LUTC PKT 01-05-2009
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land U se/Transportation Committee
City Hall
Council Chambers
January 5, 2009
5:30 p.m.
MEETING AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 17,2008
3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. 2008 Electrical Code Adoption- Code Text Amendment Action Bailey/5 min.
B. BPA Trail at SW 35~ Street Pedestrian Crosswalk Contract Action Perez/5 min.
C. Community Center Emergency Generator Installation Contract- Bid Action Miller/5 min.
Award
D. City Center Access Project- Open House Summary Information Zukowski/15 min.
5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS
6. ADJOURN
City Staff
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manag1r/Emergency Manager
Darlene LeMaster, Administrative AssistantII
253-835-2701
Committee Members
Linda Kachmar, Chair
Jim Ferrell
Dini Duclos
G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2009\01-05-09 LUTC Agenda.doc
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
November 17,2008
5:30 PM
City Hall
City Council Chambers
MEETING MINUTES
In attendance: Committee Member Dini Duclos, Committee Member Jim Ferrell, Councilmember Jeanne Burbidge,
Assistant City Manager/C.O.O. Cary Roe, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, Acting Deputy Public Works Director
Marwan Salloum, Deputy Public Works Director Ken Miller, Surface Water Manager Will Appleton, Street Systems Project
Engineer Brian Roberts, Deputy City Attorney Aaron Walls and Administrative Assistant II Darlene LeMaster.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Committee Member Ferrell called the meeting to order at 5:31 PM. Committee Chair Kochmar was excused.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The November 3, 2008 LUTC meeting minutes were approved.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: .Ferrell
Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
No public comment was received:
4. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Proiects
Brian Robetts provided background information on the item. There was no discussion.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Committee forwarded Option 1 to the December 2, 2008 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
B. 2009 Street Sweeping Services Contract - Bid Award
Marwan Salloum provided background information on this item. There was no discussion.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Committee forwarded Option 1 to the December 2, 2008 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
C. Easter Lake Flood Control Improvement Proiect and West Branch Joes Creek Culvert Replacement Proiect - Hovt
Road SW Vic. (Small CIP) - 50% Design Approval
Will Appleton provided background information on this item. Committee Member Ferrell asked how staff
knows that the culvert at the West Branch of Joes Creek is in eminent danger of failing and how many points
along the culvert are compromised. Mr. Appleton explained that the top of the culvert is corrugated pipe that
has separated and is beginning to collapse downward in one location, making a blockage eminent. This
particular location is approximately 15 feet below grade and repairs to this particular culvert are not within the
scope of the Surface Water Maintenance Crew. The effects of this culvert failing in a heavy rain or storm
event would impact the surrounding neighborhood. If staff waits until the time the culvert fails, it is highly
likely that with the depth of the culvert combined with the anticipated rise in water level, that the culvert will
not be accessible or repairable in a timely fashion. As such, further damage would result as the water level
increased. Replacing the culvert now would be proactive in preventing a system failure and combining this
project with the Easter Lake project may yield a lower cost to the City.
Committee Member Ferrell also inquired on the Easter Lake Improvement Project and wondered how often
flooding occurs. Mr. Appleton stated that flooding occurs on an annual basis. Flooding is most commonly
observed covering sections of parking lots at a convalescent home, a condo association and apartment
G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Su1lDD3ries 2008\11-17-08 Minutes.doc
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Page 2
November 17,2008
complex along S 308th St. A section of roadway along S 308th St dips low enough the surface water will cover
the roadway during heavy rain/storm events in this vicinity.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Committee forwarded Option 1 to the December 2, 2008 City Council Consent Agenda for approval.
D. Resolution Directing a Final Reorganization of the Federal Wav City Code
E. Ordinance Correcting Various Technical Errors in the Federal Way City Code
F. Ordinance Addressing Nuisance in the Federal Wav City Code
G. Ordinance Addressing Land Use Processes in the Federal Wav City Code
H. Ordinance Addressing Civil Enforcement in the Federal Way City Code
I. Ordinance Addressing amendments Relating to the DefInitions in the Federal Way City Code
Aaron Walls requested to address Items D- I together and provided background information on all items.
Committee Member Duclos asked if Planning Commission had reviewed these items and did they recommend
approval of the ordinances? Mr. Walls stated that yes, Planning Commission has approved the few
sustentative changes to the City Code. These items are being presented at FEDRAC and LUTC depending on
their nature. Mr. Walls also noted that the bulk of the City Code changes have been to remove redundant
sections, correct grammatical or typographical error. A new numbering system was developed to make the
City Code more user friendly and understandable
Committee Member Duclos also inquired on the Ordinance addressing nuisance issues in the Federal Way
City Code, wondering how nuisance issues will now be handled (ie. unfit building). Mr. Walls said that unfit
buildings will be addressed under special provisions. Committee Member Duclos asked for some examples of
other nuisance issues. Mr. Walls replied that excessive garbage around the exterior of a home that attracts
rodents or creates a dangerous environment, pests, or toxic materials left out and accessible to others are
examples of nuisances.
Moved: Duclos Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 2-0
Committee forwarded Option 1 of Item D to the January 6, 2009 City Council Resolution Agenda for
approval. Committee forwarded Option 1 of Items E, F, G, H and I to the December 2, 2008 City
Council Ordinance Agenda for First Reading.
5. FUTURE MEETING
The next regularly scheduled LUTC meeting will be December 1,2008 at 5:30 PM.
6. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:53 PM.
G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Su1lDD3ries 2008\ 11-17-08 Minutes.doe
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 20, 2009
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: 2008 Edition of the National Electrical Code Adoption
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City adopt the 2008Edition of the National Electrical Code
COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation
CATEGORY:
o Consent
o City Council Business
STAFF REpORT By: R. Lee Bailey
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
MEETING DATE: January 5,2009
~ Ordinance
o Resolution
o
o
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Community Development
Options Considered:
1. Replace the currently adopted electrical code (2005 NEe) with the 2008 Edition of the NEC.
2. Do not replace the currently adopted electrical code (2005 NEe) with the 2008 Edition of the NEe.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ ~
Committee ~
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
~
Committee
~
COMMITTEE REcOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option 1 to the January 20, 2009
City Council Agenda for first reading.
Linda Kochmar , Chair
Dini Duclos, Member
Jim Ferrall, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the ordinance adopting the 2008 Edition of the National
T[[",['rrico! Code.
r~"!"'!1Io.Jr!~~ ~~"'_T_
,......-.... ......,..................... ........ -......... -....... .......~,.......... ........... -..----.. .,....".- ~......-~..... ......._-...----~,
i-.,;;"'''',,;; ..........aI-A.- .....v..H...... ~...~. _. ............ L ',-,~.....",-................. ~"".. "'--'~I
; .
[)
ORM!<:O
,ST ~~d~~
It..... It,,, ",.". ,,,,,..,' ",.",.........,.... ,,......-. .It .'._.....-"...'
-. -----
o MOVED TO SIi;COND RK4-DING fnrdi,.,(!I'r:p~ ,,,,/d
REVISED - 1l2!06121li1h
.,.u....."'..............u.. _.............~""'.....
---- Q
/
ORDlNANCIi; il
RIi;SOLUTION il
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 5, 2009
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager
R. Lee Bailey, Building Official ~
2008 National Electrical Code Adoption
BACKGROUND:
The city is required to enforce the state electrical code. As of December 31, 2008, the state adopted the
2008 Edition of the National Electrical Code. Therefore, the City Of Federal Way should adopt this code
for consistency.
cc: Project File
Day File
ORDINANCE NO. 09-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON,AMDENDING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE X, OF THE FEDERAL WAY
CITY CODE TO ADOPT THE 2008 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL
CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way is responsible for permitting and inspecting the installation of
electrical wiring and equipment as set forth in Chapter 19.28 RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City Of Federal Way is required to adopt locally the current edition of the state's electrical
code; and
WHEREAS, as of December 31, 2008 the state has adopted the 2008 Edition of the National Electrical
Code
NOw, TIlEREFORE, TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, W ASIllNGTON, 00 ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section I. The 2005 Edition of the National Electrical Code as currently adopted in Chapter 5 Article X of
the Federal Way City Code shall be replaced by the 2008 Edition ofthe National Electrical Code:
Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate a..'1d severable. The
invalidity of any l:lause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the
in.validity urine applicaiion ihereorio any person ur circumsiance, shall nol an~~i [he validily urine remainder
r .. i . i ~ .. i i ~ i 2.. .... '.. i ~ .." .. .. 1 ...
01 Hl~ Of{UnanCc, ur lne vanuuy OJ H.S app!H..:auon iO Hiner persons or c!rcumStances..
Scciion 3. (~oITel:iions. ~rhe (~ii)t (~Jcrk and ihe l:udifiers of ihis ordinance are auihorizcG iu mak~
i1ccc:ssary l:orreciions lo this urdinance: including, bui no limiled io, ihc correciiun ol"sl:rivcncr/l:lericai error:;.,
r~[~TcrH":Cs:- urdinlinCt~ fH.nnbering, seciion/subscciion numbers, and any references lnc;fciu.
Section 4., [:,rr~ciive Date.. 'rhis ordinarH...:e snaii take efI~ci and be in forct; five (5) days frDm the lime or
;::..: (';r:~.:~ -:'"';.~'::"":""'':~::-;-"" ...::.... ":'"':;-:-:-:,-:,;;:!"",,A! h-:.. ~~.:-:.:..
.ilL..... .i".i.i~.i p.......~~~~~6~' lLli-J P"~7.i>U."""_ 'L"J ".......
F>/:\SSED by the C~ity (~OlHll:iJ orihe ('it)' orr\~dcrai \\la)' (his
I .~
uay lH
~ 20D7.
ORD #09~
.. Page 1
ATIEST:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, JACK DOVEY
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY
ApPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ArrORNEY, PATRICIAA. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH TIIE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY TIIE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE No:
I:\D0CUMENT\2OO7 Building Code Change\Unfit Stroctures Ordinance.doc
ORD #09-
, Page 2
From this date forward the City Of Federal Way's permitting policy shall be as follows;
All City Of Federal Way projects and sponsored projects, including enterprise fund
projects shall be exempt from all development permit fees. This shall be the practice at
the permitting counter and shall not require any special request from department
directors.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
20,2009
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: BPA Trail at SW 356th Street Pedestrian Crossing Contract Award
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the BPA Trail at SW 356th Street Pedestrian Crossing Contract to the sole
vendor?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: January 5, 2009
CATEGORY:
[gJ Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing
o City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other
~!A~~.~~~!_!J.!.:~~~R~.~~~J._ P.E.~ Ci~..!,!.~!!!c E~g~I;l~~~_.____.._._.___.__._.Q!~: Pub.1i.~...~'?!.~~__.__.__.____
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated January 5, 2009.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
.__....~.._-_.__......_-_.__.._...._-_._....._--_..._.-.....-.....----.-.-.--.--....-.....-----...--------...-.....-..-----.
1. Award the BPA Trail at SW 356th Street Pedestrian Crossing Contract to R. D. Jones' Stop Experts, Inc., the lowest
responsive, responsible bidder in an amount not to exceed $2~ and authorize the City Manager to execute the
contract. 'I.e i" 05. +G
2. Do not award the BP A Trail at SW 356th Street Pedestrian Crossing Contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder
and provide direction to staff
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option I be forwarded to the January 20, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda
for approval.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 7'ff(j;) ~ .
~ I oWletl
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
.ttee
@-
COMMITIEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the January 20,2009 City Council Consent
Agenda for approval.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jim Ferrell, Member
Dini Duclos, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to direct staff to award the BPA Trail at SW 35(/h Street Pedestrian Crossing
Contract to R. D. Jones' Stop Experts, Inc., the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in an amount not to exceed
$26;fJ6fJ.(j(j and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. "
~i4-05,4-C
(BELOWTO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDillEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 5, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manage~,9-iefOperations Officer, Emergency Manager
Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ~fJ
BPA Trail at SW 356th Street Pedestrian Crossing Contract Award
BACKGROUND:
On October 7, 2008, Council approved the use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) for improving
pedestrian safety on BPA Trail at SW 356th Street. Staff has obtained approval from Federal Highways
Administration for citywide use of RRFB. Quotes were solicited from multiple vendors of LED vendors and
received one from R.D. Jones' Stop Experts, Inc. for $26,060. This quote included elements that are not needed
or could be provided by King County. King County's esti~ate for elements such as signing and overhead sign
installation will be provided once it is established what eqpipment the vendor is providing, but this cost not
expected to exceed $25,000. Hence the total project cost is! expected to be less than $51,000, compared to the
project budget of $315,000, based on the cost of providing a full signal. . - ..
s,.t#s f
~llAs~,><, Or} {lj3Y(tfo
J
fM
tA..-.
TO/A-L II #2f;LfOJ:!fO
k:\lutc\2009\Ol-05-09 bpasw356 award.doc
..-....-...-.....-.................--.--......-..---....----....----.--.-------..--..........-..-....-----...-........----...............----.---..--.....-..-..............-.---.--.--.--...----.....-...-.........--
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 06, 2009
ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation - Bid Award
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation
Contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: January 5, 2009
CATEGORY:
D Consent
~ City Council Business
D Ordinance
o Resolution
D
o
Public Hearing
Other
~!~!.:I.':.~!'.!l~'!..~\'.=...:I.5.:~n M_i.~J.~r, p .~.~..Q~p~1YX~~!!~....w o!.~~.._l.?i.!~.ct()!
DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use Transportation Committee dated January 5, 2009.
Options Considered:
1. Award the Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation Contract to Maries Corp dba
Amaya Electric, the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $140,828.00 including state
sales tax, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
2. Do not award the Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation Contract to the lowest
responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend Option 1 be forwarded to the January 06, 2009 City
Consent A enda for a roval.
C52cil
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
-(i)-
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the January 06, 2009 City
Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jim Ferrell, Member
Dini Duclos, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move to award the Community Center Building Generator Electrical
Installation Contract to MarIes Corp dba Amaya Electric in the amount of $140,828.00 including state sales
tax, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
K:\council\agenda bills\2009\1-20-09 Community Center Back Up Generator Bid Award.doc
COUNCIL BILL #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERALW A Y
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 5, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P. E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager
Ken Miller, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director ~
Steve Ikerd, Parks and Facilities Manager
Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation - Bid Award
BACKGROUND
At the July 17,2007 City Council meeting, the Council approved the purchase of additional emergency
equipment to assist the City in providing services to our citizens and businesses during emergency
conditions. This included the purchasing and installation of an emergency generator for the Community
Center which is also proposed to be used as an emergency shelter. The 750kW generator has been
installed and the proposed contract will install the new automatic transfer switch, fuse block, meter
cabinet, conduit and wire.
One (1) bid was received and opened on November 24,2008 for the Community Center Building Generator
Electrical Installation from Maries Corp dba Amaya Electric in the amount of $140,828.00 including state sales
tax.
