioned "Decision Options" framework: Option 1 - Adopt Planned Action Ordinance, with the following subordinate decisions: e a(i) - Accelerate the S 312 St & Pac Hwy S improvement project (CIP 01-05) to the next- year TIP. ea(ii)(I) -Pro-rata per-trip contribution is based on full projected cost of all TIP projects and CIP project 01-05, estimated to be$2,827.00/PM Peak Hour trip, e b(iii) - Projects are exempt from mitigation of Saturday traffic impacts. APPENDIX A . TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION BACKGROUND' a. All city wide arterials serve the area of the planned action as well as 1-5. The. planrteq. action evaluation was not_site specific .and evaluated land use assuniptions for .the three super blqck ar~a. as shown. in the EIS. The Planned Action Ordinance and/or. Resolution:shall address provisions for individual permit applications and specific analysis for access requirements required at the time of app,lication. The roadway networks are shown in the EIS. . . . . b. Transitservices fo:r existing conditions are shown In the BIS. As part of the Pla11)1ed Action Ordinance there shall be .provisions for individual permit applicatiops to identify needs for promotion of the use of transit services. . . c. Parking for existing conditions and proposed conditions are discussed within the EIS. Eliminated spaces ate not projected as part of the Planned Action. Specific parking impacts are unknown until a development proposal is submitted. The Planned Action Ordinance aIid/or Resolution shall address provisions for evaluation Of parking and parking requirements for individual permits. ~ Existing Parking Supply by Biock2004 I~ -.-J._ -.J~ _. II" J~~ r EC - !SloeK 1 _~i~" """'?f~ !!!lereJR'?4~-"ww"= L ~l.oCK :3 __. ,---=- ----1[fNtaF---L11 -, ~ ,1 ---, ~ ~ I I - 2,96ItstaN-s 4,760 stalls 3 ,Z4'.Q~t;119L 8.,.9;qQ s.t-aU'$ Existing Parking Requirements 2004 r' ~Qb "lr'~_~,~~ I It: (?;iVt~~fuE JI.:~-"~~t;a~~ J~~ .~ sf I~ -O;,~t~t1:s, J r~- ~ITIQt~I~~__.J~___~J!1~!I!~I!'!!7::T~J~-""'''-2\3.(;):;r!;ip.tms JIi.r~-2~Q(~1aIj.s"'~ I: €)ffliee -11(. 1'1f~~ 30Q sf'" 111\li.V '3~l+~6;1r@mf~~.r' 1~1~4~ml~ I .~.., -0ttt~r . lL__1l'P.'@lL1~~Qr$Jf~~:Jr__~N5!~___JL___-1.Q_~~1!~_.-J F~~gesj~m:tiki1W1"1'!ff I.""" 1. 7;12~f unit II l!!l(i)l;J,IDJts II'! 32S staUs I ~ ~etall I~ '1QJim 3JDt9,sF 1'- r '~16~,QO~ft '~"'''''11 4f?~F7~t~lls~"~ I 1i0ta:l ~-ll M ]~t~~:_ __-=--.JIl" ~{~~~tIU~LO I Parkin.g Required for Alternatives in 2014 ~~'I(:']i1I'ffi:~lfl~rlr ." I~m;r"f.lhfl:r'" ""ll"m(:']i1it;l~lfl:Jlll. ~4r[q slaJls _J~~ 11,d~!$:fa,U~ Jr 1'1f4:~:~rsm.I.! I Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 2 of 24 d. Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-1473, Planned Action projects would not meet the exception criteria for required new streets, frontage improvements, and city center grid road requirements. Therefore, requirements ofFWCC Chapter 22 Artic1e XVI would apply to individual permits at the time of application to be covered under the Planned Action Ordinance and/or Resolution. e. The Planned Action does not occur within the vicinity of existing water, rail, or air transportation. . . . . f. The Planned Land Use Actiori vehicular trips are an~lyzed with respect to Public Works Department Development Stari.qardsand other d~partment policies, the City of Federal Way Codes, adopted CoTIiprehertsi:ve :plan policies, and mitigation measures recommended in the EIS and by the Public Warks staff. The EIS analyzes traffic conditions during the peak hours of weekday morning, weekday evening, and Saturday peak hours for year of 2009 for three alternative land use assumptions. The Planned.Action ho~i~on year for ~otal build-out of the land use assumptions is forecasted to be 2014. AddH}onaftrjps from the 2009 to 2014 projected land use development are forecasted for the'three alternative land use assumptions for the peak: hours of weekday mOJl;1ing, weekday evening, and Saturday peak: hours, but not analyzed at the intersection-.specific level. It is difficult to predict accurately the amount of land use development that will be complete by 2014; therefore, staff will complete a reality check ofthe actual land use development against the 2009 EIS projections each year following 2009, with the 6-year TIP analysis to address/target any future impacts for increased vehicle trips. In addition, at the discretion of the Public Works Department Director, supplementary environmental analysis niay be necessary to quantify further the traffic impacts out to the 2014 horizon year, to fine-tune applicable mitigation, .and/or to establish new pro-rata per-trip mitigation fees. All maj or intersections impacted by more than 10 evening peak: hour trips, or 100 trips during any other peak: hour, were preliminariiy analyzed. in a tiered approach. Intersection locations close to failure in 2009 aIid impacted by increased trips . from the planned action were selected as study intersections and further analyzed for significant or adverse impacts. The measurements of vehicle trips for the three . peak: periods analyzed are as follows: Summary of Peak Hour Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center (2004-2009) . . . ~~ ~~ ~~~ '1ilimJ ~ ~ ~ ~lmmJ ~lmmJ (W:j~~ ~ ~lmmJ~ II' P~M P..,e~~ml!l.YJL.JI~t0E8 IJ;'~"!I!1 1!f~~lJ$:--'I'''''''' -1ff~QJ'i\,.j~"'."'~-23'3 r~>l~trrrjfja-YI2~ak nO-ul! 1~~61:&1~t"*~jl:"T-4~"'~2 ,,-- 2!a16 I~_ 6~ij' I !PM Q~.a~t'l~un l~€113~tf-:J~~~~,7~7~~ J~~ ,10<2,520 ~~",,l~,L'~l;f2~~'- 2 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 3 of 24 Forecasted trips not analyzed at the intersection level are projected and expected at full build-out as follows: Summary of Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center (20tO-2014) r1Jm- o;/lJDa.r 'n.;/lJD~ ~rYlfpea~h0.ulf g,,1C~r-1mJ7f8, 9r1~1~{)i7:'0;"r<' I r.- l$~~tU.A~Ji~al<7ID1)l[li1'r:f?r 1~~~~~~2f"',,,,,,"'jrL~",,,:~~3X;i2~QP2c~l..,. ~~~~rrm~ __~l:c-aI~QQ~"';1 ~~jjt!~r' I.~ '-z--:at>1:b2.4'Z{) j,'.....- . ' . . ~ liliJ.iil ~tl,\ffi~,' 21~ i_4~'6" qJQ j ) I The EIS identified several intersections failing the City's adopted level of service standard, FWCP Policy TP16 in the year 2009 as shown in the following table. The analysis anticipated that all adopted 6-year Transportation Improvement Projects (TIP) are in place. The following pages describe each alternative, describe .each intersection location, and analyze the EIS's recommended mitigation: 3 Appendix A to Memo to l.-UTC 1/22/07 Page 4 of 24 ALTERNATIVE 3 - NO "PLANNED ACTION" Traffic Operations 2009 -~.- ~,Saturday. Peak ~ RClfT:lP 1II'f3~8\"3Lc;J"Dt<&mitttary ~eS ~"l"Si"32~!fSJf&"~a€Iifi~tn~~J s ~S 4 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 5 of 24 2009 PM Peak Hour Proposed Mitigation OVer the current TIP Alternative 3 (No Planned Action) I tf IBb.. '2~ -- -:- ., - 4 r r .11 "Z"tij " 1 II~ I_L-P IflS~(:aB2!Sl~8(!~7mfi~~Si"'H~~ IP"lltrJf~~r~Fmitjst?dion PfOl'J€>~ed ,.'a4~tf&1Ii~~~tAbmmrlK~~I~o~b91m,~jgillfion f.l.fPf2,gse.€J Il~f2r2~$.t(~~jU.~~lRtl7$r' --)~~24 I RQ,sed ItS312$t &~:fiC Mwy; $, 10 lane n~f::~~~~:left '"~1~~3~~ St &"ffi1actfi~~wy~;r- ~~~;g-~"~pt)mJ~ed signal tlmlh@~ ()!l 8 . ID (#1) S 272l1d St & Pacific Hwy S This intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 under the City's Comprehensive'Plan. This intersection is nnder the jurisdiction of the City of Kent. The City of Kent applies the State's standard to designations of Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) and exempts this intersection from concurrency standards. SR99 is designated as a HSS. No . mitigation is proposed for this intersection. ID (#2) S 272l1d St & 1-5 Southbound Ramp This intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 unqer the City's Comprehensive Plan. This intersection is under the junsdiction of the City of Kent. The city of Kent applies the State's standard to . designations of HSS and National Highways of Significance (NliS) and exempts this intersection from concurrency standards. The 1-5 ramp is designated ~s a HSS and NHS. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. ID (#4) S 272l1d St & Military Rd S This intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 under the City's Comprehensive Plan' as targeted in the City Center Planned Action. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of King County. King County requires mitigation of intersections that receive thirty trips in an hour, twenty percent ofthe proposed new trips, and exceeds LOS F. Less than two percent of the proposed project trips access the King County intersection. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. 5 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 6 of 24 ID (#8) S 312th St & Pacific Hwy S This intersectian wauld fail the adapted City afFederal Way LOS standards in 2009 under the City's Camprehensive 'Plan. The EIS identifies the need fo.r the transpartatian impravement praject adapted in the 20-year Capital Impravement Plan (CIP). Mitigation options in summary for Council Selection . Option 1: Accelerate the programming af this project to. the 2007 . - 2013 6-year TIP where ptarata share applicatians wauld apply to. help fund the praject. . Option 2: Exempt the intersectian fraIP cancurrencyand LOS . standards as the intersectian is an the State designated HSS af SR99. No. mitigatian ar impravements wauld be required. ID (#21) S 336th St &, Pacific Hwy S This intersectian wauld fail the adapted City af Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 under the City's Camprehensive Plan. The signal . timing was aptimized in the analyses bringing the intersectian under the threshalds,af exceeding the City LOS standards, No. mitigatian is praposed for this intersection: . 2009 AM Peak Hour Proposed Mitigation over the current TIP Alternative 3 (No Planned Action) GJ~ ~ 11$,1'41~$t~'tt5~f'j,nlirRe~umelPfRar:m~"'F' ~"U 2 St.& Mal itatty, IRd S ~r~,""",,~ 1~~11~&;8W 1'~)6Tm:I~i~,il}'!~n~Qo.~tldr~ -, __m f'!ill rn,j,tig@;tlpl'l :12F(j1.li?p.~~(j!, ID (#3) S 2721H1 St & 1-5 Northbound Ramp This intersection fails the City 6fFederal Way LOS standards in 2009 if LOS threshalds are applied to. the AM peak haur. The City palicy has been to. carrect intersectian deficiencies that present an adverse and significant impact from increased trips by develapment. This intersectian is also. under the jurisdiction af the City afKent. The City afKent applies the State's standard to. designatians af 6 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/0J Page 7 of 24 . HSS and NHS and exempts this intersection from concurrency standards. The 1-5 ramp is designated as a HSS and NHS. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. . ID (#4) S 272nd St & Military Road S This intersection fails the City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 if LOS thresholds are applied to the AM peak hour The City policy has been to correct intersection deficiencies that present an adverse and significant impact from increased trips by development. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of King County. King County requires mitigation of intersections that receive thirty trips . . in an hour, twenty percent of the. proposed new trips, and exceeds LOS F. Less than two percent ofthe proposed project trips access the King County . . intersection. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. 200g,Saturday Peak Hour Propos~d Mitigation over the current TIP Alternative 3 (No Planned Action) __oune! atild no right tum . 2) ID (#14) S 320th St & 20th Av S This intersection fails the City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 if LOS thresholds are applied to the Saturday peak hour. . . This alternative proj ects 154 trips to this intersection. The E1S offers as potential mitigation new southbound and northbound right turn lanes for the Saturday Peak Hour only. This improvement project was also identified as a need in the PM peak hour in the year 2030 as part of the City Center Access Study. Mitigation options in summary for Council Selection Mitigation options are presented in the EIS, with additional options added below by staff. 7 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 8 of 24 II Option 1: Because of the impacts to the new retail pads at the Commons at Federal Way site, a deviation from the City standard road cross-section is suggested that would relocate the sidewalk to meander onto the Commons site with the acquisition of a sefarate easement The sidewalk would not front the roadway of 201 Ave S, therefore avoiding a right-of-way acquisition impact to the new businesses currently scheduled fot construction in 2007. This option would add both a southbound and northbound right turn lanes. Total cost of.the improvement is estimated to be $1,550,000. II Option 2: This option would use the City standard full roadway cross-section and would impact a new buUding structure scheduled for construction in i007. This option involves the construction of the northbound and southbound right turn.lanes and purchases the new business on the south west comer of the intersection. Total cost of this improvement is estimated to be $4;199,000. .' . NOTE: Typically proiata share calculations. have not applied to a Saturday pe(,l.k hour triggered project. Mitigation of Saturday iinpacts through either option would create a policy implementation change for a Saturday-developed TIP. A per trip Gost is calculated for both cost scenarios above in the. Mitigation Summary. II Option 3: Conversely, the City Council could choose to forego applying mitigation for Saturday peak hour impacts and defer . evaluation of this improvement need to coincide with the related PM peak hour impacts that would trigger similar mitigation. In (#15) S 320th St & 23th Av S This intersection fails the City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 if the LOS standard is applied to the Saturday peak hour. 162 trips are projected for this intersection. The mitigation offered in the EIS would add a second northbound.right-tum lane. To provide this would require acquisition at the southeast comer of the intersection and reconstruction of a large retaining wall. This improvement project was also identified as a need in the PM peak hour in the year 2030 as part of the City Center Access Study. Mitigation options in summ~ry for Council Selection Mitigation options are presented in the EIS, with additional options added below by staff. 8 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 9 of24 II Option 1: The cost to constmct the proposed mitigation is estimated at $1,003,000. This option proposed to constmct the second northbound right turn lane. NOTE: Typically prorata share calculations have riot applied to a Saturday peak hour triggered project. Mitigation of Saturday impacts through either option would create a policy implementation change for a Saturday-developed TIP. A pet trip cost is calculated for both cost scenarios above in the Mitigation Summary; II Option 2: Conversely, the City Council could choose to forego applying mitigation for Saturday peak hour impacts and defer c:valuation of this improvement need to coincide with the related PM peak hour impacts that would trigger. similar mitigation. PLANNED ACTION ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 is shown because of higher vehicular trips r~tes. Alternative 2 had similar outcomes in the analysis. In order not to be duplicated, Alternative 1 is presented. 2009 Alternative 1 . Intersection Operations .~ I I~\~I.~~-:' . -,:.II'I.:.r:m~_ <. ('O.6.1m"{!"RV.I~ <nm~~~~~ ~~Ii~~~~E:Q~LJ~~IiEPf7~'" ;~61m~ J 1.0;O~ [_ Q lr"'01~J n;~_: ba n@rtRooumd ~0~t__E I I @ J~ .~ Sf2721l'$t &rIV1JntarwIRCI;S1~' l~~li"~1 11.2~ II 1i~1i mO~.~Il1>,,",~r-O{lD3 Br"""'$;f28'8t~t & ~aGiftB 1d\M'l S l~<~<~=.J.Qha~.~~ Ili'-~ I~~ii'''" r;6rs~~'$$tljr$t~ l'l11'illt~~'m S~' -11:f\o e~WQ.L~ I.... 11--' I~ 1.--' . ~;"~~"l!l~sFlf~~j/lttt~~ti1[~lfj~'f;;lwM JDD c=J ~ Sr3';2?"'Si4&~Ri>aeif1.e !dwM S -JPE4~ IIZ.~r- 11 J "Qf~9~ _ & 28/A'l S Ir'.'O:.6ffiJr-~ lr 1 r" I i 1;@~S"3H3.fSt",&7j~a~J:fic.~ S J. 11"--"-'. j~-1U':c",,,,Er. lP"l:"oa ! ~y\ziT32Q7$JJl&12.'~'til"'$\lV{")", ~ -111lP"~ l-=--.J.(o/"e)~~~~~~ lti"- . j ~Sr:320]'$t &!>1!1'"J.X\7 $1''' l~~~Ifro*~~~~0J'!~1 Q~8!1~ Ir~r- 1.~0198 I ~ 3~(!) $t &,~acfn~,J.;l~M $. J~~.~~' ~I' I~Jj~'~:P6L I rt~:'!!W$i"'"d20;~Sl &'1:2(;) flAv $ - J~-:::JL I. ~~ IIr'::L~.~lJro~ 1i~,:~~e.Gl!$l~-,-~'3 ~}!'-~;. < ____._~~ID _Jt:@~"lG <Ji II 1~~i'li\~~LJ ~~:~~{$ ,__~~iSD:U1~O' .CJk-.Y'\ .IH3. [_: JfQ,72 l[ € JrO.9:2 I 9 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 10 of24 '~D I ~~RJ;1~P0196i!"'"l" 1~~.~r8'h7'~1 It@~~~f~lrSt~&'~llAv, s,YliL _~r;&...,.r~~f!:lr Ir Ib Dj'15~~~)r$mli~tBe iH~ S . Ir'I~~UL~~~A.~~::rri" . ~;~~SW;3'~1f),Sft~im.0~!~~~SWi'~- f~rO:a3J lir-cs:r I . ~.;>f' .~ !trm5~ .. I ~~9W~i!,;rn~Y$i ~~ 1')i~~ sr"''' 1" Iro~~~~., Ilr I. -1.- D~s 3.'4!3~s.tC&"Iii!~~j~~~~ ::>i~~ ~~~l1J!3f) lr'.i -"''1'' Ill"" II~- E~, SWr;3~,t) St & 21; A.v SVN .~I'~:ir '~:'8~ 1'- 111;- I~ l~ t4€i~$r35:6 ~V;&71f'a:-6ffj~Wlwy ~,,,", JI ~ I~::att~r I~ lk Ih- " '., . ~7!:rS"dl5J)}"Sti"&1'aJ!\'f$nafil~eaWK~f:5t 1~J!JI.,{iH~~ jr' flf;;t.~~~~ I~ 2009 PM Peak Hour. Proposed Mitigation over current TIP :Dr lD (#1) S:n2ml S(& Pacific Hwy S This intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 under Alternative 1, as it failed with Alternative 3. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the City of Kent. The City of Kent applies the. State's standard. to Highways of Statewide Significance (HSS) and exempts this intersection from concurrency standards. SR99 is designated as a HSS. No mitigation IS proposed for this intersection. ID (#2) S 272m! St & 1-5 Southbound Ramp This intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in . 2009 under Alternative 1, as it failed with Alternative 3. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of the City of Kent. The City of Kent applies the State's standard to designations of HSS and National Highways of Significance (NHS) and exempts this intersection from concurrency standards. The 1-5 ramp js 10 AppendiA A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 11 of24 designated as a HSS and NHS. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. Therefore, no mitigation is required. ID (#4) S 272nd St & Military Rd S 1'4is intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 under Alternative 1, as it failed with Alternative 3 (Existing Comprehensive Plan land use for City Center) as targeted in the City Center Planned Action. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of King County. King County requires mitigation of intersections that receive thirty trips in an hour, twenty percent of the proposed new trips, and exceeds LOS F. ~ess than two percen.t of the proposed project trips access the King County intersection. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. ID (#8) S 312th St & Pacific Hwy S This intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 under Alh~mative 1, as it failed with Alternative 3: The EIS identifies the .needlor the improvemeritproject adopted in the 20-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mitigation options in summary for Council $e'ectioll . Option 1: Accelerate the programming o[this project to the 2007- .2013 6-year TIP where prorata share applications would apply to help fund the project. . Option 2: Exempt the intersection from concurrency and LOS standards as the intersection is on the State designated HSS of .. SR99. No' mitigation .or improvements would be .required. ID (#21) S 336t!1 St & Pacific Hwy S This intersection would fail the adopted City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 under Alternative 2 and failed with Alternative 3. The signal timing was optimized in the analysis bringing the intersection tinder the thresholds of exceeding the City LOS standards. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. 2009 AM Peak Hour Proposed Mitigation over current TIP ~.....~..'..,. ,. . Ir:=~.., .0110.1 ~~ ' mDRZ[]~. . r~~VS1(~tIB5'!'nortI11POqlil{:j~al'ml'L..J~1e 1~l.D~Ol~l~gft!ionJ2liQRC1s.ed -J 11 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 12 of24 ~;'\\~R'4'i"2"!fs:tt"&1'1'Vl~r:~~~F'.'<' ~.m''''I'l~rQ~~j!