Amaya Electric has successfully performed similar electrical work for the City and therefore, staff
recommends awarding the Community Center Building Generator Electrical Installation bid to Maries
Corp. dba Amaya Electric the lowest responsive, responsible bidder in the amount of $140,828.00
including state sales tax. This bid amount is within the budget, however staff is discussing some
contract revisions with the contractor that will reducethe overall contract amount.
cc: Project File
K:\LUTC\2009\Ol-OS-09 Community Center Generator Installation- Bid Award.doc
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: N/A
ITEM
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: City Center Access Project - Open House Summary
POLICY QUESTION: N/A; Item is for "Information Only"
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
MEETING DATE: January 5, 2009
CATEGORY:
D Consent D Ordinance D Public Hearing
D City Council Business D Resolution C8J Other
_~!~~~ ~!'.9RT B~:...!5.:~_l!..M!!1..~!, P.E., D~E!:l~~!:l.~.~.c 'Ygrks Di.!:~'?!<?!.___.__.._D~~:Pu~.~~~. Wor~~_..
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use Transportation Committee dated January 5, 2009.
Options Considered: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: N/A
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
C~
DIRECTOR APPROVAL"
Council
Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A; Item is for Information Only
Linda Kochmar, Chair
Jim Ferrell, Member
Dini Duclos, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: N/ A; Item is for Information Only.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
o APPROVED
o DENIED
o TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION
o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - 02/06/2006
K:\counciI\agenda bilIs\2009\1-20-09 City Center Access Project doc
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
January 5, 2009
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Cary M. Roe, P .E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager
Maryanne Zukowski, P.E. Project Manager City Center Access Project (CCAP) Phase 2
Environmental Assessment (EA)
CCAP Phase 2 EA; What We Found Open House November 12th, 2008 Summary, Next Steps to
Approve the preferred build alternative for further evaluations.
BACKGROUND:
In May of 2007, City Council approved authorization to proceed with Phase II of the City Center Access
Project, Final Interchange Justification Report (IJR) and Environmental Assessment (EA). With this
approval, Council requested review of the Draft Public Involvement and Communications Plan (PICP)
and notification of Consultant Contract Award. Below is the Project's Updated Milestone Schedule.
To date the following activity milestones have been completed and near team milestones projected:
.
February 2007 - October 2007
July 2007
July 2007 - November 2007
July 2007 - October 2007
Staff prepared Contract Scope
Council Approved Draft PICP
Stakeholder Recruitment
WSDOT and FHW A contract
coordination and approval of the scope
of work
Advertised for Consultants
Interviewed Consultants
Consultant Negotiations
Contract Award
Public Scoping Open House "Public
Scoping Comments"
Community Briefmgs
"What we found" Open House
Scoring and selection of the Preferred
Alternative
LUTC Briefing Open House/Next Steps
Community Briefings
.
.
.
.
July 2007
September 2007
October 2007 - December 2007
December 2007 - January 2008
April 2008
.
.
.
.
.
August - September 2008
November 2008
December 2008
.
.
.
January 2009
January 2009
.
. February 2009 Open House Comments on Preferred
Alternative and a de minimis 4(f)
finding
. February 2009 LUTC presentation on Open House
Comments
. March 2009 Council Approval of Preferred
Alternative moving forward
. July 2009 Complete Draft Discipline Reports
. August 2009 City/WSDOT/FHW A review
. November 2009 Review of EA by Agencies
. December 2009 Finalize EA
. January 2010 EA and Access Public Hearings and 30
day comment period
SUMMARY:
November 2008
Open House "What we found"
The informational project open house was held on November 12, 2008 from 4:00 to 7:00 PM at the
Commons at Federal Way. The summary and comments can be viewed by accessing the City Center
Access Project Web Page and also attached for reference.
We presented initial environmental findings from the alternatives and took comments from the public and
the following is a brief summary from the above reference report.
Meeting purpose: Present and gather comment on traffic and environmental findings for the three project
alternatives.
Total sign in participants: 101 Estimated attendance: 200
Total comments: 34
Common interests & concerns:
· A void effects to water quality & habitat
· Concern regarding air pollution
· Increase transit & High-Occupancy Vehicle facilities
· Need to assess traffic impacts to roads east ofI-S
Alternative Comment Highlights:
· Alternative 1: Pro (9), Con (15)
- Provides best traffic relief & connections
- Too many pedestrian, park and neighborhood issues
· Alternative 2: Pro (5), Con (8)
- Less residential impact and has pre-existing exit off ofI-S
- Doesn't provide enough connections and impacts senior community
· No-Build Alternative: Pro (2), Con (4)
- Not an option based on future traffic needs and growth
December 2008
Results of the Screening of the Alternatives (perlic/Zukowski)
Two major meetings were held by the Core Support Team (our agency partners) and the Public
Stakeholder Team (our public advisory partners) with those meeting summaries attached. Also attached is
the final Screening ofthe Alternatives Technical Memorandum.
100% of the Core Team recommended Alternative 1 the North City Center alternative at S 3 12th Street
moving forward in this process. 100% of the Public Stakeholder Team recommended Alternative 1
moving forward in this process with additional comments. One team member felt that we should have
both alternatives combined as one improvement, three members expressed their concern of costs. Public
Stakeholder Team was surveyed on three questions. One of which "Do you agree with the process we
have provided?" All members agreed.
NEXT STEPS
December 2008 - January 2009, community briefings are anticipated for:
I. Federal Way Chamber of Commerce
2. Puyallup Tribes
3. Friends of the Hylebos
4. Unicorporated King County Area
5. South King Fire and Rescue Board of Commissioners
Additional project briefings will scheduled upon request.
February 2009, preferred alternative open house is tentatively scheduled for the week of February 9,
2009. This also with present the de minimis 4(f) finding for Steel Lake Park and take public
comments.
Staff will present a report on comments from this open house at the February 23rd Ave S, 2009 meeting
and present the recommendation to move Alternative I forward to full Council on March 3,2009, based
on information presented.
Attachments:
Open House Summary of November 12th, 2008
Open House Summary Appendix A
Meeting Minutes from the Core Support Team
Meeting Minutes from the Public Stakeholder Team
Final Screening Memo - endorsed by Core Team
Support Letter - South King Fire and Rescue
Support Letter - Public Stakeholder, Sandy Paul- Lyle
Support Letter - ? Weyerhaeuser
Support Letter - ? Belmore Park
cc: Project File / Kelly Dugar
Day File
Kirsten Hauge [khauge@prrbiz.com]
A Federal Way
CITY CENTER
ACCESS PROJECT
Open House Summary
November 12, 2008
Project Partners: Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Department of
Transportation, King County Road Services Division, King County METRO, Pierce
Transit, Sound Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, City of Federal Way Public
Stakeholder Team
Overview
On Wednesday, November 12,2008, the City of Federal Way hosted a public open house for the
City Center Access Project. The meeting was held from 4 to 7 p.m. at The Commons Mall in
order to encourage attendance and input from the greater community. Approximately 101
community members signed in and attended the open house to learn more about the project,
review and comment on the information shared, and ask questions of the project team. Because
of the layout and location of the open house, many attendees did not sign in at the sign in table
and it was estimated that approximately 200 may have viewed the materials. Attendance and
participation seemed limited due to the severe weather at the time of the open house.
The purpose of this open house was to share the findings from early environmental studies,
present traffic results and simulations for review, and provide an update on the change to the No-
Build Alternative. Other public meetings for the project during Phase II included the Public and
Agency Scoping open house on April 9, 2008 as well as briefings with community and
neighborhood associations. The project's Public Stakeholder team also meets on an ongoing
basis to advise the project from a community perspective.
At the November 12th open house, attendees were asked to sign in upon arrival and then
received a guide to the open house, a project fact sheet and comment form, as well as Title VI
forms. Display boards were arranged in stations around the room and project team members
were assigned to specific stations to provide details and answer specific questions. The display
boards included information on the project alternatives, environmental findings and traffic analysis
results. In addition there was a Design Visualization and animation for each of the build
alternatives. Open house attendees had the opportunity to provide comment via comment forms,
or by talking with a member the project team. In addition, the public could provide comments by
email.mail. or the project hotline.
To advertise the event to both interested parties and a wide array of Federal Way residents, the
City of Federal Way mailed postcards, mailed invitation letters to 120 legislative contacts,
distributed e-mail invitations, issued a press release dropped postcards at various community
centers and locations, posted signs at key locations that included a variable message sign at the
1-5/South S 320th Street interchange, paid for space on the Commons Mall variable message
sign, paid for advertising space in the Tacoma News Tribune, the Federal Way Mirror, and the
local Korean and Hispanic papers as well as announcing the meeting on the City of Federal Way
and Washington State Department of Transportation Web pages.
The following highlights the advertising efforts and feedback received. Verbatim public comment
follows as received by individuals.
2
Public Stakeholder Team Member Explaining Traffic Simulation
Comment Form Station
Project Alternatives
Design Visualizations
3
ADVERTISEMENTS
The City of Federal Way advertised the open house through a variety a methods. Advertisements
included translated statements in Russian, Korean, and Spanish with a phone number listed for
an appropriate translator for non-English speaking community members to call and get more
information about the open house. Approximately 4,600 residents, property owners and
businesses in Federal Way received postcard announcements. In addition, e-mail notices were
distributed to the project Iistserv.
Other advertising is listed below:
· TV 21 (local access channel) display ad
· Postcards distributed to community organizations, libraries, service providers, and
businesses
· Press release distributed to media outlets
· Interview with Korean Radio Station
· Notice on project website
· Invitations mailed to elected officials
· Variable Message Signs at key City intersections
· 10 signs posted along City roadways
· Electronic billboard sign at The Commons
· Display Ads in various news papers
Display ads to announce the open house were placed in the following papers:
Newspaper/Media Outlet Advertisement Insertion Date(s)
Federal Way Mirror 11/1/08
Tacoma News Tribune 11/5/08
Media Hankook (Korean weekly) 11/3/08
Womens NO.1 (Korean weekly) 11/3/08
The Korean Daily 11/3/08
Sea Latino (Hispanic publication) 10/27/08
4
COMMENT SUMMARY
COMMENT SOURCES
1-Email & electronic comment form
27 -Open House
2- Hardcopy mail
O-Phone
3- City Council Meeting comments
O-Informal open house comment (Le. anonymous flip chart notes)
2 - Letter to the editor of the local news paper
Total number of formal comments submitted: 33
Agencies and organizations providing comment:
. South King Fire and Rescue
Title VI forms returned: 1 (1 female, she indicated Asian/Pacific Islander ethnic group).
Origin of Open House participants:
Participants were asked to place a dot on the map below to indicate where they live or work.
5
COMMENT HIGHLIGHTS
The following is an overview of the 33 public comments received between November 1 ih and
26th, 2008 . While a full record of verbatim comments is provided in Appendix A, this section lists
the common themes, divergent points of interest, as well as new ideas by topic. Direct quotes
from interested parties are italicized to highlight the tone of the comments.
Environmental Issues
· Avoid effects to water quality and natural and animal habitats at Steel Lake Park
o "An off ramp with increased traffic through the middle of the park is going to
irrevocably harm the park"
o 'The lake is home to many types of birds and animals. Steel Lake s a pristine
environment for many types of ducks, blue herons, eagles, turtles, and the
occasional otter. Increased traffic is going to greatly impact this wonderfully
habitat for the wildlife. A freeway off ramp is going to irrevocable affect the lake
environment. "
· Address environmental impacts to Mirror Lake
o "Road runoff into Mirror Lake needs to be captured and directed away from
Lake."
· Traffic increases will cause more air pollution.
· No significant difference in the environmental impacts of Alternative 1 vs. Alternative 2.
· Thorough representation of environmental.issues
· Concern for environmental issues not addressed in the study
o "Traffic increase on 31 th west of Pacific Highway is a major environmental
change NOT addressed and abated in this study. It must be addressed."
· Project will cause air pollution beyond the construction area
o "The project (Alt. 1) is not required to mitigate traffic generated pollution beyond
the construction area, yet impacts beyond that area would be significant. The
City would need to make protecting wetlands & water quality a priority. "
· Negative impacts to wildlife habitats.
o "All the animals from Weyerhaeuser moved to our area now. So if you build
where are they going to go next?"
· The environmental information was helpful in the decision to support option 2.
Traffic Analysis
· Preference for Alternative 1
o "Alt. 1 is the clear winner.. .for both relieving congestion on 1-5, and relieving
congestion throughout the City Center. "
· Traffic accidents will increase under the 324th Street option because of close proximity to
the Department of Licensing and other businesses.
· Interest in the pOSSibility of adding more transit or HOV facilities
· Off ramps north of the City Center along 1-5 could r,rohibit future light rail access.
o "I am concerned that choosing Alt. 1 (31 t ) would preclude the 1-5 option for
future light rail. (I think that rail along 99 would be fabulous- increase shopping
and density - as in south Seattle. To put light rail along 1-5 would miss that
opportunity)"
· Effective displays and traffic simulations.
o "Best display I've seen. "
Alternatives (General)
· Northbound 1-15 exit to S 320th needs a right turn only lane.
6
.
Need to assess impacts to existing roads/traffic east of 1-5.
Show separate displa~/information outlining programmed transportation projects (Le.
improvements to 31 i )
Consider other options
a "If you want to ease congestion in the "City Center' why have 3 off/on ramps
within an 8 block area-crazy! The new on-off ramp should be up @ 28lih."
a "My idea is to build an off-ramp at 30lih. . .."
.
.
Alternative 1
Pros: 13
· Best alternative for connecting travel in Federal Way
a "To me S 31 ih would be the better route for connectivity with Federal Way."
a Alternative 1 is the clear winner.. .for both relieving congestion on 1-5, and
relieving congestion throughout the City Center. "
· Provides best east-west access.
a "Provides a new, extended east-west co"idor for traffic, from 1-5 to both Tacoma
and east. "
· Provides real benefit to the Belmor Park community.
· Provides best traffic relief.
a "Best Alternative -moves more traffic"
a "Makes the most sense, reduces traffic congestion the most, this should be #1
priority for project of this size/cost. "
a "There is very significant difference in traffic relief with Alt. 1 over Alt. 2 projected
to 20351"
· Exit from 1-5 to 31 ih would allow people to bypass 320th and Pacific Highway and go
west on 31ih to 1st S1. or 21st Ave. S.
· Allows for more effective emergency response.
a "This choice would allow for a more rapid concentrated response to the city
center areas and cut response times to the neighborhoods east of Interstate 5."
Cons: 15
· Neighborhoods of 24th Ave and 24th Ct S would be trapped during peak traffic periods.
· Does not reduce westbound congestion
a "Need full consideration of new 31 ih traffic west of Pacific Highway."
· Will result in increased traffic on residential side streets.
a "With increased traffic, how will residents who live near 31 ih be able to turn left
onto 31 ih?"
a "The impact on surrounding neighborhoods is also of utmost concern that must
be considered. A freeway ramp is going to increase traffic around the entire
neighborhood including 2lih Avenue South at the east end of the lake and South
304th Street on the north side of the lake. These streets are not able to handle
increased traffic. "
· Doesn't provide enough help for downtown core.
a "This whole thing has the feel of Alternative 1-the City needs to get the
downtown area improved-look at Bellevue, Renton, Even Burien & give this
place a reason to need another freeway exit. "
· Too many pedestrian/residential issues.
a "It seems wrong to run a major road with a freeway exit through a city park. The
impact on pedestrian traffic, noise, parking issues, etc. Running traffic through a
neighborhood to save a few minutes is wrong."
· Concern regarding accommodating safety and access to all the parks near Steel Lake.