~jit)'m~lQfcI;~~IJ;. ID (#3) S 2720d St & 1-5 Northbound Ramp This intersection fails the City of F edenil Way LOS standards in 2009 if LOS thresholds are applied to the AM peak hour. Additionally, this intersection also failed under Alternative 3. This intersection is 'also under the jurisdiction of the City of Kent. The City of KeI1t applies the State's standard to designations ofHSS and NHS and exempts this int~rsectjon from concurrency;standards. The 1-5 ramp is designated as a HSS and NHS. No Il).itiga~ion is proposed for this intersection. If.) (#4) S 2720d 8t & Military Road S This intersection fails the City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 if LOS thresholds are applied to the AM peak hour. Additionally, this intersection also failed under Alternative 3. This intersection is under the jurisdiction of King County. King County requires rriitigationof intersections that receive thirty trips in an hour; tWenty percent of the proposed new trips, and exceeds LOS F. Less than two percent of the proposed project trips, access tl}e King County intersection. No mitigation is proposed for this intersection. 2009 Saturday Peak Hour. Proposed Mitigation over current TIP rJ,-- ~Irn(~~~~:m"llllre ~~3?l'6 S;t'&W!1l~~ItI~ s 1tt'3~ee~ors.t\8m~~61;FI~tTIW,y S:"1W G ('8;20 Av S ID (#10) S 316th St & Pacific Hwy S This intersection fails the City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 if LOS thresholds are applied to the Saturday peak hour. Alternative 1 projects 771 trips to this intersection. The analysis offers for consideration a new eastbound right turn lane to mitigate the Saturday Peak Hour impacts only. This improvement project was also identified as a need in the PM peak hour in the year 2030 as part of the City Center Access Study. 12 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 13 of24 Mitigation options in summary for Council Selection , ' ." Mitigation is presented in the EIS, with an additional option added below by staff. . ..... .. . · Option 1: This option proposes.to construct the eastbound right turn lane. The cost to construct the proposed mitigation is estimated at $717,000. NOTE: Typically prorata share calculations have not applied to a Saturday peak hour. triggered proj ect. Mitigation of Saturday impacts through either option would create a policy implementation change for a Saturday-developed TIP. A per trip cost is calculated for both cost scenarios above in the Mitigation Summary. · Option 2: . Thi~ option would exempt the LOS standard for Saturday peak hour and defer evaluation of an improvement need to coincide with the PM peak hOlir. . . ID (#13) S 320th St & Pacific Hwy S This intersection fails the City of Federal WayLOS standards in 2009 if LOS thresholds are applied to the Saturday peak hour. Alternative 1 proje'cts trips 1246 to this intersectIon. The analysis offers for consideration a new northbound right turn lane for the Saturday Peak Hour only. Mitigation is presented in the EIS, with an additional option added below by staff. . Mitigation options in summary for Council Selection' Mitigation is recommended in the EIS, with an additional option added below by staff. · Option 1: This option proposes to construct the northbound right turn lane. The cost to constructthe proposed mitigation is estimated at $729,000. NOTE: Typically prorata share calculations have not applied to a Saturday peak hour triggered project. Mitigation of Saturday impacts through either option would create a policy implementation change for a Saturday-developed TIP. A per trip cost is calculated for both cost scenarios above in the Mitigation Summary. 13 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 14 of24 · Option 2: This option would not apply mitigation for the Saturdaypeak hour impacts and defer evaluation of an improvement need to coincide with the PM peak hour. In (#14) S '320th St & 20th Av S This intersection fails the City of Federal Way LOS standards in 2009 if LOS thresholds are applied to the Saturday peak hour. This intersection fails for . Alternative 1 and also failed in Alternative. 3. . ': Alternative 1 projects 513 trips to this intersection. The'analysis offers for conSIderation new southbound and northbound right turn lanes for the Saturday Peak Hour only. This improvement project was also identified as a need in the PM peak hour in the year 2030 as part of the City Center Access Study. .. , Mitigatioll dptiQllS ill summaryfor Coullcil Seleetioll . Mitigation is presented in the EIS, with additional options added below by staff. · Option 1: Because of the impacts to the new retail pads at the. Commons site, a deviation to the city standard road cross:- section is suggested to relocate the sidewalk to meander onto the Commons site with the acquisition of an easement. The' sidewalk would not front the roadway of 20th Ave S,therefore avoiding a right-of-way impact to the new businesses currently scheduled for construction in 2007. This option would add both a south bound and north bound right turn lanes. Total cost of the improvement is estimated to be $1,550,000. · Option 2: This option suggests theuse of the City standard full roadway cross-section and would impact a new building structure scheduled for construction in 2007. The option proposes the construction of the northbound and southbound right turn lanes and purchases the new business on the SOllth west comer of the intersection. Total cost ofthis improvement is estimated to be $4,199,000. NOTE: Typically prorata share calculations have not applied to a Saturday peak hour triggered project. Mitigation of Saturday impacts through either option would create a policy implementation change for a Saturday-developed TIP. A per trip cost is calculated for bpth cost scenarios above in the Mitigation Summary. 14 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 15 of24 . Option 3: This option would exempt the LOS standard for. Saturday peak hour and defer evaluation of an improvement need to coincide with.the PM peak hour. ID (#15) S 320th St & 23th Av S This "intersection fails the City of Federal Way LOS standard hour in 2009 if the LOS standard is applied to the Saturday peak hour. This;intersection fails for Alternative las well as for Alternative 3, but it fails with 'an additional operational component. Alternative 3 recommends a second northbound right turn lane while Alternative I requires also a westbound right"turn lane. . I. Alternative 1 projects 724 trips to this intersection. The mitigation presented in . the EIS would add both turn lanes. ' Mitigation options in summary for Council Selection Mitigation is presented in the EIS, with additionai options added below by staff. · Option 1: The cost to construct the westbound right turn lane proposed as mitigation is estimated at $1,737,00. This mitigation impacts the existing McDonald's parking lot and circulation for the drive in window. The cost to construct the second northbound righttlirn iane is $1,003,000. This option proposes to construct both turn lanes. NOTE: Typically prorata share calculations have not applied to a Saturday peak hour triggered project. Mitigation of Saturday impacts through either option would create a policy implementation change for a Saturd~y-develbped TIP. A per triP cost is calculated for both cost scenarios above in the Mitigation Sllnimary. · Option 2: This option would not apply mitigation for Saturday peak hour and defer evaluation of an improvement need to . coincide with the PM peak hour. g. Mitigation Summary. Mitigation measures/options are discussed and recommended within the EIS. and by staff, that cover the following: Off-site Improvements On-site Improvements Non Motorized mode improvements Grid Roadway Development Right-of-way Dedication Transportation Demand Management Neighborhood Traffic Control Parking 15 Appendix A to Memo to LUTe 1/22/07 Page 16 of24 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AM Peak hour - No options are presented as no mitigation is required. PM Peak hour - The 6-year TIP was assumed to be completed in the EIS analysis for new traffic impacts. Staff completed estimates for impacts to the 6-year TIP for the PM peak hour. An existing project on the long range CIP, yet not within the TIP, was . identified as a need and. is recommended to be added and adopted in the next year TIP. This S 3lih St project is added to the calculations for a pro rata 'share mitigation. Pro- rata contribution is thenumber of project-generated trips divided by the total peak hour traffic with the project multiplied by the estimated cost ofthe TIP project. Cost share estimates were completed for two scenarios (cost estimates) and are as calculated as follows: Scenario 1: Cost Estimate of the current TIP projects~ Scenario 2: Cost Estimate of the, current TIP projects minus secured grants. Alternative 1 2009 traffic volumes were used for the pro-rata share calculations. 2014 estimates and analyses will be completed at the expenditure of the Alternative 1 (2727 . pm peak hour) trips forecasted to be generated by development projects. 16 Appendix A to Memo to LUTe 1/22/07 Page 17 of24 NO. PROJECT SCENARIO 1 COST EST. S.CENARIO 2 COST EST. 13 City Cenler Access Phase 2 $ 270,866.14 $ 270,866.14 1b Cily Cenler Access Phase 3 $ 220,562.43 $ 220,562.43 1c Cily Cenler Access Phase 4 $ 913,205.85 $ 913,205.85 2 SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase 3: S 2841h SI -. SR 509 $ 929,228.78 $ 519,5~6,52 3 S 3481h 51: 91h Ave S - SR 99 $ 23,699.62 $ 23,699.62 4 S 3201h SI @ 1s1 AVE! 5 $ 412,617.73 $ 412,617.?3 5 SR9S @ S 3561h SI $ " 95,258.52 $ 95,258,5~ . 6 . S 320lh SI: 81h Ave S - SR 99 $ 735,026.22 $ 735,026.22 7 S 3481!1 5t @ 1st Ave S , $ 30,123.97 $ 30,1.23.97 .8 ~Olh Ave SW I SW 344th SI: SW Campus Dr - 21s1 Ave SW. $ 343,318.18 $ 343,318.18, . 9 1slAve S @ S 3281h SI $ 16,725.66 $ 1.6,725.66 10 S 3201h' SI @ 20lh Ave S $ 134,601.12 $ 134.601,12. .11 21 st 'Ave 5W I SW 3571h SI: SW 3561h 'SI - 22nd Ave SW . $ 10',330.95 $ 5.li58~68 12 .' ,SR '.99 HOV Lanes Phase 4: 5R 5.09 - 5'3121h .S! '. .$ 1..742,~54,64 $ 78~,847.30 13 SR 18 @ SR 161 $ 36,256.17 $ 3"6.~56.17 14 SW 3121h SI@ SR 509 $ . 28,038.54 $ 28,038.54 15 S 3561h SI: SR 99 - SR 161 $ 38,796.6& $ 38,796.68 . 16 S 3041h SI @ 281h Ave S . , $ 26,O~ 1.14 $ 26,011,14', .17 S 352nd SI: SR 99 - SR 161 .' " $ - $ - 18 SW 320lh St @ 21 sl Ave SW $ 96,174.19 $ 96,174..19 19 S 320lh SI: 1s1 Ave S - 81h Ave S $ 76.7 ,559.22 $ 7.67,559.22 20 Mililary Rd S: S Sial' Lake Rd - S 2881h.SI ., $' 55,653.40 $ 55,653.40 21 sW 32Plh St @ 471h Ave SW '. $ 11 ,153.85 $ '11,1.53:85. 22 S 3121h 51@28Ih.Ave S .' .' $, 12,930.78 $ .12,930.78. 23 SW 3361h Wy I SW 340th SI: 261h PI SW - Hoyt Rd $ 354,231,88 .