· Widening 31 ih would negatively impact the skate park and other park amenities.
· Adversely impacts Steel Lake Park and the surrounding neighborhoods.
7
o "Do not run more vehicles on 31th St. past Steele Lake Park"
· Hinders emergency vehicle access
o "Accessing 31 th would be very difficult including for emergency vehicles."
Alternative 2
Pros: 5
· Providing access at 324th Street is a good distance between 320th St. and Highway.
· Alternative 2 still enhances east-west traffic and gets freeway traffic off 1-5 without
impacting the park and lake.
· Alternative 2 has less impact on residential areas.
· Could be helpful in stimulating activity at the mall and in the downtown core.
· This option is reasonable because it runs through commercial property.
· There is an existing freeway ramp nearby for busses.
Cons: 10
· Doesn't provide adequate connections and access.
o "S. 324th doesn't seem ,to connect too well with neighborhoods W&E of 1-5. "
o "Alternative 2 is nothing more than an off-ramp to Highway 99."
· Remove the 31 ih overpass from this project.
· Concern with adverse impacts to a senior community.
· Traffic vibration may damage water reserve tower.
o "If proposed on 324th -what will happen to the reserve tower? The vibration of
the traffic might damage the water tower. "
· This option is just on off-ramp to the area behind the mall and stops at Highway 99.
No Build Option
Pros: 2
· Best choice is to do nothing.
o "Saves on expanse, traffic noise, air pollution. "
· Alternative 1 and 2 are not acceptable.
Cons: 8
· Not a realistic option based on projected traffic growth.
o "Not an option. Too many cars will back up on 1-5."
· Doesn't address traffic needs.
o "Impossible -deal with problems early in the game - or the problem becomes
bigger. "
o "Definitely a no go. S 32dh needs relief'
Other Comments
· Choose an option that doesn't affect residents on 31ih.
o "I don't want to move."
· Need to improve the downtown core first.
OTHER COMMENTS
There were 3 comments at the November 18th City Council Meeting from citizens who are
opposed to the project. See Appendix A for comment transcripts. In addition, the following are key
questions and comments provided by attendees talking with project staff.
· General lack of interest in the environmental findings.
8
· Why are adjacent improvements not being considered, such as at 304th or 28th Ave?
· Skepticism that the decision regarding a preferred alternative has already been made in
favor of Alternative 1
· Neither alternative will improve regional traffic destined for areas west of SR 99.
· Why can't the 31 ih Street interchange be opened to general purpose traffic?
· Non-residents favor Alternative 1
· Existing 312132nd (East of 1-5) community is opposed to both alternatives
9
APPENDIX A:
VERBATIM COMMENTS
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt 1: Provides a new, extended east-west corridor for traffic, from 1-5 to both Tacoma and east.
Alt 2: Is nothing more than on off ramp to an area behind the mall; ending at Hwy 99.
No build: Not an option. Too many cars will back up on 1-5.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
There doesn't appear to be a significant difference between Alt. 1 and Alt. 2 with regards to the
environmental findings. Yet there is very significant difference in traffic relief with Alt. 1 over Alt. 2
projected to 2035!
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
Alt. 1 is the clear winner... for both relieving congestion on 1-5, and relieving congestion
throughout the City Center.
4. Please share any additional comments below.
Alt. 2 is nothing more than an off-ramp to Highway 99. Alt. 1 provides real benefit to the mobile
community.
Name:
Scott Chase
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: It seems wrong to run a major road with a freeway exit through a city park. The impact on
pedestrian traffic, noise, parking issues, etc. Running traffic through a neighborhood to save a
few minutes is wrong.
Alt. 2: At least there is already a ramp there for the busses.
No Build: Fix the core of this city economically (better stores, restaurants, etc) before doing this.
4. Please share any additional comments below.
This whole thing has the feel of Alternative 1-the City needs to get the downtown area
improved-look at Bellevue, Renton, Even Burien & give this place a reason to need another
freeway exit.
Name:
John L. Santo
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
Alternative 1: The neighborhoods of 24th Ave and 24th Ct. S would be especially trapped during
peak traffic periods. Accessing 31ih would be very difficult including emergency vehicles.
Name
Steve and Sue Smith
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: No! Why dump freeway traffic into the middle of a park.
Alt. 2: No.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
What about the impact to Steel Lake. I think your selection criteria was bad to begin with.
3. Comment:
If you want to ease congestion in the "City Center' whYt have 3 off/on ramps within an 8 block
area-crazy! The new on-off ramp should be up @ 288 h.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: NO!! Too many residential/pedestrian issues.
Alt. 2: Yes-already an 1-5 exit; commercial property.
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
Traffic will increase on residential side streets with Alt. 1-people already cut thru with traffic
congestion.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proeosed project alternatives.
Exit from 1-5 to 31ih -allows people to by-pass 320 Pac. Highway and go W. on 31ih to 1st S.
or 21st Ave. S.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Do not run more vehicles on 31ih St. past Steele Lake Park. I like 324th St. best - is a good
distance between 320th St. and Highway. Need another way in between.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
Well covered.
4. Please share any additional comments below.
We do not want more vehicles near our house and high school.
Name
Elbert Field
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
I'm in favor of this on & off ramp to 1-5 connect to Military Rd.
Name
Fred Seals
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Provides better access to F.W. from area east of 1-5. Relieves some S. 320th E/B congestion.
Name
Roger Hoy
To whom it may concern:
I have lived on Steel Lake for thirty six years, and over that time period I have been involved in
several issues that affect the lake and the surrounding environment of the lake. I have been
involved with development, the post office and mailboxes, Fisheries and lake poisoning, and a
resident's association. One of our biggest concerns was the first time the lake had milfoil. Along
with a couple of neighbors, we formed a committee to deal with it. With the City of Federal Way's
help, we were able to rid the lake of milfoil. When milfoil returned, the City of Federal Way helped
us form the first Lake Management District. Working together we have improved the quality of the
lake for residents around the lake and the citizens of Federal Way.
We are now faced with the bi~gest concern we have had to face and that is the proposed freeway
on the off ramp at South 312' . I am so concerned with what a freeway ramp will do to the park,
and I have always appreciated and enjoyed the usage of the park by citizens of Federal Way. An
off ramp with increased traffic through the middle of the park is going to irrevocably harm the
park. I have learned about mitigation. However, mitigation doesn't help Steel Lake Park itself.
The area along South 31th Street is an integral part of the park. If any of it is taken away
including the skateboard park and the neighborhood baseball diamond on the corner, Steel Lake
Park will be lessened in its value to the citizens. These spots of recreation can be located
elsewhere, but they are what help to make Steel Lake Park the crown jewel.
The water quality of Steel Lake is another huge issue that must be considered in great depth. A
freeway ramp is going to increase traffic around the entire lake, not just on South 31ih Street. I
don't think the increased runoff is being addressed adequately. I have been told that there are
state of the art catch basins that would address this issue. However, will what is state of the art at
the present time; truly protect the lake for years to come?
The lake is home to many types of birds and animals. Steel Lake s a pristine environment for
many types of ducks, blue herons, eagles, turtles, and the occasional otter. Increased traffic is
going to greatly impact this wonderfully habitat for the wildlife. A freeway off ramp is going to
irrevocable affect the lake environment.
The impact on surrounding neighborhoods is also of utmost concern that must be considered. A
freeway ramp is going to increase traffic around the entire neighborhood including 28th Avenue
South at the east end of the lake and South 304th Street on the north side of the lake. These
streets are not able to handle increased traffic. They are already used as Federal Way bypass
streets and more traffic isn't acceptable on them.
I sincerely believe that although this project is called City Center Access Project, the real purpose
of the new off ramp is to get traffic to the west of Pacific Highway using South 313th Street. At
rush hour there is already an increased amount of traffic west that slows traffic down considerably
on South 31th street. Instead of bringing people to the city center, it is going to help people avoid
the city center by using South 1 th as a bypass.
The traffic on South 320th Street is at its worst at rush hour. Is alleviating rush hour traffic worth all
the irrevocable changes that would occur if the South 31th Street off ramp is approved.
Margaret Reyhner
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: 312'h St. - 1st choice. Close to 1-5-joining the round about.
No Build: Best choice- is to do nothing. Saves on expanse, traffic noise, air pollution.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
Traffic increases will come more air pollution if on 324th. 312'h with Steel Lake will absorb some of
the air pollution.
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
Traffic accidents will increase if proposed on 324th St., because of the location of the driver's
license department (Traffic is bad at present as is) Diamond Jim's Restaurant and licensing
department and low income apartments.
4. Please share any additional comments below.
If proposed on 324tti -what will happen to the reserve tower? The vibration of the traffic might
damage the water tower.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt 1: Makes the most sense, reduces traffic congestion the most, this should be #1 priority for
project of this size/cost.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed rroject alternatives.
With increased traffic, how will residents who live near 312' be able to turn left onto 312th. Also
how will you accommodate safety and access to all the parks near Steel Lake?
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt 1: It impacts Steel Lake Park, Steel Lake and the surrounding neighborhoods around the lake
in an adverse way.
Alt. 2: It impacts a senior community in an adverse way.
No Build: Both alternatives are not really acceptable.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
I'm very concerned that if South 312'h Street is chosen as a freeway ramp that complete impact
studies on the surrounding neighborhood and especially the park and Steel Lake have not been
done. The park and lake need to be preserved for future generations.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt 1: Not much help for the downtown core.
Alt. 2: Could be very helpful for stimulating activity at the mall and in the downtown core.
No build: Not really a realistic option because of projected traffic growth.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
Helpful in the decision to support option 2.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: To me S 312th would be the better route for connectivity with Federal Way.
Alt 2: S. 324th doesn't seem to connect too well with neighborhoods W&E of 1-5.
No Build: Definitely a no go. S 320th needs relief!
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
Seem to work fine for me. Any possibilities of more transit or HOV facilities?
Name:
Timothy McCall
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt 1: Need full consideration of new 31 ih traffic west of Pac. Highway.
Alt. 2: 31ih overpass should be removed from this project and no relief of 1-5 traffic, no moderate
range need.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
Traffic increase of 100-150 cars per peak hour on 31ih West of Pac Highway is a major
environmental change NOT addressed and abated in this study. It must be addressed.
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
Good to use on/off ramps to get cars off 1-5. However, off ramps north of City Center along w/side
of i-5 could prohibit efficient light rail access to City Center in future.
Name:
David Toner
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
31ih Widened will create problems -the existing skate board park and the fishing boat ramp at
Steel Lake will probably have to be elevated -too much damage to have skate park along with a
4 lane rd.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Concern about up to 600 additional cars per day (during 4 peak hours) past Steel Lake & Mirror
Lake. Steel Lake Park pedestrian traffic and ingress/egress must be enhanced. Road runoff into
Mirror Lake needs to be captured and directed away from Lake. I prefer Alt. 2 because it still
enhances east-west traffic and gets freeway traffic off 1-5 without impacting Park and Lake. 324'h
has less impact on residential areas. Not perfect, but better.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
See above. The project (A It. 1) is not required to mitigate traffic generated pollution beyond the
construction area, yet impacts beyond that area would be significant. The City would need to
make protecting wetlands & water quality a priority.
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
I am concerned that choosing Alt. 1 (312'h) would preclude the 1-5 option for future light rail. (I
think that rail along 99 would be fabulous- increase shopping and density - as in south Seattle.
To put light rail along i-5 would miss that opportunity)
Name
Eden and Dave Toner
1. Please share your thoughts re~arding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: Northbound 1-5 exit to S 320' must have a right turn only lane. All 1-5 exits need a right turn
only lane. Need to assess impacts to existing roads/traffic east of 1-5 just like was done for west
of 1-5.
Alt. 2: * See Alt. 1
No Build: *See Alt. 1.
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: Don't like it on 313'h. I don't want to move.
Alt. 2:
No Build: Find some other street to build go straight across/no circle.
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
All the animals from Weyerhaeuser moved to our area now. So if you build where are they going
to go next?
Name
Linda Combs
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: Best alternative for connecting travel in Federal Way.
Alt. 2: Doesn't connect travel to very many areas. Need more access.
Name
Anonymous
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: 312
Alt. 2:
No Build Alternative: No
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
Yes at 228 - 20th S. Street as a stream which going thru our park. I believe should leave as is.
Period!
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
May be worse than right now. Is going to change my taxes!
Name
Armida Bruna CA Sa Nova
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt. 1: an exit at 324th will not reduce congestion going west because at 11th S. you have to return
to 320th or go south on narrow streets.
Alt 2: 31ih is best using an elevated road for 1-5 to 23rd S. with surface streets under for park
access.
Name
Don Dennis
2. Do you have any comments regarding the environmental findings?
My idea is to build a off ramp at 308 down off of the..... (Illegible)
Name
Bob Hair
1. Please share your thoughts regarding the proposed project alternatives.
Alt 1: Best Alternative -moves more traffic.
No Build: Impossible -deal with problems early in the game - or the problem becomes bigger.
3. Do you have any comments regarding the traffic analysis results?
Best display I've seen
4. Please share any additional comments below.
So comprehensive that lay person would have difficulty understanding, however the computer
animation solves the problem well. I ended up with migraine headache due cornucopia okay
information. Congratulations on well presented project.
H. Horan
Let me first take the time to thank you and the City of Federal Way for inviting South King Fire &
Rescue to participate in the City Center Access project, Stakeholders Committee. Our community
can only benefit from the mutual respect and cooperation developing between the City of Federal
Way and its Fire Department. Maryanne Zukowski has been a very patient leader while
coordinating a committee made up of person with very diverse backgrounds, ideas and interests.
In addressing our preference of the three alternatives available for the City Center Access, Sound
King Fire & Rescue took into account traffic congestion, freeway access points, response routes
and response times to identify which of the alternatives best suited emergency services for our
community. In addition, the department is looking at possible locations for a new training center
and incorporated available property sites into our decision making process. With that said, South
King Fire & Rescue would prefer the choice of Alternative 1 with freeway on and off ramps
located on a new overpass at South 312'h Street. This choice would allow for a more rapid
concentrated response to the city center areas and cut response times to the neighborhoods east
of Interstate 5. Another east/west roadway crossing Interstate 5 would be a valuable tool in our
efforts to reach our citizens in need.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in this decision. Please let me know if you
have additional questions or ways we can provide assistance.
Name:
Michael Knorr, Deputy Chief
Allen Church, Fire Chief/Administrator
South King Fire & Rescue
We attended the Access meeting last Wednesday. The impact on the parks listed on the poster
board was not clear to many of us. It didn't seem logical that Steel Lake Park would be impacted
for both proposed alternatives since 324th is 12 blocks from Steel Lake. We asked several people
about this. We finally learned that the impact was listed under both alternatives since 312th will
be expanded to 4 lanes and the street will have an overpass over the freeway. Since the
expansion project will occur whether any exits are built or not, Steel Lake Park will impacted by
the expansion of 312th. The impact on Steel Lake Park should not have been listed under just the
alternatives; it either should have been listed under each category or not have been listed at all.
For future presentations, perhaps a board showing planned changes should be displayed first.
Then the boards could show the "no change" and the proposed alternatives.
Since we live northeast of Federal Way, we frequently enter the city center core by way of 312th.
We are really concerned about the traffic problems near Steel Lake during the warm months as it
can be really challenging with people trying to enter or exit the park. We would have preferred
alternative #2 because of this, but alternative #1 would not necessarily add more traffic volume
312th since it is to be expanded to 4 lanes anyway.
I didn't know who to contact with this comment so thought I'd share it with you.
Name:
Sally Hurst
Federal Way City Council Meeting - November 18,2008
Garv Anderson - Spoke against city center access plan (see letters to the editor in the Federal
Way Mirror (attached).
John Rribrarv - Spoke about the city center access plan and the SPA power lines.
Linda Combs - Spoke against city center access plan.
"'
EI municipio de Federal Way necesita su ayuda al escoger entre opciones
para reducir la congestion del trafico y accidentes en la salida de S. 320th
Street de la 1-5 y para estimular la circulacion del trafico por todo el Centro
de la Ciudad a traves de mejoramientos locales de las carreteras.
Por favor, unase con nosotros en nuestro proximo
uForo Abierto"
jQuisieramos saber de usted!
~:::-;:;-~:'~;:':<:;:;:'m;:":~,::xB:~;:::'%:<:: ~ .
Proyecto de Acceso del Centro de la Ciudad
("City Center Access Project")
Foro Abierto al Publico
("Public Open House")
12 de noviembre de 2008
Commons Mall '
Plaze enfrente de Macy's
1928 S Commons Way
(par la calle 320th y Pacific Hwy)
de 4:00 a 7:00 PM
:$:....:.:~<<<:;:::,;:;>:;"",';':::':,:~-:;:::::,
Para mas informacion:
253.835.2613
citycenteraccessproject@cityoffederalway.com
www.cityoffederalway.com
Rutas de autobus al Commons:
http://transit.metrokc.gov/tops/bus/neighborhoods/federaCway.html
Estado de Washington ("Washington State Department of Transportation") y
la Adminjstraci6n Federal de Carreteras ("Federal Highway Administration").
-r
A Federal Way
CITY CENTER
ACCESS PROJECT
CORE TEAM MEETING
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
10:00AM - 12:00PM
Patrick Maher Room
PRESENTERS:
John Perlic, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Parametrix
Maryanne Zukowski, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer, City of Federal
Way
ATTENDEES:
Tony Basha, WSDOT
Ken Miller, COFW
Rick Roberts, WSDOT
Celine Vogler, WSDOT
Rick Roberts, WSDOT
Daryl Wend Ie, Parametrix
Steve Chestnut, WSDOT
Kelly Dugar, COFW
Kurt Sielbach, WSDOT
Brian Hasselbach, DOT
Benjamin Smith, Sf
ATTENDEES in audience:
Jerry A. Heinz, Weyerhaeuser-Public Stakeholder
Bob Griebenow, ABAM - Public Stakeholder
Meeting Summary
1. Introductions
The meeting began at lO:03am. Ms. Zukowski informed the team that a
representative from King County would not be present at the meeting. All
attendees introduced themselves then the meeting opened with Ms. Zukowski
presenting a summary of the last public open house.
2. Public Meeting Summary and Debrief
Ms. Zukowski presented a PowerPoint presentation of the open house event held
at the Commons Mall. A summary of the Comments and questions from the
open house were included in the presentation. Mr. Miller commented he liked
using the Commons mall as a venue for the event and asked if it would be used
again for future upcoming public open houses. Mr. Perlic responded that while
1
· Effect on Weekend Traffic Congestion
Alternative 2, S 324th Street was rated slightly better than . alternative 1.
The Saturday traffic analysis was slightly better for alternative 2 due to
better access and circulation as both ramps are near the mall area which
improves circulation of shopping traffic on the weekends around the S
324th Street area.
Safety:
· Impact on Freeway Safety
Alternative 1 was rated slightly higher than alternative 2 due to the
reduction of traffic congestion backing up onto 1-5 that would occur with
the addition of the bridge at S 312th Street.
. Impact on Local Safety
Alternative 1 is rated to be better than Alternative 2 due to the
improvements to freeway operations.
Access/Circulation:
· Connectivity with and Circulation within the City Center
Alternative 1 is rated higher than alternative 2 as it provides better
balance and distribution of traffic. Alternative 1 opens up traffic on the
north end of the city center whereas alternative 2 opens up the south end
of the city center and traffic still needs to get up to the northern end of
the city center area.
· Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes
Alternative 2 was rated slightly higher due to two new connections across
1-5.
Design/Construction:
. Ability to Meet Design Standards
Both alternatives currently meet design standards. Neither of the
alternatives shows any significant design deviations and as such, both
have high ratings.
3
To summarize, Mr. Perlic pointed out that the overall ratings for each of the
three main categories show a higher benefit for alternative 1.
The team was then asked for any comments prior to selecting a preferred
alternative recommendation. Mr. Roberts noted that freight mobility rating was
the same for each alternative and under circulation within the city is rated as a
double plus for alternative 1 and a single plus for alternative 2. Mr. Roberts felt
those should have the same rating. Mr. Perlic agreed as both alternatives
improve freight mobility. Alternative 2 is closer to freight destinations in the
south end of the city, which could improve its rating in freight mobility, but it is
subjective. Team asked why alternative 1 had a minus rating under
constructability. Ms. Zukowski answered that the minus was given due to the
direct access ramps at S 317th Street. Cut and cover would be needed at S 317th
Street. for the abutments below which affected the constructability rating. Mr.
Perlic added it could include a temporary signal to make those improvements.
Ms. Zukowski asked Mr. Roberts if he thought the freight mobility rating should
change, but Mr. Roberts answered no after hearing Mr. Perlic's response.
Next, the team went around the table stating their recommendation and reasons
why. Mr. Roberts started first recommending alternative 1 due to improved
circulation in the north end of the city, safety and mobility. Mr. Basha stated he
wanted to make sure alternative 1 didn't have a fatal flaw in the natural
environment compared with alternative 2. Ms. Zukowski added the bog could
prove to be difficult to the permitting process. Both alternatives impact the bog
area, but alternative 2 has a higher impact. Mr. Perlic stated the bog would be
examined further as designing for the preferred alternative gets better defined.
Mr. Basha then chose alternative 1, but has reservations about the bog being
permittable, possibly creating a fatal flaw. Mr. Basha also asked about future
meetings with the Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) regarding 4(f) and G(f)
issues. Ms. Zukowski answered that once an alternative was selected then work
would resume on the 4(f) and G(f) process. Mr. Perlic added that the process
would involve establishing a mitigation plan with the COFW before moving
forward.
Ms. Vogler chose alternative 1. Her concerns, however, were how the Puyallup
tribe would react to the permitting process should alternative 1 be chosen. Ms.
Zukowski stated the Puyallup tribe requested a briefing after an alternative has
been chosen and that would happen in January 2009 to work through any issues
they may have. Mr. Smith chose alternative 1 based on how it will impact transit
and freeway operations. Mr. Hasselbach chose alternative 1 taking into
consideration Mr. Basha's environmental and permitting concerns and due to
improved traffic circulation. Mr. Sielbach chose alternative 1, but also with the
same permitting and environmental concerns previously mentioned. Mr.
Chestnut stated he is in favor of alternative 1 for some of the same reasons as
5
A Federal Way
CITY CENTER
ACCESS PROJECT
CORE TEAM MEETING
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
10:00AM - 12:00PM
Patrick Maher Room
PRESENTERS:
John Perlic, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Parametrix
Maryanne Zukowski, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer, City of Federal
Way
ATTENDEES:
Tony Basha, WSDOT
Ken Miller, COFW
Rick Roberts, WSDOT
Celine Vogler, WSDOT
Rick Roberts, WSDOT
Daryl Wend Ie, Parametrix
Steve Chestnut, WSDOT
Kelly Dugar, COFW
Kurt Sielbach, WSDOT
Brian Hasselbach, DOT
Benjamin Smith, Sf
ATTENDEES in audience:
Jerry A. Heinz, Weyerhaeuser-Public Stakeholder
Bob Griebenow, ABAM - Public Stakeholder
Meeting Summary
1. Introductions
The meeting began at lO:03am. Ms. Zukowski informed the team that a
representative from King County would not be present at the meeting. All
attendees introduced themselves then the meeting opened with Ms. Zukowski
presenting a summary of the last public open house.
2. Public Meeting Summary and Debrief
Ms. Zukowski presented a PowerPoint presentation of the open house event held
at the Commons Mall. A summary of the Comments and questions from the
open house were included in the presentation. Mr. Miller commented he liked
using the Commons mall as a venue for the event and asked if it would be used
again for future upcoming public open houses. Mr. Perlic responded that while
1
· Effect on Weekend Traffic Congestion
Alternative 2, S 324th Street was rated slightly better than alternative 1.
The Saturday traffic analysis was slightly better for alternative 2 due to
better access and circulation as both ramps are near the mall area which
improves circulation of shopping traffic on the weekends around the S
324th Street area.
Safety:
· Impact on Freeway Safety
Alternative 1 was rated slightly higher than alternative 2 due to the
reduction of traffic congestion backing up onto 1-5 that would occur with
the addition of the bridge at S 312th Street.
· Impact on Local Safety
Alternative 1 is rated to be better than Alternative 2 due to the
improvements to freeway operations.
Accessl Circulation:
· Connectivity with and Circulation within the City Center
Alternative 1 is rated higher than alternative 2 as it provides better
balance and distribution of traffic. Alternative 1 opens up traffic on the
north end of the city center whereas alternative 2 opens up the south end
of the city center and traffic still needs to get up to the northern end of
the city center area.
· Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes
Alternative 2 was rated slightly higher due to two new connections across
1-5.
Designl Construction:
· Ability to Meet Design Standards
Both alternatives currently meet design standards. Neither of the
alternatives shows any significant design deviations and as such, both
have high ratings.
3
To summarize, Mr. Perlic pointed out that the overall ratings for each of the
three main categories show a higher benefit for alternative 1.
The team was then asked for any comments prior to selecting a preferred
alternative recommendation. Mr. Roberts noted that freight mobility rating was
the same for each alternative and under circulation within the city is rated as a
double plus for alternative 1 and a single plus for alternative 2. Mr. Roberts felt
those should have the same rating. Mr. Perlic agreed as both alternatives
improve freight mobility. Alternative 2 is closer to freight destinations in the
south end of the city, which could improve its rating in freight mobility, but it is
subjective. Team asked why alternative 1 had a minus rating under
constructability. Ms. Zukowski answered that the minus was given due to the
direct access ramps at S 317th Street. Cut and cover would be needed at S 317th
Street. for the abutments below which affected the constructability rating. Mr.
Perlic added it could include a temporary signal to make those improvements.
Ms. Zukowski asked Mr. Roberts if he thought the freight mobility rating should
change, but Mr. Roberts answered no after hearing Mr. Perlic's response.
Next, the team went around the table stating their recommendation and reasons
why. Mr. Roberts started first recommending alternative 1 due to improved
circulation in the north end of the city, safety and mobility. Mr. Basha stated he
wanted to make sure alternative 1 didn't have a fatal flaw in the natural
environment compared with alternative 2. Ms. Zukowski added the bog could
prove to be difficult to the permitting process. Both alternatives impact the bog
area, but alternative 2 has a higher impact. Mr. Perlic stated the bog would be
examined further as designing for the preferred alternative gets better defined.
Mr. Basha then chose alternative 1, but has reservations about the bog being
permittable, possibly creating a fatal flaw. Mr. Basha also asked about future
meetings with the Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) regarding 4(f) and 6(f)
issues. Ms. Zukowski answered that once an alternative was selected then work
would resume on the 4(f) and 6(f) process. Mr. Perlic added that the process
would involve establishing a mitigation plan with the COFW before moving
forward.
Ms. Vogler chose alternative 1. Her concerns, however, were how the Puyallup
tribe would react to the permitting process should alternative 1 be chosen. Ms.
Zukowski stated the Puyallup tribe requested a briefing after an alternative has
been chosen and that would happen in January 2009 to work through any issues
they may have. Mr. Smith chose alternative 1 based on how it will impact transit
and freeway operations. Mr. Hasselbach chose alternative 1 taking into
consideration Mr. Basha's environmental and permitting concerns and due to
improved traffic circulation. Mr. Sielbach chose alternative 1, but also with the
same permitting and environmental concerns previously mentioned. Mr.
Chestnut stated he is in favor of alternative 1 for some of the same reasons as
5
~ Federal Way
CITY CENTER
ACCESS PROJECT
STAKEHOLDERS TEAM MEETING #9
"Selecting the Preferred Alternative"
Friday, December 5th, 2008
7:30AM - 9:30AM
City Hall Council Chambers
Meeting Summary
PRESENTERS:
John Perlic, P.E., Senior Project Manager, Parametrix
Maryanne Zukowski, P .E., Senior Traffic Engineer,
City Of Federal Way
ATTENDEES:
Marwan Salloum, COFW H. David Kaplan
John Ribary Kirsten Hauge, PRR
Kelly Dugar, COFW Sandy Paul
Andy Hwang, COFW Don Denckla
Bob Griebenow, Berger/Abam Dorothy Ascheman
Jerry A. Heinz, Weyerhaeuser Don Perry, lakehaven
Gary Martindale, The Commons Mall
The Stakeholder group represents a wide and full range of interests and
expertise. That experience ranges from former City Council members, ex-City
Managers, City staff, Public Safety & Fire Department representatives, business
owners, private interest groups, and citizens.
Summary:
The meeting commenced at 7:35am with the introductions of all attendees. Ms.
Zukowski opened the meeting by showing the team the first part of a PowerPoint
summary presentation, including photos, about the public open house on held on
November 12th. She added that not all the design visualizations are complete,
but the ones that are have been posted to the webpage. Traffic simulations
have also been added to the webpage. Ms. Hauge then reviewed the rest of the
open house summary regarding feedback and comments received from the
public about each alternative. Mr. Kaplan stated that some of the people he
spoke with at the open house were not aware that a bridge at S 312th Street was
already part of the city's comprehensive plan. Mr. Denckla asked if there were
other agency or city endorsements on a preferred alternative similar to the
endorsement received from South King Fire and Rescue supporting alternative 1.
Ms. Zukowski answered no other endorsements had been submitted.
Ms. Zukowski noted that a lot of members from the stakeholder's team were
present to help answer questions from the public and extended her thanks for
everyone's participation at the open house.
Mr. Perry asked if the total of the costs given for each alternative, $283 million
for alternative 1 and $279 million for alternative 2 reflected other costs of
construction such as engineering and rights of way. Mr. Kaplan agreed that
those costs should be a part of any final cost estimates. Mr. Perlic and Ms.
Zukowski answered that they did not, but those figures will be prepared for the
selected preferred alternative. Mr. Perlic distributed copies of those estimates to
the team for their review. Ms. Zukowski and Mr. Perlic added that cost could -not
be considered a deciding factor in selecting an alternative per the state and
federal policies; environmental impacts were to be considered deciding factors.
Ms. Zukowski then asked the team to go around the table and give their opinion
on a preferred alternative. Mr. Ribary asked if a written selection would also be
necessary and Ms. Zukowski answered that it would not be required, but that it
was up to each person to make that decision and were welcomed to submit one
if they would like to do so.