$ 354,231.88 24 S 3141h SI: 20th Ave S - 23rd Ave S $ - $ 25 1.s1 Ave S: S 292nd SI c S 3121h SI $ - $ - pasepa S 3121/1 SI & Pacific Hwy S $ 404,194.59 $ '404,194,59 TOTAL $ Alternative " Trips Cost per project trip $ 7.,709,120.24 $ 2"727 2,826.96 $ 6,341,298.37 .2727. --~~ Option 1 Scenario 1 Cost Estimate1 All costs are accounted for in the TIP proj ects $2,827.00/per trip Option 2 Scenario 2 Cost Estimate 2 The total costs of the TIP projects are reduced by grants that are secured and awarded $2,325.00/per trip . Option 3 Council may choose an alternative per-trip costs $ to be assigned Option 4 Council may choose to exempt projects from City Center impact mitigation $0 Saturday Peak Hour - The EIS includes the costs of potential mitigation projects for the Saturday Peak hour. I Includes the S 312th St Project. 2 Includes the S 31th St Project. 17 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 18 of24 Options 1 a and 1 b contemplate that development projects would pay the total cost to construct mitigation projects. That is, 'both the contribution attributable to the individual projects, as well as the prorata contribution attrihutable to Saturday background traffic, would be borne by the project developers. I .' Options 2a and 2b contemplate that projects would pay a prorata cost of mitigation projects based on a methodology comparable to that nsed for the PM peak hour.. The prorata contribution attributable to Saturday background traffic would be borne.by City funding.. It should be noted that the projects identified for the Saturday impacts do not currently collect prorata share contributions. A policy change would need'to be made to initiate collection of prorata share contributions to transportation projects to' mitigate Saturdayt~affic impcats. The estimates are shown in the options below: ......, I I ~ 1 J Option Ib: Development Projects Pay to'BiIild,theTotal projects4 . rr~mm~inr.riJ~.' 1f,(il@I~'~.'- ~~lilt$t~!F1a~lfic"m\t!Y q'''''- II ~@O~I ~~~~p~ 51("&~R~ifjejij~;'\t!~-:-.=J~~~'7i2.f)mO-Q' lL- IJ '320 st&.. ~O fA v. S .1'1 1 IrlB!~t,f&:'~ lAv S "~!.Al__~__ a:..-': IlIl J ~ 3 Improvements are shown and discussed on page 16 4 Improvements are shown and discussed on page 16 18 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 19 of24 Option 2a: Prorata Cost Share Estimates Option 2b .prorata Cost Share Estiinat~s Option la - Development Projects Pay Total Cos;t of Projects (project-specific decisions necessary to determine each project's contribution from partial to full cost of traffic mitigation proj ect.) $6,465,000 Option 1 b - .Development Projects .Pay Total Cost of Projects (project-specific decisions necessary to detemline each project's contribution from partial to full cost oftraffic mitigation project.) $8,385,000 Option 2a - Prorat~ mitigation cost . . $253.00/per Saturday trip Option 2b - Pro rata mitigation cost $306.00/per Saturday trip Option 3 - Exempt from Mitigation of Saturday Peak Hour Impacts to LOS . $0 ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS At the time of ~evelopment application, analysis shall be provided 'by the applicant's engineer for driveway access and circulation measures to minimize impacts on connecting roadways. Measures may include management of access points, traffic control measures, constmction of internal roadways, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and connections to adjacent developments. 19 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC li22/07 Page 20 of 24 NON-MOTORIZED MODE IMPROVEMENTS Mitigation improvements may be required per site-specific development proposals to address pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements to support the plans, policies, and' goals as noted within the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan City Center Element (2002, Chapter 7) and Transportation Element (2003,-Chapter 3). GRID ROADWAY DEVELoPMENT . . Pan: of the City Center Plan is to develop anurnber ofiutemal rbadways.to create smaller blocks that will improve the street grid network and improve the' access for pedestrians and vehicles. Requirements of potential right-of-way dedicati~;o and street improvements shall be a component of the development'submittalpha:se'6f a proposed project within the project area. Roadways within the project area must meet specific "City Center" design standards as .specified in the Transportation Element (Chapter 3) of the CityofFederaJ Way Comprehensive Plan. (2003 revision, Figure 1II-3) RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDENING THROUGHDEDIC,.i\TION Property dedication to facilitate right-of-way deqication for road widening and frontage improvements may be required in conjunction witn proposed developments. Roadways within the project area must meet specific "City, Center" design standards as specified in the Transportation Element (Chapter 3) of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision, Figure III-3). TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - TDM measures can be used to reduce project impacts. These measures may include provisions oftr~sit passes to tenants and employees, ridesharing programs, priority carpool parking, and guaranteed ride home programs. rDM actions are designed to primarily address commute trips mid may not be applicable as mitigation for all developments. Table III-13 (page 60) of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision, Chapter 3, Transportation Element) stratifies various TDM alternatives by their functional grouping and potential effectiveness, implementation difficulties, and expected cost effectiveness. These strategies iriclude: Telecommuting, Parking Pricing and Subsidy Removal, Compressed Work Week, Employer-Based Management, and Parking Supply Strategies. Based upon the above, the following are a list of potential mitigation measures that cari be considered in conjunction with individual development projects \vithin the project area: 20 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 . Page 21 of24 1. Encourage voluntary expansion ofthe CTR Pr9gram to employers of less than 100 employees. The encouragement by employers may be as diverse as subsidized bus passes, car pool'space:priority,bike racks, shower facilities, van pools, car pool infonnation. access" t~lecommuting, variable work hours, etc. ,', 2. Encourage the formation and expansion of area-wide ride-sharing programs. Such programs operate with little direct cost to the City and are highly cost-effeCtive.. 3. Support the enhancement of Park and Ride facilities and transit centers to supplement the regional system; either directlY'through physical development or elmancements or indirectly through development conditions where employer vans a:r:e required to shuttle employees to Park and Ride facilities ot transit centers. . 4. Facilitate enhancements and/or c()nn~ctivity to the HOV system. This may i.nclude such things as accommodations' for transit stops, bus pull- outs, pedestrian pathways t1:1at lead to -HOV access points, etc. 5. Achieve increased'densities and mix of uses to support public transportation, decrease trip generation and parkllig impacts. 6. Encourage facilities (shelters, loading spaces, etc) to accommodate City Center shuttle service in association with development projects, together with enhanced pedestrian and bicycle acce~:s and security. 7. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to bus routes and transit centers. This can be a requirement of development, and redevelopment. The City may need to acquire easements andconstmct trail (:onnections. .Development incentives could be granted for providing such amenities . that are pedestrian, bike, and transit friendly. While bicycle, pedestrian, and bus transit services and facilities may be desirable for other reasons; they should not be looked on as highly cost-effective strategies to the exclusion of those actions listed above. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CONTROL When applicable, development projects within the project area may be required to include actions to mitigate the impacts of cut-through traffic on near-by residential areas. Examples of neighborhood traffic control actions include: turn restrictions, speed controls, traffic enforcement, and parking restrictions such as the following: Minimize through traffic on residential streets by maximizing through travel opportunities on arterial and collector streets. 21 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 , Page 22 of 24 . Employ traffic calming measures in neighborhoods (where feasible)where traffic volumes and speeds on local streets consistently exceed reasonable levels. Keep through traffic to state routes and arterials. Discolmige the .use oflocalor. neighborhood streets for through movements (unless part of ~ avenill process of creating a street grid). PARKING ..: Mitigation measures that reduce the parking requirements within the project area should' . be encouraged. Examples indude '~hated parking; employee parking programs, parking ti~e restrictions, paid parking progy-inTIs. . Shared parking strategies focus on looking at opportunltieswh~re adjacent uses have parking demandprofiles.that can support the sharing ofa smaller amo~nt of parking spaces. For example, an o1fice building with an 8 AM to 5 PM demand could share its parking with evenin,g ori~nted uses such as '. rest~mrai1ts~ or a Cinema. A parking demancl" study, which shows the hourly par~ing demand profiles for adjacent uses and thie potential for joint parking opportlmities within a mixed-use development, can be used to rednce the number of required parking spaces. In addition, contained in the above TDM mitigation are strategies that overlap with parking mitigation plans for development. A development may propose a plan and management system to the City for approval upon sllbmittal ofthe development permit. This maybe generated with the requirement for a parking study. Those items may contain the following in support of the City of Federal Way and state Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) requirements. POTENTIAL MEASURES TO REDUCE VEHICLE TRIPS AND/OR PARKING REQUIREMENTS The following are suggested mitigation measures that may be selected by the applicants to reduce vehicle trips and/or parking impacts or requirements. These measures may be presented in a transportation study con1pleted by the applicant's engineer and reviewed and approved by staff. MEASURES THAT SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE MODES Public education and promotion may increase the effectiveness ofthese other strategies up to 3%. Area-wide Ride matching Services - May result in a 0.1-3.6% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and an up to 2.5% VMT reduction in transit services. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates. 22 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC 1/22/07 Page 23 of24 Vanpool Service - May result in an up to 8.3% in commute VMT, as well as a reduction. in transit and vanpool fares up to 2.5%. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-g~neratjon rates. Non-Motorized Modes plan and implementation -'- May result.in an up to 0-2% regional VMT reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates. HOV Facilities - May result in an up to 1.5% VMT reduction and 0.2% vehicle trip reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates. Oil site, development of Park and Ride 'program ~ May result in up to 0-0.5% VMT . reductioh. Reductions in parking required maybe calculated~onthe basis of these lower trip-generation rates. ' . .,: EMPLOYER-BASED TDM MEASURES Parking mitigation -- Monetary incentives may result in an up to 8-18% trip reduction at site. Reductions in parking required may be. calculated on the basis of these lower trip-. generation rates. . Alternative Work Schedules - May result in as much as a 1 % regional VMT reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis 6fthese lower trip- generation rates. CQrnmute Support Programs - May'result in up to 0.1-2.0% regional VMTreduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip- generation rates. Parking Management- May result in up to.a 2Q to 30% reduction in SOY trips to/from the site. Reductions in parking.required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates. Telecommuting - Up to 10% commute VMT reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-'generation rates. OTHER STRATEGIES Parking Tax - May result in up to a 1 to 5% reduction in regional VMT and trip generation, but requires City Council and/or legislative action. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates. Developmeut Parking Impact Mitigation - Requires Council approval to allow for payment of parking-mitigation funds towards long-term investments in structured parking solutions in lieu of full parking reqllirements. Reductions in required parking may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates. 23 Appendix A to Memo to LUTC l/i2/07 Page 24 of 24 Mixed Land Use/Jobs Housing'Balance - May result in VMT reductions up to 10%. . Parking stall credit is given based on overlapping sh~ed usage of mixed facility, per City Code provisions. . Tnmsit-Oriented and Pedestrian-Friendly Design ~ Site anti.building design that encourages transit lisage and/or walking may reduce overall parking requirement. Requires design review and staff approval. Employment Center Density - Achievement of sufficient density within the City Center to constitute a regional employment center, may:reduce SOY- work trips to individual development projects by up to 50%. Parking stall reductions may also apply to' . deye1()pments. . , ' Other Parking Management Plans.-- May mitigate, 1 to S% r.egion-wide VMT, provided enforcement .issues are addressed in the mitigation plan. 24 . CITY OF FEDERAL.WAY ORDINANCE NO. 07- AN ORDINAN~E OF THE CITY OF FED)!:~ WAY,. WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE.' CITY: CENTER PLANNED ACTIONPUR8UANT TO RCW 43.21.03L WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEP A) and its implementing . regulations authorize cities planning 'und~r the Growth Mall.ligement Act (GMA) to designate planned actions that have had theilsigrt.ificant impacts adequately 'addressed in an envirOIimental impact statement eElS) pr.epared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan, sub-area plan or a master planned development; and WHEREAS RCW 43.21C.031 and WAC 197:-11-164,168, and ~172 allow and govern the application of a Planned Action designation; anq . . ;, . '. .. .' ',' ...' .... . . . .' . ~ .: . .. . . .'!. . I . . " WHEREAS, the City Of Federiil Way ~as, ad<:>pted a CCHuprehensive Plan that addresses the City' Center suo-area imd has prepared 'an 'EIS that consIders a planned . . . .... "," action designation in a: portion bf the City Center sub-area,' arid . . . . WHEREAS, Chapter 7 ofthe'City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan addresses. the City Center sub-area and contains policy CCP5that states that the City should complete a Planned Action to provide for streamlined permit review in the City Center to accelerate Comprehensive Plan-fulfilling redevelopment within the COre area; and WHEREAS, designation of a project as a planned action streamlines subsequent review of the project by eliminating the need for preparation of a threshold determination or EIS;and WHEREAS, adopting a SEPA Planned Action for the City Center Planned Action area with appropriate standards and procedures will help achieve permit processing efficiency and promote environmental quality, now, therefore, . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY OOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 Purpose.' The City. of Federal Way declares that the purpose ofthis ordinance is to: A. Combine environmental analysis with land use planning~ and B. Set forth a procedure designating certain project actions in a portion of the City Center sub-area as "planned aCtions" consistent with state law 43.21C.031 RCW, and Ordinance No. 07- . Page 1 C. Streamline and expedite the land use permit review process by relying on' completed and existing environmental analysis for the Planned Action area; and D. Apply the Federal Way City Code together with thelllitigation framework in Section 3 of this Ordinance for the purpose of processing plann~d action development applications. . Section 2. Findings. The City of Federal Way finds that: . . A. . The City of Federal Way is required to prepare and impleri1entplans in accordance with the provisions' of the Growth.ManagementAct, Chapter 36.70A ,': '.RCW. . _ . ..' . B. The City of Federal Way has adopt~d a co~prehensive plan and City Center sub:' area plan in compliance with the GMA. C. The City Center Planned Action Envjronmental Impact Statem.ent identifies and addresses all significant envirOnmental impacts assoCiated with the proposed . planned action as defined in Section.3 . of this Ordinance; and D. The mitigation measures contained in ExhibitB of this Ordinance, together with applicable City development standards, are adequate to mitigate the significant adverse environmentaJ impacts of planned action development as defined in Subsection 3.C ofthis Ordinance. . E.. The expedited permit review procedures as set forth in this Ordinance are and will be a benefit to the public, protect the environment, and enh~mceeconomic development; and F. Opportunities for public involvement and review have been provided, arid comments considered aspati of pn;:paration of the Draft. arid Final Planned Action Environrilental Impact StaJement. . Section 3. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Projects as Planned Actions. A. Planne? Action Site. Th~ Planned Action designation shall ~~plyto the . approxImately 200 acre sIte generally bounded by South 312 Street on the north, South 324th Street on the south, Pacific Highway South on the west and 23rd . Avenue South on the east and shown in Exhibit A. B. Environmental Document. A planned action designation for a site-specific application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the City Center Planned Action Environmental hnpactStatement (EIS) completed by the City on September 8, 2006. "EIS" means the City Center Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement composed ofthe.Draft EIS (June 2006) and the Final EIS (September 2006). The Mitigation Document (Exhibit B) is based upon Ordinance No. 07- Page 2 the analysis afthe EIS. The Mitigatian Dacument, tagether with applicable'City eades, ardinances and stan,dards shall provide the framewark far the decisian by the City to. impase canditians ail a planned actian project. C. Planned Action Qualificatians. 1. Land Uses. The fallawIng uses are the primary uses analyzed in the EIS. 1. Retail gaads and services 11. Office' 111. Ladging ; IV. Residential v. Civic VI. Structured parking 2. Develapment Threshalds. The Planned Actian designatian applies to. future develapment prapasals that cumulatively do not exceed the Develapment Envelape established by the EIS,as shawn in the City Center Stnnmary Develapment table below: City Center Summary Development Table Uses . Development Envelope Retail 750,000 sf . Office 350,000 sf . Lodging 600 rooms Residential 750 units Civic 500,000 Structured Parking 750 stalls If prop.aseclplans significantly change the lacatian af rtses ina manner that. wauld alter the enviranmental determinatians afthe EIS, additjanalSEPA review may be required. Additianal enviranmental review may be canducted as an addendum ar supplement to. the Planned ActianEIS. Shifting the tatal build-aut af develapment amang uses may be permitted Sa lang as the tatal build-aut daes not exceed the aggregate amaunt af develapment, trip generatianand parking threshalds reviewed in the EIS and sa lang as the iinpacts af that develapment have been identified and mitigated in. the EIS 'and Mitigatian DaCument. 3. The praject is lacated within the Planned Actian Area. 4. The project is nat limited to. new develapment af a ane-stary building af 16,000 square feet ar less ar re-:use af an exjsting ane-stary building af any SIze. Ordinance No.. 07- Page 3 5. . Transportation . 1. Vehic1e Trip Ranges. The ranges of vehicle trips reviewed in the EIS areas follows: Planned Action Tri . Thresholds b . 2009 Time Period AM Peak Hour Saturda Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Tri s 1,220 2,816 . 2,727 . Planned Action Trip Thresholds 2010-2014 Time Period Total Trips' ,,-- AM Peak Hour 919-1,073 Saturday Peak Hour 2,537-2,552 . .. PM Peak Hour 2,360-2,370 The EIS conducted quantitative analysis on a per-intersection basis of impacts and mitigation through 2009 (or the equivalent time, b~sed on the cumulative totals of projected vehicle trips). EIS analysis. of2010-2014 vehicle trips was performed more' qualitatively and may require additional environmental review to quantitatively analyze potential transportation impacts and mitigation measures, as determined by the SEP A Official, in consultation with the Public Works Director. 