Each team member was given a handout of three questions to consider when
selecting a preferred alternative prior to the meeting:
1. Do you agree with the process that we have provided for you for the
selection of a preferred alternative to be evaluated in a full Environmental
Assessment (EA) in the EA process?
2. Do you agree with the scoring and moving forward Alternative l-North
City (S 312th Street)?
3. Do you have any other issues or concerns that need to be provided for
formal documentation purposes and public presentation?
The following answers from the team were all stated in response to these
questions and are summarized in the same order.
proper environmental assessment and more mitigation still need to be done. I
guess I'll be a part of that committee too.
Mr. Martindale's responses:
I support the process and support alternative 1. I am opposed to alternative 2
primarily because the purpose of the project is to alleviate traffic around the city
center, particularly on S 320th Street. I believe more people would do business
and shop in the city center if they would not have to fight the traffic congestion
on S 320th Street. Residents north of the city center have to either use the S
272nd Street exit or the S 320th Street exit and that puts unnecessary traffic
where it doesn't need to be, around the mall property. Alternative 1 would take
care of a lot of those issues. Also, more work would need to be done to S 324th
Street if alternative 2 was chosen and that would seriously impact the mall's
ability to perform effectively. I am not sure if either alternative is the best choice
because of the cost, but if one is going to be done, I am in support of alternative
1 and strongly opposed to alternative 2.
Mr. Hwang's response:
The process was good. The police department would like to focus on three
areas, managing crime, response times and collision rate. Neither alternative will
make a difference in managing crime. In terms of response time and having
east to west access, the S 324th Street alternative would best meet that need.
Collision rate is among our top five calls for service. Based on safety needs,
alternative 1 is better to manage traffic and reduce the numbers of collisions.
There would be more bottlenecks with alternative 2 is chosen. In terms of
response time, crime rate and collision rate, the police department is in favor of
alternative 1.
Mr. Ribary's response:
I agree with the process and have come to appreciate how complicated this part
of the process is. I am in favor of alternative 1. While the process is fine, I do
have issues with the criteria for the process not including visual impacts. It
should have been obvious alternative 2 is fatally flawed. As moving the power
lines along 5 324th Street is prohibitively expensive, alternative 2 can not be
considered as a viable option. If we would have had both a preliminary planned
view and an elevation view at the same time, maybe we could have foreseen
some of the complications with the slope planned for alternative 1 sooner. I feel
closer to the community as a result of this process and think the city is doing a
responsible job.
Ms. Zukowski added she does have early drawings of the east side of 1-5, but
they are not yet ready for public viewing.
Ms. Paul's response:
The process is awesome but very complex. I wish more citizens would get
involved and better understand the process. I spend a lot of time explaining the
process to my friends and family and now they understand it better. One of my
biggest complaints is that other highway transportation projects were built
without vision. As soon as they are finished, they are obsolete. We really need
more vision as to what the city's needs will be in 25 years. In a perfect world, I
would choose to build both options. I supported alternative 2 from the
beginning and still do, but also support alternative 1. It will only get more
expensive the longer we wait. I really think we should build both alternatives
regardless of cost. By the time one alternative is built, it will be obsolete upon
completion.
Ms. Zukowski stated that building both alternatives at one time was an original
option but is not at this time. It was eliminated because of the other
alternatives.
Mr. Perry's response:
The process is fine and the scoring is fine. I support alternative 1. The city
bridge at S 312th Street has to be communicated to the public as already being
part of the comprehensive plan. Alternative 1 would open the north side of the
city and we need another east-west route other than S 320th Street. We have
always supported the S 312th Street option for access to Lakehaven's water
mains. The cost is a lot of money and is this the best way to spend $300 million
dollars? That said I don't see another option for the city. I wish you luck.
Lakehaven supports alternative 1 versus alternative 2. The entire utility district
is valued at less than $300 million dollars, to put this into perspective.
Ms. Ascheman's response:
The process has been excellent. I live right off of S 312th Street. There are
older homes in the community and the responses I am hearing is from my older
neighbors is that they don't care as they won't be around at the time the new
alternative opens. They have to consider what will happen for their children and
grandchildren. I'd rather see a new alternative somewhere else, but it makes
sense if the money is available it should be built there (on S 312th Street). Cost
wise and common sense wise, I don't like it but support alternative 1.
When the team was finished Ms. Zukowski asked if anyone had any other
questions. Mr. Ribary asked if the city had $300 million dollars for the project
and how will funding happen. Ms. Zukowski answered that we needed to go
through the environmental process before asking for any funding and explained
the next steps in the process. She added that the cost for the entire project will
not come solely from the City of Federal Way. The intent is not to burden the
citizens with paying for this project.
Ms. Zukowski stated that this could be the last stakeholder's meeting. More
community briefings will be scheduled and the week of February 9th, 2009 is the
date of the next open house. She invited the team members to contact her if
they were interested in participating in coordinating that meeting. Team
members were also invited to come and audience future core team meetings as
well. Ms. Zukowski went on to say that another meeting could be set up before
the next open house to keep the team informed and further understand the
process.
Mr. Kaplan stated that citizen participation should be a part of the mitigation
process also.
Ms. Zukowski told the team their participation has been an important part of the
process and that everyone has done an excellent job and is receiving national
attention for their efforts. She asked if there was anything that could have been
done better, to please let her know.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45am
January Core Team Meeting Cancelled - next meeting on Tuesday, February 3, 2009
(!0:00am - 12:00pm)
_~ (ITYOF
j;~ Federal Way
CITY CENTER
ACCESS PROJECT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
November 21, 2008
Maryanne Zukowski
From:
Subject:
cc:
John Perlic
Draft Alternative Screening Results
Project Number: 554-2441-016
Project Name: City Center Access Project
CITY CENTER ACCESS PROJECT SCREENING PROCESS
The City of Federal Way is using a screening process to help select a Preferred Alternative for the Federal
Way City Center Access Project. The screening process is designed to help evaluate the potential benefits
and impacts of each alternative. This information will then be used by decision-makers to choose the
Preferred Alternative. This memorandum describes the screening criteria used for each alternative and
summarizes the results. The project setting is shown on Figure 1. All figures are attached at the end of this
memo.
Currently, the City is considering a No-Build Alternative and two build alternatives (Figures 2 to 5)
focused on modifications to the I-5/S 320th Street Interchange to provide modified 1-5 access ramps at
S 31th Street or S 324th Street. The alternatives are:
. No-Build Alternative
. Alternative 1 - North City Center Alternative
. Alternative 2 - South City Center Alternative
The screening process is being conducted within the context of more detailed engineering and
environmental analysis for the project, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The screening process is designed to provide a summary of the
relative performance of the alternatives, including the No- Build Alternative, within several categories of
criteria, such as transportation benefits and environmental impacts.
The screening process and its supporting environmental documentation are intended to help
decision-makers choose which alternative is most promising, based on initial conceptual designs for each
City Center Access Project
November 21 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
alternative. The screening criteria are derived from the project's purpose and need statement, and also
respond to public and agency scoping comments and applicable environmental regulations.
The purpose and need is of fundamental importance for the project and is used to develop alternatives and
guide the selection of a preferred alternative. Beginning in February 2004, the City of Federal Way has
gathered and addressed comments on the purpose and need.
What is the purpose of the project?
The City of Federal Way and its project partners proposes this project to improve access and circulation
for the City Center, a designated regional urban center, and to improve safety and reduce congestion on
the transportation network.
Why is the project needed?
Support Community and Economic Development Goals
· The City of Federal Way is designated as an Urban Center by the Puget Sound Regional
Council (PSRC). A designated Urban Center concentrates land use and population
growth to manage transportation infrastructure. To manage -this growth, improvements
are needed for existing deficiencies in the transportation network today and to
accommodate future growth for tomorrow. The City expects to have 106,000 residents
and 20,000 additional jobs by the year 2020. Much of this growth is focused in the City
Center area per the PSRC land use assignments for mixed-use commercial development
in the City Center core area.
Better Set'Ve Transportation Demand
· Regional growth in people and jobs will continue to place demands on roadway capacity
within the City Center.
Improve Access and Travel Times
· Primary routes to Federal Way operate at or near capacity, with traffic volumes
continuing to grow.
Address Safety Problems
· Merge problems and traffic congestion contribute to collisions and safety concerns on
and around S 320th Street.
· Back-ups from roadways at capacity from the freeway ramps onto 1-5 cause rear-end
collisions.
Support a Balanced Transportation System
· The City's plans for the City Center include major improvements in transit and encourage
bicycling, walking, and carpooling.
· Other long-term plans involve replacing the super blocks with a smaller street grid
system to promote alternative travel modes.
Preset'Ve the Environment and Quality of Life
. The City is committed to protecting neighborhoods, livability, and natural resources.
City Center Access Projed
2
November 21, 2008
- I
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Fulfill Long-Range Planning Goals
. The City, State, and region have long-standing plans to improve transportation in the
City Center area.
. The City of Federal Way has made investments to improve access to the City Center with
support of transit centers and increasing the capacity of State Route (SR) 99 to include
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) travel.
SCREENING CRITERIA
What are the screening criteria to be used to evaluate the project alternatives?
The following criteria categories are proposed for the screening analysis and are described briefly below:
Transportation
· Traffic Congestion/Operations
o Compatibility with Freeway Operations
o Impact on Local Traffic Operations/Degree of Congestion
o Impact on Transit Operations
o Impact on Weekend Traffic Congestion
· Safety
o Impact on Freeway Safety
o Impact on Local Traffic Safety
. Access/Circulation
o Connectivity with and Circulation within the City Center
o Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes
o Freight Mobility
. Design/Construction
o Ability to Meet Design Standards
o Constructibility
o Operation and Maintenance Costs
o Construction Impacts on Traffic
o Compatibility with Planned Link Light Rail Alignment
Natural Environment/Critical Areas
. Plants and Animals
o Priority and Critical Habitat
o Impact to Threatened or Endangered Species
City Center Access Project
3
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
. Water Resources
o Wetlands
o Lakes and Streams
o Water Quality
o Groundwater
. Earth
o Impact on Critical Areas (steep slopes, seismic, and landslide areas)
. Air
o Impact on Air Quality
o Impact on Climate Change
Human Environment
. Land Use and Property
o Land Use, Including Local and Regional Plans
o Property Acquisitions and Displacements
o Hazardous Materials
. Protected Resources
o Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources
o Impact on Section 4(t)/6(t) Resources
. Neighborhoods
o Visual Impacts
o Noise Impacts
o Environmental Justice
o Public Services
o Community Character
Description of Individual Measures
Transportation: Traffic Congestion/Operations
Compatibility with Freeway Operations
How does the alternative impact the overall operations of the 1-5 mainline?
Impact on Local Traffic Operations/Degree of Congestion
How will the alternative affect level of service (LOS) at key intersections? (A reduction in vehicle
delay that leads to an improvement in LOS is deemed to yield a benefit to operating LOS at an
intersection. )
City Center Access Project
4
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Impact on Transit Operations
How does the alternative affect transit travel times, routing, and system connectivity?
Effect on Weekend Traffic Congestion
How does the alternative affect weekend traffic congestion during the Saturday peak hour?
Transportation: Safety
Impact to Freeway Safety
Is the alternative likely to improve/degrade freeway safety?
Impact on Local Street Safety
Is the alternative likely to improve safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles on local streets and at
high accident frequency intersections?
Transportation: Access/Circulation
Connectivity with and Circulation within the City Center
How does the alternative impact or enhance circulation within the City Center?
Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes
Does the alternative support additional non-motorized travel to and from the City Center or impact
existing recreational trails?
Freight Mobility
Does the alternative provide increased mobility for freight?
Transportation: Design/Construction
Ability to Meet Design Standards
How well does the alternative adhere to American Association of State Highways and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) design
standards and what design deviations are expected?
Constructibility
How easy and lengthy would it be to implement the alternative during construction, including any
impact from poor soil conditions?
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
How will the alternative affect O&M costs to maintain facilities such as landscaping, traffic signals,
stormwater treatment ponds, etc.?
Construction Impacts on Traffic
How will the alternative affect traffic during construction?
City Center Access Project
5
November 21. 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Compatibility with Planned Link Light Rail Alignment
Is the alternative compatible with a planned Link light rail alignment?
Natural Environment: Plants and Animals
Impact on Priority and Critical Habitat
Will the alternative avoid permanent impacts to priority or critical habitat, including impacts to
vegetated areas and trees?
Impact to Threatened or Endangered Species
Is the alternative likely to negatively affect threatened or endangered species?
Natural Environment: Water Resources
Impact on Wetlands
How will the alternative affect potential wetland and wetland buffers?
Impact on Lakes and Streams
What are the possible impacts to lakes and streams within the study area?
Impact on Water Quality
Can the alternative collect and treat stormwater to current standards?
How much water quality mitigation will be added in the project study area to areas not currently
receiving treatment?
Impact on Groundwater
What is the alternative's effect on groundwater, aquifer recharge areas, or water supply wells?
Natural Environment: Earth
Impact on Critical Areas Related to Geologic and Soil Conditions (steep slopes, seismic, landslide
potential)
How will implementation of an alternative permanently affect known critical resources?
Natural Environment: Air
Impact on Air Quality
How will implementation of the alternative likely affect air quality?
Impact on Climate Change
How will implementation of the alternative affect climate change, resulting from emissions of
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide?
City Center Access Project
6
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Human Environment: Land Use and Property
Land Use: Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans
Is the alternative consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan - City Center Element? Is the
alternative consistent with county, regional, and state plans, including the King County 2008
Transportation Needs Report, PSRC's Destination 2030, or the WSDOT Highway System Plan?
Property Acquisitions and Displacements
How many commercial and residential properties will be affected by full or partial parcel
acquisitions? How many individual business units or residential dwelling units would be affected?
Impact from Hazardous Materials
Does the alternative have the potential to encounter contaminated sites?
Human Environment: Protected Resources
Impact on Historic and Cultural/Archaeological Resources
Does the alternative have the potential to encounter/disturb resources?
Impact on Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources
What are the direct impacts on Steel Lake Park, any historic buildings, or other Section 4(f) or 6(f)
resources?
Human Environment: Neighborhoods
Visual Impacts
Will the alternative affect views from 1-5, public viewpoints, and areas considered sensitive to visual
change? .
Noise Impacts
How will implementation of the alternative affect noise levels to residential communities and other
noise-sensitive areas?
Environmental Justice Impact
Is the alternative likely to affect low-income and minority communities?
Public Services
What are the benefits or impacts of the alternative on emergency vehicle access and response times in
the study area?
Community Character
What are the benefits or impacts of the alternative on community character (accessibility,
connectivity, and crime) for residents or employees to access shopping areas, parks, schools, transit
centers/stops, or other community facilities?
City Center Access Project
7
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Ratings
For each criterion, a table is used to qualitatively rate the criterion. The evaluation uses a five-level
symbol-based rating scale to visually show the comparative differences among all alternatives for each
criterion.
Rating Scale
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
Ineffective Effective Very Effective
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Direct Impacts Indirect Impacts No Impacts
City Center Access Project
8
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
i
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2-
Transportation No-Bulld North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Traffic CongestionlOperations
Compatibility with Freeway Operations -- ++ +
Impact on Local Traffic Operations/Degree of Congestion -- ++ +
Impact on Transit Operations 0 0 -
Effect on Weekend Traffic Congestion 0 + ++
Safety
Impact on Freeway Safety -- ++ +
Impact on Local Traffic Safety -- + +
AccessICirculation
Connectivity with and Circulation within the City Center - ++ +
Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes - + ++
Freight Mobility - + +
Design/Construction
Ability to Meet Design Standards - ++ ++
Constructibility ++ - 0
Operation and Maintenance Costs 0 - -
Construction Impacts to Traffic ++ - -
Compatibility with Planned Link Light Rail Alignment 0 - -
City Center Access Project
9
November 21 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Transportation Impact Summary
Compatibility with Freeway Operations - This measure was evaluated taking into account freeway travel
times, level of congestion, and system operations. Freeway travel times and traffic congestion levels
improve for each option compared to the No-Build Alternative. Travel times and congestion levels with
Alternative 1 - North City Center are slightly better than Alternative 2 - South City Center. Alternative 1
results in a shorter weaving distance between the S 272nd Street interchange and the modified access
ramps compared to the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 2. Alternative 2 results in a shorter weaving
distance between the S 348th Street interchange and the modified access ramps compared to No-Build and
Alternative 1. Overall, Alternative 1 is rated the best because southbound travel times and congestion
levels on the 1-5 mainline during the PM peak period are the most improved.
Impact on Local Traffic Operations/Degree of Congestion - Both build alternatives decrease total vehicle
delay at intersections in the study area and travel time along the S 320tb Street corridor during both the
AM and PM peak hour compared to the No-Build Alternative.
. Total AM peak hour delay improves by 29 percent for Alternative I and 18 percent for
Alternative 2 compared to the No-Build Alternative.
. During the PM peak hour, vehicle delay improves by 16 percent for both Alternatives 1 and 2
compared to the No-Build Alternative.
Vehicle delay at the S 320th Street/Southbound 1-5 Off-ramp intersection improves substantially from
170 seconds/vehicle (LOS F) to 15 seconds/vehicle (LOS B) with Alternative 1 and 24 seconds/vehicle
(LOS C) with Alternative 2. This is the critical intersection in the network providing access and
circulation in the City Center area.
In addition, total PM peak hour network delay for all entering vehicles in the study area is 1,663 hours for
Alternative I, a substantial improvement compared to Alternative 2 at 2,524 hours and the No-Build
Alternative at 3,582 hours.
Impact on Transit Operations - Alternative 2 would have a direct impact to the Federal Way
Park-and-Ride lot located between 1-5 and 23rd Avenue South south of S 320th Street. Some parking
spaces would be displaced, and the transit circulation area could be affected.
Alternative 1 may require reconstruction of the S 31 ib Street bridge connection (opened to traffic in
2004) between the Direct Access ramps and the Federal Way Transit Center access; however, this
construction would be temporary. The impact on transit is expected to be small since a single alternating
direction would remain open at all times.
Both build alternatives would improve operations along S 320th Street, which serves transit and may
impact intersection operations along SR 99, a key transit corridor.
Effect on Weekend Traffic Congestion - Total weekend peak hour delay improves by 25 percent for
Alternative 1 and 35 percent for Alternative 2 compared to the No-Build Alternative. Vehicle delay at key
access intersections in the City Center area along S 320tb Street is reduced for both build alternatives
compared to the No-Build Alternative. Overall, Alternative 2 operates slightly better than Alternative 1
and is rated the highest.
Impact on Freeway Safety - Compared to the No-Build Alternative, both build alternatives reduce the
impacts of vehicle queuing on the 1-5 freeway mainline at the S 320th Street southbound off-ramps, an
existing High Accident Location. Alternative 1 is rated higher than Alternative 2 because vehicle queues
are reduced and more storage is provided.
Impact on Local Safety - Both build alternatives improve operations along S 320th Street, a highly
congested corridor, specifically near the 1-5 access. This would likely result in fewer accidents for either
City Center Access Project
10
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 or 2 compared to the No-Build Alternative. Both build alternatives have the potential of
increasing use and accidents on S 312th Street, which is an arterial with many driveways.
Connectivity and Circulation with in the City Center - Alternative 1 is better connected to the Federal
Way City Center growth area by providing a modified freeway access location at the. north boundary.
Alternative 2 adds a second modified freeway access location at the south end of the City Center area.
Alternative 2 also creates a new crossing of 1-5 and distributes trips across a broader local arterial and
transportation network grid. Overall, Alternative 1 was rated higher than Alternative 2 because it balances
the freeway access locations at the north and south ends of the City Center area. The No-Build Alternative
was rated as "medium impacts" because there would be no improvement to connectivity and circulation
within the City Center.
Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes - Alternative 2 provides two additional connections across 1-5
at S 312th Street and S 324th Street, and adds sidewalks to the S 320th Street overpass. The S 3 12th Street
connection is part of Alternative 2 because it is included in the City's Transportation Improvement
Program. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the new S 324th Street overpass has the potential to be part
of the BP A trail extension through the City Center area. Both build alternatives provide a new connection
for bicycles and pedestrians across 1-5 near on S 312th Street near Steel Lake Park; however, the
Alternative 2 connection has lower traffic volumes and would be more compatible with the
non-motorized facility improvements. For these reasons, Alternative 2 is rated the best in this category.
The No-Build Alternative was rated as "medium impacts" because there would not be any improvements
made to non-motorized facilities in the study area.
Freight Mobility - Both build alternatives improve operations and reduce congestion on 1-5, which will be
most beneficial in the mid-day when freight is most prevalent. Freight access to the City Center area
would also be improved with either alternative. The relative freight mobility improvement is similar for
both build alternatives compared to the No-Build Alternative; therefore, both build alternatives were rated
the same. The No-Build Alternative was rated as "medium impacts" because of the increasing traffic
congestion in the study area.
Ability to Meet Design Standards - Both build alternatives are expected to meet AASHTO and WSDOT
design standards, without deviations. The initial concepts for both build alternatives were designed to
meet standards. Design refmements after selecting a preferred alternative may result in some design
deviations to minimize environmental impacts, but both build alternatives have similar potential to require
minor deviations. The No-Build Alternative was rated as "medium impacts" because of the substandard
existing eastbourtd to northbound loop ramp at the 1-5/S 320th Street interchange and the lack of
pedestrian facilities on the S 320th Street overpass.
Constructibility - Both build alternatives would be large, complex construction projects, spanning two to
three seasons, depending on construction intensity, but there are no unusual constructibility challenges
with either alternative. Mainline freeway traffic impacts during construction are not anticipated to be
considerable or lengthy for either alternative. Both build alternatives would potentially impact access
to/from the existing S 320th Street interchange, requiring temporary detour routes. Alternative 1 is larger
in overall area and includes a greater amount of bridge and retaining wall construction when compared
with Alternative 2. Alternative 1 also includes expansion of the S 317th Street overpass to provide
additional space underneath for the new interchange ramp to S 320th Street. This structure widening
would be constructed one lane at a time and require temporary lane restrictions to avoid a full closure of
the interchange. For these reasons, Alternative 2 was rated slightly better than Alternative 1, and the No-
Build Alternative was rated as "no impact" for this criterion.
Operation and Maintenance Costs - Both build alternatives would have comparable O&M costs. O&M
costs would be split between State and City resources, depending on the jurisdiction of individual project
elements. As a result, both build alternatives were rated the same with "medium impacts," and the No-
City Center Access Project
11
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Build Alternative was rated as having "low impacts" for this criterion. Existing facilities would have
added O&M costs from increased use..
Construction Impacts to Traffic - Both build alternatives can be constructed with minimal lane closures
on city streets. There will be construction impacts from temporary freeway ramp closures anticipated with
both build alternatives. Therefore, both build alternatives were rated the same with "medium impacts,"
and the No-Build Alternative was rated as having "no impacts" for this criterion.
Compatibility with Planned Link Light Rail Alignment - There are two possible Link light rail alignment
alternatives through Federal Way; one on the west side ofI-5 and the other along SR 99 (Pacific Highway
South). Alternative I conflicts with the planned Link light rail alignment north of the Federal Way Transit
Center if an 1-5 alignment is selected. Alternative 2 would conflict with the planned Link light rail
alignment south of S 320th Street in the King County Metro park-and-ride lot area if an 1-5 alignment is
selected. Since the potential for conflict with the planned Link light rail alignment exists for either build
alternative, both alternatives were rated the same with "medium impacts," and the No-Build Alternative
was rated as having "no impacts" for this criterion.
City Center Access Project
12
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 -
Natural Environment No-Build North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Plants and Animals
Priority and Critical Habitat ++ 0 -
Impact to Threatened or Endangered Species ++ + 0
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Will the alternative avoid permanent impacts to priority or critical habitat, including impacts to vegetated
areas and trees?
Is the alternative likely to negatively affect threatened or endangered species?
Impact Summary
The No-Build Alternative would not directly alter fish or wildlife habitat, including priority or critical
habitat for federal or state protected species.
Alternative 1 would not affect priority or critical habitat designated for federal or state protected species,
although habitat supporting other fish and wildlife would be affected. There is a small perennial stream in
the vicinity that drains into Lake Dolloff, which could be used to some degree by rainbow trout and other
resident species, although anadromous fish do not use the stream. Another stream in the Alternative 1
project area is an ephemeral stream with no apparent fish use. Alternative I is expected to have a lower
potential for affecting fish than Alternative 2.
Under Alternative 1, construction activities would permanently remove vegetated areas. No populations
of special-status plants were observed. Canadian St. Johns-wort has been identified in state mappings, and
could occur near aquatic habitats but was not observed; if such species were present in the project
footprint, they would be permanently lost. Similarly, although no special-status animals have been
observed or recently recorded in the project area, there are several species that could exist in currently
undeveloped vegetated areas. In Alternative 1, the forested and open areas adjacent to the project
alignment are fragmented by existing roadways and development, and the widening of roadways and
development of new roadways would slightly increase this fragmentation.
With Alternative 2, its northern project area overlaps with Alternative 1 and has many of the same effects.
However, the southern portion of the project would involve more improvements in an area that is the
headwaters of streams that support anadromous fish species, including Endangered Species Act (ESA)-
listed Chinook and steelhead. While these species do not occur near the project alignment, the project
would have the potential to affect the stream hydrology and downstream habitat conditions through
increased stormwater runoff, decreased water quality, and reduced groundwater recharge. These effects
are indirect, but they would be comparably higher than Alternative 1.
City Center Access Projed
13
November 21 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Under Alternative 2, construction activities would permanently convert vegetated areas within the area of
the project footprint to a developed condition. Alternative 2 would likely have less impact on the
maintained grass/shrub type and more impact on the forest type than Alternative I. If populations of any
special-status plants (including Canadian St. Johns-wort, which could occur near aquatic habitats) are
present in the project footprint, they would be permanently lost. However, none of these plants have been
observed.
In addition to the potential for greater impacts to anadromous fish habitat, this alternative would cut
through a portion of the forested and wetland habitat in the Weyerhaeuser Campus complex. This
complex provides a substantial block of relatively undisturbed wildlife habitat in the area. This habitat
includes the sphagnum bog, which occurs within the project alignment footprint. Although no endangered
species or other special-status animals have been observed or recently recorded in the project area, there
are several species that could exist in currently undeveloped vegetated areas. As Alternative 2 removes
more of these vegetated areas than Alternative I, the impacts are comparably higher.
City Center Access Project
14
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2-
Water Resources No-Build North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Wetlands + -- -
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
How will the alternative affect potential wetland and wetland buffers?
Impact Summary
The No-Build Alternative would not fill any additional wetland or buffer area in the project area.
However, current management practices would continue within the existing rights of way, such as
clearing associated with maintenance of vegetation and stormwater conveyance. These activities would
affect wetland vegetation and habitat by preventing trees and shrubs from becoming established in mowed
areas and preventing forested areas in the right of way from developing natural features such as snags and
downed wood.
Under Alternative 1, direct impacts would include filling wetlands and reducing the size of wetland
buffers. A preliminary analysis indicates approximately 3.07 acres of wetland and 7.70 acres of buffer
would be eliminated. Nearly half of the wetland impacts would occur in Wetland 7. Wetland 8 contains
an important ecological bog area and is the only Federal Way Category I and Ecology Category I/II
wetland affected. Figure 6 shows the wetland locations. Preliminary direct impacts to this wetlandlbog
area for Alternative 1 are estimated to be 0.42 acre; however, impacts to the area where the bog is located
within Wetland 8 can likely be avoided. The physical changes to the wetlands and their buffers would
also impact the ecological functions and values these areas provide.
Construction activities would permanently convert vegetated areas within the area of the project footprint
to a developed condition. Vegetation conversion would occur in both the maintained grass/shrub type in
roadway rights of way and the less disturbed forest type. Temporary effects on upland vegetation may
also occur outside of the project footprint from construction activities. After construction is complete
theses areas would be revegetated with native plants.
Under Alternative 2, direct impacts would include filling wetlands and clearing/reducing the size/width of
wetland buffers. A preliminary analysis indicates approximately 1.11 acres of wetland and 5.98 acres of
buffer would be eliminated. Nearly half of the wetland impacts and half of the buffer impacts would occur
in Wetland 8, which contains an important ecological bog area and is the only Federal Way Category I
and Ecology Category I/II wetland affected. Preliminary direct impacts to this wetlandlbog area for
Alternative 2 are estimated to be 0.50 acre; however, impacts to the area where the bog is located within
Wetland 8 can likely be avoided. Similar to Alternative 1, the physical changes to the wetlands and their
buffers would also impact the ecological functions and values these areas provide.
City Center Access Project
15
November 21 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
The effects of construction activities would be similar to Alternative 1, but Alternative 2 would likely
have less impact on the maintained grass/shrub type and more impact on the forest type than
Alternative 1.
Mitigation would be required for both build alternatives, and with mitigation the potential adverse effects
of both alternatives would be reduced. However, the rating for each alternative reflects the magnitude of
its initial impacts to existing wetlands, along with the extent of mitigation that would be needed.
City Center Access Project
16
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2...
Water Resources No-Bulld North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Lakes and Streams ++ 0 0
Water Quality 0 - -
Groundwater + 0 +
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
What are the possible impacts to lakes and streams within the study area?
Can the alternative collect and treat stormwater to current standards?
How much water quality mitigation will be added in the project study area to areas not currently
receiving treatment?
What is the alternative's impact on groundwater, aquifer recharge areas, or water supply wells?
Impact Summary
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not directly affect lakes and streams in the study area. It does not alter
existing impervious surfaces levels, so it would not increase stormwater quantities. However, it also does
not provide an opportunity tp improve stormwater treatment on existing facilities that do not meet current
standards. The No-Build Alternative would have a low impact to groundwater resources due to the
increase in polluted runoff from additional traffic in the study area.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would not involve construction across or alter stream channels or lakes. However, it
includes construction of additional impervious area within the Mill Creek, LowerPuget Sound, and
Hylebos Creek Basins, which could impact water quality and water quantity. Stormwater detention and
treatment facilities would collect and treat stormwater to current standards, and resulting water quality or
water quantity impacts to streams, lakes and other waterbodies are expected to be low. Alternative 1
contains the largest amount of additional plus replaced impervious surfaces (31,000 square feet). While it
would increase overall impervious surfaces, with higher volumes of runoff, it would also improve water
quality in areas where stormwater runoff is not currently managed to current standards.