11. Trip Threshold. Proposed development that would result in a cUrIlUlative total of trips that exceeds the maximum trip levels shown above would not qualify as a Planned Action. . 111. Public Works Discretion. The Public Works. Director shall have discretion to determine incremental and total trip generation, consistent with the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) General Manual (latest ed.), for each Plarmed Action project permit application proposed under this Plarmed Action. 6. Elements of the Environment Analyzed in the EIS. A project that would result in a significant change in impacts to any of the elements of the environment identified in the EIS would not qualify as a Planned Action~ 7. Time Horizon. The Plarmed Action designation is intended to be applicable until an development shown in the City Center Summary Development Table (Subs~ction 3.C.2) is constructed or until 2014, Ordinance No. 07- Page 4 whichever oocurs first. In addition, should environmental conditions significantly change from those analyzed in the EIS, the City's SEPA Official may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable unless additional, ~upplementary environmental review is conducted, regardless of the ~ate. D. Planned Action Review Criteria ':.' 1. Uses and activities described in the EIS,subject to the qualifications described in Section 3.C'and the mitigation measures in Exhibit.B, may be . . designated planned actionspo/sll,antto 43.2lC.03l RCW. . 2: The SEP A Official or desigileeis authorized to designate a project application as a Planned Action pursuant to RCW 43.21 C.03l (2)( a), if the project meets all ofthe following conditions:' . . . a) The project is not otherwise exempt from SEP A; . . by The project is consistent with the City of Federal Way ComprehensIve Plan adopted. under RCW 36.70A; and c) Theproject is subsequent to oris implementing a project which has had its significant adverse environmental impacts that have been adequately identified in the EIS; and d) The project falls within the Planned Action qualifications identified in Section 3.e ofthis Ordinance; and e) The SEPA Official has determined that the project's adverse impacts are able to be mitigated through the application and/or inclusion of mitigation measures detailed in the Mitigation Document in Exhibit B, as well as other applicable City, county, state, and federal requirements and conditions, which together constitute sufficient mitigation for the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project; and . f). The proposed project complies with <ill applicable local, county, state, and federal regulations, and where appropriate, the proposed project complies with needed variances or modifications or other special permits have been.identified; and . g) The prpposedprojeCt is not an essential public faciliti Ordinance No. 07- Page 5 . E.. Effect of Planned Action 1. Upon designation by the SEP A Offi~ial that the development proposal within the Planned Action Area qualifies as a Planned Action pursuant to this Ordinance and WAC 197--11-172, the project shall notbe subject to a SEP A threshold determination, an.environmental impact statement (EIS), SEP A appeal or any other additional review under SEP A. . " 2. B~ing designated as a Planned Action or Planned Action.Project means that a proposed project has beenreview€d in accordance with this . Ordinance and found to be 'consistent with the deveiopment parameters and environmental analysis incl~ded'in the EIS. . .. . 3. Planned Action projects will not b~'subject to further procedural review under SEPA. However>. as staled urider 3.D.2(f} above, in order to qualify as planned actions, these projects willhav.e'incorporated mitigating measuresidentined in the Gity Center Planned Action EIS, as outlined in this document arid the attached Exhibit B, which are desigried to mitigate environmental impacts resulting: from the project proposal. Additionally, . projects will be subject to applicable City, state and federal regulatory requirements. The Planned Action designation shall not exempt a project from meeting the City's code and ordinance requirements apart from the SEP A process. F. . Planned Action Permit Process. The Director of Community Development Services or designee shall review projects and determine whether they meet the criteria as Planned Actions under applicable state, federal, and local laws, regulations, codes and ordinances. The review procedure shall consist, at a minimum,ofthe'following: 1. Development applications will meet the requirements of Federal Way City Code Chapters 5, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 22. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include a Planned Action Checklist. . or such other project review forms provided by the Community Development, Building, and Public Works departments. The checklist may be incorporated into the form of an application. 2. The Director of Community Development Services will determine . whether the application is complete as provided in Federal Way City Code Chapter 22-33. 3. After the City receives and reviews a complete application, the SEPA Official shall determine, utilizing the criteria and procedures contained in Section 3.D and wAC 197-11-172, whether the project qualifies as a Planned Action. If the project does qualify.as a Planned Action, the Ordinance No. 07- Page 6 Director of Community Development Services shall notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the appropriate permit procedures, except that no additional SEP A review, threshold determination or EIS will be required. . . 4. .For projects that qualify as Planned Actions, public notice shall be provided as specified in FWCC 18.76 (c). 5. If a project is determined not to be a Planned ACtion, the Director of Cominunity Development Services. shaRnotify.the applicant and prescribe . a SEP A review procedure consistent with the City. SEP A procedures and state laWS. The notice to the applIcant shall describe the elements ofthe application that result in disqualification.as a Planned Action. . 6. Projects disqualifled.as a Planned Action may use or incorporate relevant elements of the environmental review analysis in the EIS prepared for the Planned Action, as well as other enviroruriental review documents to assist in meeting SEP A requirements. .. 'the SEP A Official may choose to limit the scope .of the SEP A review to those. issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the" ElS. Section 4 Planned ACtion Area Monitoring. The Planned Action Ordinance shall be reviewed periodicaliy by the Director of Community bevelopment Services to determine its continuing validity with respect to the environmental conditions of the . project .areaand vicinity and .applicability of planned action requirements, including a '. review prior to the end of 2009 toertsure contirnied applicability of the transportation analysis and impacts,. Based upon this review, this Ordinance may be amended as needed, and another review period may be specified. SectionS Conflict. In the event of a coriflict between the Ordnance or any mitigation measures imposed pursuant thereto and any ordinance or regulatiori of the City, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control. Section. 6 Severability. Should any section, sentence, clause or .phrase of this ordinance or the amendments to the Federal Way Municipal Code adopted hereby should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity ()r unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity o~ constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 7 Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in.full force and effect five (5) days from and after its passage and publication as provided by law. Ordinance No. 07- Page 7 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way aLa regular met;:ting.of the City Council on the day of ,2007. APPROVED: Mayor,)vlike'park . . . "ATTEST:": ", '9ty <;:Jerk,. Laura Hathaway, CMC 'ApPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardson FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY nIB CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE No: . Ordinance No. 07- Page 8 .~ S.3Q4t~\Str\let t.n -.J - .-1 -"L- >- C'll ~ .c l:Il X .u I;:: 'i) C'll Q. T s. 336th Street N W~E ~~ Jones & Stokes ~ In .41 ::::I c ~ S o N \J~ ~:t: :~.~ \ .------ Source: King County (2006) Feet - -- o 1,000 2,000 Exhibit A F~deralWay City Center Planned Action Area Exhibit B Planned Action Mitigation Document The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)'requires environmental review for project and non- project proposals that may have adverse impacts upon the environment. . . . in orde~ t~ meet SEPA requirements; the City of Federal Way i~sued the Draft City denier Planned Action Envirimmental Impact Statement on June 26, 2006, and Final Environmental Impact Statement. on Sept~mbe! 81' 2006. . The praft Environmental Impact Statement and the Final ~upplementalEnviionmel).tal, Impll:ctStatem~nt ar~ referenced collectively herein as the "EIS": The EIShas identified probable; 'significant impacts that would occur with the future development of the Planned Action area, together with a'number of potential measures to mitigate those significant impacts.' . " . . '" ", I,:. The purpose of this Mitigatio~ Document..is to establish spe<;:ific mitigation measures,; based upon significant impacts' id~i1tified in'. the EIS. 