Groundwater and aquifer recharge are not anticipated to be appreciably affected. One municipal well for
the Lakehaven Utility District is in the vicinity (near S 298th Street), and the project would encroach on its
designated well protection zone; however, impacts are expected to be minor. Groundwater in the vicinity
of the project area is at a significant depth beneath the confining Vashon till. Perched groundwater may be
City Center Access Project
17
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
encountered within relatively impermeable zones at depths from 8 to 45 feet below ground surface.
Groundwater at this depth should not be an issue during construction. Alternative I would have higher
potential impacts to WSDOT stormwater facilities than Alternative 2.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 effects are similar to Alternative I. It does not directly cross or alter stream channels or
lakes. With required stormwater detention and treatment facilities, water quality and water quantity
impacts are expected to be low. Alternative 2 includes the development of impervious areas within the
Mill Creek, Lower Puget Sound, and Hylebos Creek basins, but has less total new and replaced
impervious surfaces (26,500 square feet) than Alternative I. Groundwater conditions are similar to
Alternative 1, and Alternative 2 would not appreciably affect groundwater, including wells or aquifers.
City Center Access Project
18
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Earth No-Build - North City -South City
Alternative Center Center
Impact on Critical Areas (steep slopes, seismic, landslide potential) ++ 0 0
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
How will implementation of an alternative permanently impact known critical resources related to
geologic and soil conditions?
Impacts Summary
The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on the geologic and soils conditions in the project area.
The two build alternatives would have low impacts due to geology or soils risk factors, particularly with
appropriate design measures that would be incorporated within the project.
Alternative I does not affect mapped hazards or critical areas such as steep slopes. It would include a
moderate-to-high liquefaction area, two low-to-moderate potential areas of soil liquefaction, and an
erosion potential area. The landslide potential in the project area is relatively low. There is some potential
for erosion of surface soils during construction; most of the area soils are not particularly susceptible to
erosion, but there is a mapped area with erosion potential near S 320th Street, east of 1-5. The project is
located within a region at risk of experiencing a seismic event or earthquake. Project structures can be
designed and constructed using conventional methods to accommodate the anticipated seismic loads. A
review of published geologic information indicates that there are no mapped faults that cross the project
area. Widespread liquefaction is not expected in the project area.
Overall, Alternative 1 is in a very low potential area for liquefaction but it does include a
moderate-to-high potential liquefaction area near 1-5 and Military Road South. It would not encounter
other critical areas, including designated steep slope, seismic activity, and landslide potential zones. There
are no areas of elevated landslide potential in the project area. Retaining walls and other structure features
would minimize potential localized risks.
Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1 in terms of geologic conditions, including steep slopes and soil
erosion potential. Overall, the alignment is in a very low potential area for liquefaction. It would include a
moderate-to-high potential liquefaction area and two areas of low-to-moderate potential of soil
liquefaction located on the southern portion of the project area, east of 1-5.
City Center Access Project
19
November 21 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 -
AIr No-Bulld North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Impact on Air Quality - + 0
Impact on Climate Change - + +
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Impacts Summary
The project team evaluated regional and localized effects of the project on air quality resulting from
traffic operation on the transportation system with the No-Build Alternative and the two build alternatives
for this screening analysis. Temporary construction and regional effects are normally addressed
qualitatively and would not show any difference in a screening analysis. For the screening, several
measures were used, including potential to reduce congestion on 1-5, and the ability to achieve
concurrency based on regional effects and on localized carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. The
project is in a region that is currently in attainment for all federally regulated pollutants except for ozone.
Particulate matter is also a concern, but most other pollutants have steadily improved due to
improvements in vehicle emissions and other air quality management programs.
The project is within the regional Transportation Improvement Plan, which has been found to be in
conformity with the State Implementation Plan for managing air quality. For project-level conformity, a
project must demonstrate that it will not cause a localized effect, defined as an exceedance of carbon CO
under EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Region-wide, fewer delays and lower emissions would be a positive effect of the project, particularly on
1-5 where No-Build conditions would have the highest levels of delay. Based on their ability to provide
lower levels of congestion and delay, the overall ratings show that the two build alternatives would have
lower impacts than the No-Build Alternative. Overall greenhouse gas emissions would also be reduced by
Alternatives I and 2, since lower levels of congestion and delay allow vehicles to operate more
efficiently; therefore, the No-Build Alternative would have higher impacts to climate change.
Additional analysis was done to evaluate how shifts in traffic patterns due to project alternatives could
result in localized increases in concentrations of pollutants from motor vehicles. The project team
performed a CO "hotspot" analysis at affected intersections to identify whether the emissions would cause
a substantial effect. For the screening, 14 intersections were reviewed for LOS and volume changes, and
three were selected for hotspot analyses. The results showed concentrations for all intersections and
alternatives are below the NAAQS.
The CO screening results can be extrapolated to conclude that the roadway improvements proposed by
this project would not result in adverse effects on air quality from other pollutants, including greenhouse
gases and toxic air pollutants. Roadway improvements proposed by the project have the overall effect of
improving traffic flow and reducing idling time, when motor vehicle emissions are highest.
City Center Access Project
20
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2-
Human Environment No-Build North City South City
Alternative Center Center
.
Land Use and Property
Land Use, including local and regional plans - ++ ++
Property Acquisitions and Displacements ++ - -
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
Ineffective Effective Very Effective
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Is the alternative consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan - City Center Element? Is the
alternative consistent with county, regional, and state plans, including the King County 2008
Transportation Needs Report, PSRC's Destination 2030, or the WSDOT Highway System Plan?
How many commercial and residential properties will be affected by full or partial parcel acquisitions?
How many individual business units or residential dwelling units would be affected?
Impacts Summary
Compatibility with Local and Regional Plans
The No-Build Alternative would not improve access to and from the Federal Way City Center and,
therefore, would not fulfill many of the city, county, and regional goals and policies. Under the No-Build
Alternative, projects to increase density as planned within the City Center would be less attractive as
congestion increases at the current access points and it becomes more difficult to get to this area.
It is likely that there would be no direct impacts to land use with the proposed project alternatives. Both
build alternatives would encourage development of zoned land uses that is denser than existing land uses.
This increased density is consistent with many local, county, and regional plans for development of the
Federal Way City Center as a Urban Growth Area, as well as the 2008 King County Transportation Needs
Report update that included the City Center Access Project as a needed improvement.
Property Acquisitions and Displacements
There would be no impacts related to property acquisitions and displacements with the No-Build
Alternative.
Alternative 1 could affect as many as 15 to 17 properties that would need to be acquired and relocated. Of
these 17 properties, 14 to 16 are single-family residential and the other is a structure associated with the
Steel Lake Park Maintenance Facility. These relocations are a result of additional right of way needs.
There are no business displacements associated with this alternative, and potential property acquisitions
are not expected to negatively affect commercial uses.
City Center Access Project
21
November 21 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 2 could require up to 19 to 21 full property acquisitions with potential displacements. This
includes the 15 to 17 properties that would be impacted with Alternative 1, and up to four more
residential units, including two in the Belmor Mobile Home Park, would need to be acquired and
relocated. There are no business displacements associated with this alternative, and any potential property
acquisition is not expected to negatively affect any commercial uses.
The project would utilize property acquisition and relocation activities in full compliance with state and
federal requirements, including the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 as amended. This includes providing fair market value for properties, and providing
compensation and relocation assistance to displaced individuals.
City Center Access Project
22
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 -
Human Environment No-Build North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Hazardous Materials ++ + +
Does the alternative have the potential to encounter contaminated sites?
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Impacts Summary
Twenty-one hazardous materials sites located within the project study area have been identified as sites of
concern, all of which where categorized as low to moderate potential to impact the project. Only eight of
these properties had previously reported releases.
The No-Build Alternative would not encounter any contaminated sites. Alternatives 1 and 2 both have the
potential to encounter one contaminated site that is considered to have a higher potential for concern
because it could affect areas where construction would occur. While the project could ultimately improve
environmental conditions in this area, the presence of environmental contaminants could affect project
cost and would require additional measures to handle contaminated materials in accordance with state and
federal regulations. .
City Center Access Project
23
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
,
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 -
HUnlan Environment No-Build North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Protected Resources
Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources ++ + +
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
.. . 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Does an alternative have the potential to encounter/disturb resources?
Impacts Summary
The No-Build Alternative, Alternative I, and Alternative 2 are unlikely to have impacts on historic,
cultural, or archaeological resources listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The ratings for the build alternatives are one step higher than the No-Build Alternative because
they do involve construction activity.
Based on preliminary research, there are no archaeological resources or historic resources listed in, or
previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, Washington Heritage Register, or local registers
in the project area. Survey and field observations have established that there is a low probability for
archaeological resources to be present in the immediate vicinity and that none of the 33 buildings
constructed in 1961 or earlier appear to be eligible for the NRHP. Steel Lake is a subject of reported tribal
legend in the area, but it was not identified in contacts with tribes to date as being used as a traditional
cultural property; further research is being conducted but the alternatives would not adversely affect
access to Steel Lake or any of its attributes.
City Center Access Project
24
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2 -
Human Environment No-Bulld North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Protected Resources
Impact on Parks and Recreation and Section 4(f)/6(f) + 0 0
Resources
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
What are the direct impacts on Steel Lake Park, any historic buildings, or other Section 4(f) or 6(f)
resources?
Impact Summary
There would be no property acquisitions, temporary occupancy, nor proximity effects with the No-Build
Alternative, although traffic volumes would increase on S 3 12th Street. This traffic increase would worsen
pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety between the north and south sections of Steel Lake Park.
There is currently no protected or grade-separated pedestrian crossing of S 312th Street to connect both
sides of the park.
Both build alternatives would widen S 312th Street, requiring a strip of land from Steel Lake Park, which
is a property subject to federal regulations known as Section 4(t) and Section 6(t). Section 4(t) is the
commonly used way of referring to the regulations on properties originally protected under Section 4(t) of
the 1966 Department of Transportation Act. Section 4(t) applies to the protection and preservation of
significant parks, recreation, nature refuges, and cultural resources found to be important to the American
public that must be considered during planning and construction of federally funded transportation
projects.
Section 6(t) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) concerns transportation projects
that propose the permanent conversion, of outdoor recreation property that was acquired or developed
with L WCF A grant assistance.
Steel Lake Park meets the criteria for a Section 4(t) resource that is protected under Section 4(t)
regulations. It is the only Section 4(t) resource in the project area. The southern portion of Steel Lake
Park meets the criteria for a Section 6( t) resource.
There would be no property acquisitions, temporary occupancy, nor proximity effects with the No-Build
Alternative.
Alternate 1 would result in a small (less than 3 percent) property acquisition from Steel Lake Park, which
would constitute a 4(t) use. Based on initial analysis, this minor amount of land along the roadway and
the fact that it is not integral to the attributes, features, and functions of the park, could qualify this as a
minor or de minimis use. The impacts to this park are rated low for the screening analysis. The project
stakeholders have begun coordinating on potential options to minimize or mitigate the potential use.
City Center Access Project
25
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative I would require a short-term construction easement, and temporary occupancy of Steel Lake
Park. Because Alternative 1 includes an interchange at S 31th Street traffic volumes are expected to
increase near Steel Lake Park. Indirect proximity effects from changes to traffic, noise, visual quality, and
air quality may occur, but based on preliminary assessments, it is considered unlikely that they would
substantially impair Steel Lake Park.
Alternative 2 would have the same effects on direct impacts to Steel Lake Park as Alternative 1. Because
Alternative 2 includes an interchange at S 324th Street instead of S 31th Street, traffic volumes are not
expected to increase to the extent they would with Alternative I, near the park, but would still be
considered low because of the minor amount of parkland used.
City Center Access Project
26
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 - Alternative 2-
Neighborhoods No-Build North City South City
Alternative Center Center
Visual Impact + - -
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Will the alternative impact views from 1-5, public viewpoints, and areas considered sensitive to visual
change?
Impact Summary
The visual and aesthetic analysis considers potential changes to the quality of the visual environment. It
addresses the characteristics of the landscape, both built and natural, that give visual value to a setting,
based on vividness, intactness, and unity. The impacts were considered by area to reach a total impact
rating for the alternatives.
There would be no change to the visual quality with the No-Build Alternative, although there would be
some visual impact to existing viewpoints due to the expected traffic volume increase.
Programmed changes that are common to both build alternatives include adding a new overpass at S 312th
Street and widening S 312th Street between 23rd Avenue South and 32nd Avenue South, and extending
S 31th Street to Military Road South. These changes would alter the visual setting along S 31th Street
through the removal of trees and vegetation, the addition of impervious surfaces, and introduction of
vertical and structural hard-surface elements within a residential and wooded section of the study area. In
addition, the widening of S 312th Street through Steel Lake Park may alter park characteristics, primarily
through removal of existing vegetation and trees along the current roadway. The new overpass structure,
and intersection required for S 312th Street/Military Road South would create a major new visual and
physical feature in this area, which is currently low density residential.
For Alternative I, the new ramp structures and intersection connecting to the S 31th Street extension and
overcrossing would further contrast with the existing scale of the nearby residential uses, and would be
visible to apartments and single-family residences.
For Alternative 2, the visual impacts in the northern portion of the project area would still occur with
Alternative 2, but would be less because the freeway ramps to S 312th Street would not be included.
Alternative 2 would include a new roadway adjacent to Belmor Mobile Home Park and crossing over 1-5,
and along a currently vegetated and forested area in the northern part of the Weyerhaeuser complex. It
would also remove vegetation on the east and west side of 1-5. On the west side, the added ramps would
encroach closer to residential areas that are currently near the freeway but screened by vegetation.
The programmed changes also include widening S 320th Street southbound off-ramp, widening S 320th
Street overpass, and relocating northbound on-and off-ramps at S 320th Street. These changes would
affect the visual quality with the removal of vegetation on the east side ofI-5, but the effect is considered
low.
City Center Access Project
27
November 21 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Detail of project impact qualitative ratings by area
Visual Analysis Areas Alternative 1 - North City Center Alternative 2 - South City Center
Parkland - Steel Lake Park Moderate to High Moderate
Residential Moderate to High Moderate
Weyerhaeuser N/A Moderate to High
Residential - Belmor Mobile N/A Moderate
Home Park and Golf Course
Commercial N/A Low
City Center Access Projed
28
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Neighborhoods No-Build - North City - South City
Alternative Center Center
Noise Impacts -- - -
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Impact Summary
The analysis of noise impacts considered the number of locations by alternative and land use that would
either approach or exceed FHW A's noise abatement criteria. The criteria establish noise level thresholds
for sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, or other properties where quiet is an essential attribute.
The study area today is considered fairly noisy due to the high volumes of traffic on 1-5 and on other
major roadways. This results in a high impact rating for all alternatives.
The study area has 36 locations that today and under the No-Build Alternative approach or exceed the
noise abatement criteria (NAC). With the No-Build Alternative, the project would not provide an
opportunity to provide mitigation to reduce these noise levels, resulting in a high impact rating.