'f!1e' mitigation measures would apply to future development proposals. which are consistent with the Planned Action development envelope reviewed in the EIS, 'and which are located 'within the piaimed Action area (see ExhibIt A). USE OF TERMS As several similar terms are utilized in this Mitigation Document, the following phrases or words are defined briefly: . SEPA Terms The discussion or mitigation measures may refer to the words action, proposed action, or proposal, and for reference these terms are identified below. · "Action" means projects or programs financed, licensed, regulated, conducted or approved by an Agency. "Project actions" involve decisions on a specific project such as. a construction or management activity fora defined geographic ,area. "Non-project" actions involve decisions about policies, plans or programs. (see WAC 197-11-704) · "Planned Action" refers to types of project actions that are desigriated by ordinance for a specific geographic area and addressed in an EIS, in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan, a fully contained coinmunity, a master planned resort, a master planned development or phased project. (see WAC 197-11-164) · "Proposal" means a proposed action that maybe an action and regulatory decision of an agency, or any action proposed by applicants. (see WAC 197-11-784) Other Terms The Planned Action area may be referred to as the City Center Planned Action area, project site, or project area in this document. General Interpretation Where a mitigation .measure includes the words "shall" or "will," inclusion of that measure is mandatory in order to qualify a project as a Planned Action. Where "should" or "would" appear, the mitigation measure may be considered by the project applicant ~s a source of additional mitigation, as feasible or necessary, to ensure that a project qualIfy as a Planned Action and/or to reduce transportation mitigation impact fees. Unless stated specifically otherwise, the mitigation measures that require preparation of plans, conduct of studies, construction of improvements, conduct of maintenance activities, etc., are the . respon'sibility of the applicant or designee to fund and/or perfoml. . D~VEl..O.PMENT PROPOSED UNDER THE PLANNED ACTION The proposal reViewed in the EIS. included designation of a porti~n of the City Center as a: PlannedJ\ction area for the purposes of State EiwiTonniental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance, ,. ptir~~ant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a) and WAC 19.1.':11.-164;' Theplarined.action designation > ~pp'llf:S' to. construction of proposed' residential,.;reta~I; 9ffice, hQt~l, pi;vic and $trUctured parking deyelopment falling within the development envelope' and project area analyzed in this EIS. The planned action project area is shown in EXhibit A. The total development envelope analyzed in . this EIS is summarized below. anne ctlon eve opment i:nve .ope . Uses . Development Envelope . . .' '. Retail 750,000 sf' Office 350,000 sf LodQing 600 rooms Residential 750 units Civic 100,000 sf Structured ParkinQ 750 stalls. PI dA' 0 Tqe planned action designation would apply to development that occurs through 2014. However, the quantitative transportation analysis applies only to the portion of the total development envelope that was proj ected to occur by the end of 2009. . Planned Action Vehicle Trips - 2009 Time Period Total Trips AM Peak Hour 1,220 Saiurday Peak Hour 2,816 PM Peak Hour .2,727 MITIGATION Based on the EIS, which is incorporated by reference, this Mitigation Document summarizes' significant adverse environmental impacts that are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the development of planned action projects. Mitigation measures, identified in the EIS, are reiterated here for inclusion in conjunction with proposed projects to mitigate related impacts and to qualify as Planned Action projects. Planned Action Mitigation Document Page 2 of 8 Consistency review under the Planned Action, site plan review, and other pemiit approvals will be required for specific development actions under the Proposed Action pursuant to WAC 197- 11-172 and FWCC 18-76. Additional project conditions may be imposed on planned action projects based upon the analysis of the proposal in relationship to independent requirements of the City, state or federal requirements or review.criteria. '. . Any applIcant fora project within the Plamled' Action area may propose alternative mitigation measures, if appropriate and/or as a result of changed circumstances, in order to allow an equivalent.substitute mitigation for identified.impacts~ Such modifications would be evaluated by . , the. Gity SEP A Official prior to any project approvals by the Cib'. " ..' . . , . .. - .' .:. , ,'). .' ',As. p~~~tt~d by WAC .197-11-660, it is .~ecognizeq that ther~ ~ay :~e some adv~rse impacts that. '. ..1""eyn~y'oidable because reasonab1eorfea~ible mitigation cannqt. be achieved for the proposal. '. . ~ . . :. .: . . . . . . Pi:Qvid~d below f~r each eiement of the environment analyzed in the'EIS for the proposal area are . , .; : the' 'following: (1) a .summary of the EIS analysis of significant environmental impacts; and' (2) . mitigation measures identified in the EIS. .'. . In combination, regulations applicabl~ to' eachelerrient of' the environment and mitigation . .measures identified in the EIS and documented in this Mitigation Document that are applied 'to any planned action proposal and will adequately mitigate aU significant environmental impacts' 'associated with planned action proposals" except for . those impacts that are identified as "significant unavoidable adverse impacts.'" . ., ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS identifies significant impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts and mitigation measures for potential impacts associated with air quality, land use, aesthetics, light and glare, transportation, public services and utilities. Please refer to the Draft and Final EIS for complete text associated with each element ofthe environment. The' following is a summary of the mitigation measures applicable to impacts on each element of the environment identified in the Eis. . Air Quality Mitigation Measures Short Term Construction activities related' to development approved under the Planned Action Designation could generate fugitive dust, which could be m:itigated using the following best management practices: . Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways. . Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfa<;es. . Prevent track-out of mud onto public streets. .. Cover soil piles when practical. . To the extent practical, minimize work during periods of high winds. Planned Action Mitigation Document Page 3 of 8 Burning of slash or demolition debris is not permitted without express approval from PSCAA. No slash blirning is anticipated for any construction projects in the City Center. Mobile construction equipment and portabie stationary engines would emit air pollutants including NOx,CO, and PMIO. These emissions. would be temporary and localized. It is highly unlikely that the temporary emissions would cause ambient concentrations at adjoining parcels to '. ".approach 'the. NAAQS limits. Typical mitigation measures .to minimize air quality and odor . issues .causedby tailpipe emissions include the following: . ',I,.. . Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers' specifications. Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use. . . ;. '; . ',' : i. ',; ~ .:;Long:-Term No additional mitigation required. . Umd Use Mitigation Measures . The,~itY ofFed~ral Way existing Comprehensive Plari,develoPrnent regulations and' Community I?~sign Q':li~elines provide poficies, pr~cesse~,. s~~Il4ards and requirements that w~uldmitjgate most identified impacts. In particular, existing development standards along the edges of the . Pianned "A.e;tlon area appear to be' adequate to allo~ for a compatible transition from more inten'sive'toiess intensive uses.' . Aesthetics, Light and Glare , Mitigation Measures ". . Continued us~ of the City's Community DesIgn Quidelines and review/approval process to . monitor and mitigate potential impacts associated with light and glare, shadows, and aesthetic impacts resulting from new development, including structured parking. Increased building.height for multi-unit structures in the City Center Core zone would be permitted only with review through the City's design review and public benefits review. processes, as set forth in the Community Design Guidelines. . Monitor shade conditions as development occurs and amend the City's Community Design Guideli,nes to require sIte-specific analysis of shadows on public places, as needed. . Public Services Mitigation Measures Impacts to public services from development under the planned action designation would not be significant. However, measures can be taken to prevent or further minimize environmental consequences to public services. Recommended mitigating measures include: Coordinate with Federal Way Police and Fire Departments during final design, construction, and operation of future development under proposed action to ensure that reliable emergen'cy access is maintained. Coordinate with the Federal Way Parks and Recreation Department to identify opportunities. for increased recreational open space for general public use throughout the project area, and within new development proposals. . . Reduce public safety impacts through adherence to CPTED design standards. Planned Action Mitigation Document Page 4 of 8 Provide emergen.cy service providers with advanced notice of construction.schedules and any planned street closures or blockages. Avoid or minimize street closures or blockages during construction to avoid impact to emergency response times. Utilities Mitigation Measures Wa.ter l!-nd Sanitary Sewer Service . . " . . . " . Ensure that all new development complies with local, state and federal standards for energy conservation. . . . . Encourage drought-tolerant landscaping (xeriscaping) for new development. Encourage new commercial, civic and residenti~I'developri1ent to incorporate appropriate. water c.onservation measures, such as recycling, into their operations. Utilities Plan with service providers to minimize impacts of uti~ity rel.ocations (equipment , procurement times, relocate in advance of coristri.Ictioti;etc.) . . . Inform utility custpmers of any planned temporary 'service disruptions. . .' Coordinate with all utility companies, on the desigri otthe new services and hookups for the' , . propo'iied action. Transportation Mitigation Measures' Off-Site Mitigation PM Peak Hour Impacts - The EIS analysis indicates that transpo:rtation improvement projects already contained in the City's adopted Transportation Improvement Plan would provide the majority ofthe mitigation for the traffic impacts antiCipated during the PM Peak Hour. Two additional projects were identified, as follows: . . . Intersection PM Peak Hour Miti ation Improvement Add 2nd northbound left turn lane (CIP 01-05) Optimize signal timing S 312.8t & Pacific Hwy 8 8 3368t & Pacific Hwy 8 In order to ensure that the TIP and these two additional projects be completed and provide the mitigation contemplated in the EIS, applicants for individual development projects shall make financial contributions to the total cost of these' projects on a pro-rata basis, calculated by determining each project's PM Peak Hour vehicle trIps generated, consistent with the Institute of . Traffic Engineers (ITE) General Manual (latest edition) and Public Works Department Director discretion.. A per-trip mitigation fee shall be applicable to each PM Peak Hour trip estimated in this manner. . The total cost per PM vehicle trip (including both TIP projects and these two additional projects) would be $2,827.00. Planned Action Mitigation Document Page 5 of 8 AM Peak Hour -- No additional mitigation'is required for the AM peak hour. Saturday Peak Hotir- No additional mitigation' is required for the Saturday peak hour. Additional Mitigation Measures Additional mitigatiol1 may be applicable to individual development applications within the planned action area in order.to reduce vehicle trip generation, improve on~site circulation, and/or 'to meet City and State requirements for Commote Trip Reduction and Transportation Demand Management. Actions to be considered include: . . On-site improvements - Driveway and circulation actions to minjmiz~ impac;ts on area roadways. Actions may include management of access points, traffic con1l:o.l.:ineasUres, construction of internal roadways, pedestrian and bicycle improvement.s, . ~nd .connections . to adjacent developments. . . ' Non-Motorized mode improvements - Mitigation may be included with development proposals to address pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvem~nts tosupport.the plans, policies, and goals as noted within the City of Federal Way Comprehensive' Plan 'City Center Element (2002, Chapter 7) and Transportation Elemeilt (2003, Chapter3). ;'. . . . ... . Grid Roadway Development -'- Part of the City Center Plan is to develop a number of internal roadways to create smaller blocks that will improve the grid network and improve the access for pedestrians and vehicles. Right-of-way dedication and stre~t improvements shall be a component of the development submittal phase of a proposed project within the project area. Roadways within the project area must meet specific' "City Center" design standards as specified in the Transportation Element (Chapter 3) of the City of Fed~ral Way Compr({hensive Plan (2003 revision, Figure III-3) Right-oj-way Widening Through Dedication --: Property dedication to facilitate road. widening and frontage improvements may be required in conjunction with proposed developments. Roadways within the project area must meet specific "City Center" design standards as specified in the Transportation Element (Chapter 3) of the City of Fe(jeral Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision, Figure III-3). . Transportation Demand Management (TDM) - TDM measures can be used to reduce the impacts of a project action. These measures may include provision of transit passes to tenants and employees, ridesharing programs, priority carpool parking, and guaranteed ride home programs. TDM actions are designed to primarily address commute trIps and may not be . . applicable as mitigation for all developments. Table III-13 (page 60) of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision, Chapter 3, Transportation Element) stratifies various TDM alternatives by their functional grouping and potential effectiveness, implementation difficulties, and expected cost .effectiveness. These strategies include: Telecommuting, Parking Pricing and Subsidy Removal, Compressed. Work Week, Employer-Based Management, and Parking Supply Strategies. Based upon the above, the following are a list of mitigation measures that can be considered in conjunction with individual development projects within the project area: Planned Action Mitigation Document Page 6 of8 1. Expansion of the CTR Program to employers pfless than 100 employees. The encouragement by employers may include subsidized bus passes, car pool space priority, bike nicks, shower facilities, van pools, car pool information access, telecommuting, variable work hours, etc. 2. Formation ~d expansion of area-wide' ride-sharing programs. Such programs operate with little direct cost to the City and are highly cost-effective. . 3. . Enhancement of Park a~d Ride facilities.and transit centers to supplement the regional system, either directly through physical develop~ent or enhancements or inchrectly through deveiopment conditions where employer vans'ID:e required to shuttl,e employees to Park and Ride facilities or transit. centers. 4. Enhancements to the HOV System. Facilitate enhancements and/or connectivity to the HOV 'system.' This may include such things as accommodations for trans"it'stQPs, bus pull-outs, . c,,. 'peaestritin pathways that lead toHOVaccess points; ',de.- . '. . . '. 5. Achieve densities and mix of uses to support public tr'allsportatiOli, decrease trip generation and parking impacts. . .' 6. . Provide -facilities (shelters, loading spaces, etc.) to a'ccomrhodate City Center shuttle service inas8od~tion with development 'projeds, together: with enhanced 'pedestrian and bicycle . . access' and security. . ,... ", 7. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access t'o bus r~ut~s ~nci trartsit centers. jVeighborhood Traffic Control- Development Within the project area may to include actions to reduce the impacts of cut-through traffic on residential areas. Examples of neighborhood traffic corit:i"ol' actions include: turn restrictions, speed controls, traffic. enforcement, and parking restt~ctiohs. Parking :_: Mitigating measures can be included that reduce a projeds demand for parking. Examples include shared parking, employee parking programs, parking time restrictions, paid parking pn>grams. For example, an office building with an 8 AM to 5 PM demand could share its parking wIth evening dominated uses such as restaurants, or a cinema. A parking demand study, which shows the hourly parking demand profiles for adjacent uses and the potential for joint parkingopj>ortunities within a mixed-use development, can be used to reduce the number of parking'spaces. . Reduction of Mitigation Fee Costs through Alternative Measures -- In order to reduce the total numbers of peak-hour vehicle trips and, thereby, reduce mitigation costs, development applications may propose for City approval various alternative measures; as detailed below. In. addition, many of these measures maybe employed to support of the City of Federal Way and state Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) requirements. . MeaSures .to Support Alter~ative Modes The measures listed below are available options to help reduce parking requirements andlortrip generation for specific Planned ACtiQn proposals. At the City's discretion, or as proposed by a project applicant; use of the alternative-mode support measures may allow for reductions in required parking or vehicle trip generation.' . Area-wide Rid.e matching Services -May result in a 0.1 - 3.5% reduction in vehicle miles traveied (VMT) and an up to 2.5% VMT reduction in transit services. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trIp generation rates. Planned Action Mitigation Document Page 7 of 8 . Vanpool Service -- May result in .an up to 8;3% commute ,YMT reduction, as well as a reduction in transit andvanpool fates up to 2.5%. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the b~!)is of these lower trip generation rates. Non-Motorized Modes plan and implementation -- 0.2% regional VMT reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip generation rates. . ,HOV Facilities - May result in-an up to.L5o/~'VMT reduction'arid 0.2% vehicle trip reductio~. Reductions in parking required may be calculat~~ on.thebasis of these lower tri~ . generation rates. On.site development Park and Ride - May result in up to 0.5% VMT reduction. . Re.ductions in parking required may be calculated orithe basis; "Of these .lower trip.generation rates, " ......:~. :'.' .',,' ':: ~'.~. ", ""."':'~'...','. . '.~ . '.' " - . ': t"" " '. " Employer-Based TDM Measures "" . Parkiizg:initigation - Monetary incentives may result iri an' 8 -' 18% trip reduction at site. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip generation rates. . . . . '.' Alternative Work Schedules - May result in up to'a 1% regipriaJ. VMTreduction. . :. R'e'duc'tions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip' generation rates. Commute Support Programs - MayresultiIf up to O. Uo 2% regional YMT reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated ort the 'basis bf these lower trip generation rates. . . . . . . . :Parki~g Management -- May result in up tb 20 .... 30% red~ctio~ in'SOV trips to/from the site. Reductions in parking required may be calCulated on theb~sis of these lower. trip generation rates. . . . Telecommuting - Up to 10% commute VMT reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated On the basis of these lower trip generation rates. Other Strategies . Development Parking Impact Mitigation - Payment of parking-mitigation funds towards long- term investments in structured parking solutions in lieu of full parking requirement. (Note: Would requite City Council approval of Cpde provisions to allow for payment-in-lieu mechanism:) Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the .basis of these lower. trip~generation rates; . Mixed Land Use/Jobs Housing Balance - May result in VMT reductions of up to 10%. Parking stall ~~edit is given based on overlapping shared usage of mixed facility, per City Code proVISIons. Transit-Oriented and Pedestrian Friendly Design - Site and btiildmg design that encourages transit usage and/or walking may reduce overall parking requirement. Requires design review and staff approval. Employment Center Density - Achievement of sufficient density within the City Center to constitute a regional employment center may reduce SOV work trips to individual development projects by up to 50%. Parking stall reductions may also apply to developments. Other Parking Management Plans- May mitigate 1 to 5% region-wide VMT, provided enforcement issues are addressed in mitigation plans. Planned Action Mitigation Document Page 8 of8