For Alternative 1,40 locations would approach or exceed the NAC. For Alternative 2, 41 locations would
approach or exceed the NAC. Both build alternatives have the same effects on 39 locations. Because all
of the alternatives (build and No-Build) have similar levels of affected receptors, the ratings for the two
build alternatives reflect no major differences. Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 were rated slightly
better than the No-Build Alternative because of the opportunity to mitigation to reduce the noise levels.
One of the affected locations is an apartment building that would require mitigation under both build
alternatives. However, with Alternative 1, the new on ramps would partly shield the apartment building,
which results in decreased noise levels, although still exceeding the NAC. Alternative 2 would have
somewhat higher noise levels, would exceed the NAC, and mitigation will also be required.
With mitigation, is it likely that noise levels for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be lower than with the No-
Build Alternative, but the extent or types of mitigation have not been assumed in this screening analysis.
City Center Access Project
29
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Altemative 1 Alternative 2
Neighborhoods No-Build - North City - South City
Alternative Center Center
++ + 0
Environmental Justice
Public Services - ++ ++
Community Character +
0 0
Rating Scale Used:
WORST BEST
-- - 0 + ++
High Impacts Medium Impacts Low Impacts Least Impacts No Impacts
Is an alternative likely to affect low-income and minority communities?
What are the benefits or impacts of the alternative on emergency vehicle access and response times in the
study area?
What are the benefits or impacts of the alternative on community character (accessibility, connectivity,
and crime) for residents or employees to access shopping areas, parks, schools, transit centers/stops, or
other community facilities?
Impact Summary
No-Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not result in impacts to environmental populations, public services, or
community character.
Alternative 1
Environmental Justice
Alternative 1 would not involve property acquisitions of buildings in communities associated with
low-income populations, although some affected individuals could be low income. While the exact extent
of property acquisitions is not known, the property owners and those who rent would all receive
mitigation to comply with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act,
as amended. In addition, the project would include mitigation measures that would reduce any adverse
impacts associated with other environmental elements.
Other effects of the project are not expected to be adverse to neighborhoods, including environmental
justice populations. Access improvements throughout City Center would benefit low income and minority
populations as well as the general population. The project would not create additional barriers to
community interaction or functions. The addition of sidewalks and bicycle lanes would also be beneficial
to all populations.
City Center Access Project
30
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Public Services
A new crossing over 1-5 and a new interchange would likely result in improved response and travel times
for public service vehicles.
Community Character
Alternative I may result in additional traffic through primarily residential neighborhoods. In addition, the
widening of S 312tb Street through Steel Lake may affect some park users. The intersection required for
S 312th Street to Military Road would create a major new visual and physical feature in an area that is low
density residential but is also planned for development. The addition of sidewalks and bicycle lanes
would help to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Also, the crossing of S 312tb Street over 1-5 would
provide another crossing and improve linkages to facilities for area residents.
Alternative 2
Environmental Justice
The impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be the same as Alternative 1, with the addition of four
potential property acquisitions and residential displacements within Belmor Mobile Home Park, an area
that has been identified as having low-income populations. The same compensation and relocation
assistance as described for Alternative 1 would be available to help mitigate effects. While some
individual households would be affected, the overall community would remain intact and the project
would not create physical barriers to interaction and function within the community or to the larger area.
Other indirect effects to Belmor Mobile Home Park, including noise and traffic, would be higher for
Alternative 2, compared to Alternative I, but the community is an area with high activity levels, including
1-5. An improved arterial roadway on the northern boundary of the community could alter but would not
impair access to the community, and would create additional opportunities for residents to access areas to
the east.
Public Services
A new crossing over 1-5 and a new interchange would likely result in improved response and travel times
for public service vehicles.
Community Character
Alternative 2 would have slightly lower levels of traffic through primarily residential neighborhoods in
the northern portion of the project area. The new roadway adjacent to Belmor Mobile Home Park may
result in slightly higher noise impacts to some receptors mitigation measures would be available. The
widening of S 312tb Street through Steel Lake may affect some park users. The addition of sidewalks and
bicycle lanes would help to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety along S 312tb Street and S 324tb Street,
improve access across 1-5, and improve linkages for residents.
City Center Access Project
31
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
OVERALL SCREENING CRITERIA RATING SUMMARY
The overall ratings for all criteria are shown in the following table. Each alternative has different
transportation system and environmental impacts and benefits shown in the summary table. A sum of all
+ and - ratings without weighting the criteria results in the following final scores:
· No-Build Alternative- + 7
. Alternative 1- + 14
· Alternative 2- + 10
This does not necessarily mean that Alternative 1 is the best overall alternative since some criteria may be
more important than others. The intent of this screening process is to provide technical information and a
discussion tool for the Core Team, Stakeholder Team, and Federal Way City Council to reach consensus
on a preferred alternative.
No-Build Altemative.1 Alternative. 2
! Altemative ..N.orth City - South City
Evaltlation Elements Center Center
.
Transportation
Traffic Congestion/Operations
Compatibility with Freeway Operations -- ++ +
Impact on Local Traffic Operations/Degree of Congestion -- ++ +
Impact on Transit Operations 0 0 -
Affect on Weekend Traffic Congestion 0 + ++
Safety
Impact on Freeway Safety -- ++ +
Impact on Local Traffic Safety -- + +
Access/Circulation
Connectivity with and Circulation within the City Center - ++ +
Compatibility with Non-Motorized Modes - + ++
Freight Mobility - + +
City Center Access Project
32
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
No-Bullet AlternatiVe 1 Alternative 2
AlternatiVe ... North City ... Soutb City
Evaluation Elements Center Center
Design/Construction
Ability to Meet Design Standards - ++ ++
Constructibility ++ - 0
Operation and Maintenance Costs 0 - -
Construction Impacts to Traffic ++ - -
Compatibility with Planned Link Light Rail Alignment 0 - -
Natural Environment
Plants and Animals
Priority and Critical Habitat ++ 0 -
Impact to Threatened or Endangered Species ++ + 0
Water Resources
Wetlands + -- -
Lakes and Streams ++ 0 0
Water Quality 0 - -
Groundwater + 0 +
Earth
Impact on Critical Areas (steep slopes, seismic, landslide ++ 0 0
potential)
Air
Impact on Air Quality - + 0
Impact on Climate Change - + +
City Center Access Project
33
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
"o-Build. . Altemative1 Altematlve2
Altemative - North City -South City
Evaluation. Elements Center Center
Human Environment
Land Use and Property
Land Use, including local and regional plans - ++ ++
Property Acquisitions and Displacements ++ - -
Hazardous Materials ++ + +
Protected Resources
Historic, Cultural and Archaeological Resources ++ + +
Impact on Section 4(t)/6(t) Resources + 0 0
Neighborhoods
Visual Impact + - -
.
Noise Impacts -- - -
Environmental Justice ++ + 0
Public Services - ++ ++
Community Character + 0 0
Capital Costs $283 M $279 M
City Center Access Project
34
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
Summary ratings reflecting an average of all criteria in each category were also developed and are shown
in the table below. In the Transportation category, Alternative 1 is rated as very effective, Alternative 2 is
rated as moderately effective, and the No-Build Alternative is rated somewhat ineffective. In the Natural
and Human Environment categories, the No-Build Alternative is rated as least impacts, and both
Alternatives 1 and 2 are rated as low impacts.
No-Build Alternative 1- Alternative 2.-
Alternative North · City South City
Evaluation Elements Center Center
.
Transportation (overall rating) - ++ +
Traffic Congestion/Operations - ++ +
Safety -- ++ +
Access/Circulation - + +
Design/Construction + 0 0
Natural Environment (overall rating) + 0 0
Plants and Animals ++ + 0
Water Resources + - 0
Earth ++ 0 0
Air - + 0
Human Environment (overall rating) + 0 0
Land Use and Property + + +
Protected Resources + 0 0
Neighborhoods 0 0 0
Capital Costs $283 M $279 M
City Center Access Project
35
November 21, 2008
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING MEMO
ENDORSEMENT FOR CITY CENTER PHASE 11- ALTERNATIVES SCREENING CRITERIA
Core Team Review Agencies
WSDOT Design HQ Paul Bennett
WSDOT Access and Hearings Manager Leroy Patterson
WSDOT NW Region Environmental Tony Basha
WSDOT NW Region Celine Vogler
WSDOT Northwest Traffic Rick Roberts
FHWA Washington Division Pete Jilek
King County Dept. of Transportation Dave Gualtieri
City of Federal Way Ken Miller
-
City of Federal Way Maryanne Zukowski
Sound Transit Benjamin Smith
City Center Access Project
37
November 21 2008
:take
Easter
s
Steel Lake
>.
~
~
u
II:
'u
n:s
0.
S 320th
99
~.~.~?
1~1r.\r1~~
tV, 5}
{.."'. .. .........~........... t; ~.
... .... ... . .......,
.
.
. . .. Project
-;. j'~A.~. A....
..._ ............'....~........f.....\.~~-Woy
. ... J :."S/ TMOma
. . . ~"OF
. .( f.~
& F~~e~~l'l\lay
1 .. CI'l'YCENTERACCESS. PROJECT
I
Figure 1. Project Area
A. u.arr ,....
., ....._art"'" !- 11..8
A U.s. 0epcrImenI '" TronopcrtaIIon
{e7 .............. *"bll..dt.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The environmental assessment rEA) will include an analysis of three alternatives, including two project alterna-
tives and a No-Build Alternative. Each of the alternatives are detailed on the following pages for review and
comment. Public and agency feedback will help to identify a preferred alternative that will improve existing
and future traffic circulation, reduce the number and severity of accidents in the vicinity of S 320th Street
at 1-5, and avoid or minimize the effects on the environment.
~
%
'='
0-
o
~
~
J'
S 288th St
FEDERAL
WAY
en
Q)
>
<(
..s::
-
...,.
M
S 298th st
S 304th St.
en
Q)
>
<(
..s::
-
r-...
M
VI
Q)
>
<(
-
II>
.....
lJ')
en
Q)
>
<(
-
II>
.....
Alternative 2 -
South City Center
S 336th St
S 348th st
Figure 2. Project Alternatives
...~F~~~r,~IW~Y
'CITYCENTERACCESSPROJECT
....,. _ n_.." .
.", .JJ.J.' Int . J 1J J
A u.s. Depa1ment of TranspatalIon ... .
~ FedeNII.-..- ...................
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE - FUTURE CONDITIONS IN 2030
The No-Build Alternative reflects conditions in
2030 in Federal Way with no improvements to
City Center access. The city and region
would continue to add people and jobs,
but city center traffic conditions would not
be addressed as called for in the City of
Federal Way's comprehensive plan.
Other regional improvements in the
Puget Sound Regional Council's Long Range
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) are
assumed, as are other programmed city
and county projects.
~
.......,.,' If
.:' > .i
\;.~);'?:W1f ~
~:;<h~~;~: ,;..~~
~::;:~<~:~., "
!r~:..,
.. ?
!
. i
, . 1
;.::~~''l<.~..:..j
> . :t'- .,.
''li........ .... "
'h...
.. < ....~._:..:
. . .
....... ~
..., .J
"':........~iIlj,;
.. : ...!"..
~ .....~,..
. ".:~ '
{
".-..
S. 320th St.
..
~... -..~ e".
. -,......, . -\:.
.~ tjr-
~~ .~
Park
& .
. Rid .,'~
.. .... . _::.,-
1
.- .:t.~~7~
. - <- f:';u4fh SI:""-- -' ~.r;{
<If
~l!
~,:k
..~~
'U
""-J
,-.. ,
: i~'
~.,'-}
-,
'.
~.
....
"
"""'t
"I;
~'"
.....
.' .';'
./
~
~
-t
.;t.... r
-11-
''^:tr~
..
,;#
.
,
'.-;: ,,~
Figure 3. No-Build Alternative
~~... F~d~~~I"Y~Y
I CITY CENTER/ACCESS PROJECT
A. ---- ~ ....
., 814.J 1 .....'" ..- llf1n
A u.s. Depatmento/T~
~ ,............. M.d.M.....
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NORTH CITY CENTER
PRIMARY FEATURES
· Improves S 320th Street/I-5 ramps
· Modification of freeway ramps from
S 320th Street to S 312th Street
· New dual exit ramps and on-ramps
serving S 312th and S 320th Streets
· Freeway exit and entry point at
one location
· Providing north-south connections
to 1-5 from S 312th Street
· Completes S 312th Street east-west
connections
BENEFITS
· Provides traffic relief at S 320th Street
· Disperses traffic more evenly
IMPROVEMENTS COMMON TO BOTH
ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2
Widen S 320th Street southbound
off-ramp
Widen S 320th Street overpass
Relocate northbound on- and off-
ramps at S 320th Street
Add new overpass at S 312th Street
and widen S 312th Street between
23rd Avenue South and 32nd Avenue South
New roadway extension at
32nd Avenue South
Extend S 312th Street to Military Road
IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIC TO
ALTERNATIVE 1 - NORTH CITY CENTER
. Southbound off-ramp connects
to S 312th Street
. Northbound on-ramp from
S 312th Street
. Relocated northbound ramp
at S 320th Street
~ Northbound off-ramp to
~ S 312th Street
...
! kj..". -..r. ·
::!. .~., .
,~~..~ .,.
~.,';
..' ~ Park
&
Ride
f~
~..
r.,
t::t
-.-
f;'
~fC
, .
<* '.:tI;
-J" .
.1: '~-. ..:..
..
> ..,."'.1
,.:
Figure 4. Alternative 1
~.. Fe~~r~IWClY
~ .'CITYCENTERACCiesS PROJECT
!
... 1~' Jl1 .....
..~ 11""" ... 11
A u.s, Depar1ment at TransportaIIon
W ,.............,MnltliJ. ~.~.
ALTERNATIVE 2 - SOUTH CITY CENTER
PRIMARY FEATURES
· Improves S 320th Street/I-5 ramps
. Extends freeway ramps from
S 320th Street to S 324th Street
· New roadway and overpass at
S 324th Street
· Completes S 312th Street east-west
connections
BENEFITS
· Provides traffic relief at S 320th Street
· Disperses traffic more evenly
IMPROVEMENTS COMMON TO BOTH
ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2
Widen S 320th Street southbound
off-ramp
Widen S 320th Street overpass
Relocate northbound on- and off-
ramps at S 320th Street
Add new overpass at S 312th Street
and widen S 312th Street between
23rd Avenue South and 32nd Avenue South
New roadway extension at
32nd Avenue South
Extend S 312th Street to Military Road
IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIC TO
ALTERNATIVE 2 - SOUTH CITY CENTER
. Modify intersection
(II) New roadway
. New overpass
8> Modify on-ramps from S 320th Street
and S 324th Street
. Modify off-ramps to S 320th Street
and S 324th Street
. ;. J
:' -I
',~
~{;. ~
~~
;J . "~.:' j
:L~" ,
..........,f~.
~.. .}
.~.;,
't. :.... .,~.
. oft..
. ,. ,
. 01:._.....
"Vt'-"~
. ""V ,
. ..
\-
J:'~
,",,'. -'.
'-.1t.""
,-.tiff Itr.:
'I; :
FJ;.t
~1lt
Figure 5. Alternative 2
~~. f~~eralV\f~Y
1- 'CITYCENTERiACCESS PRQJECT
--. iT III ....
., .11l4 \.......YI' J A_
A u.s. Depar1ITIent or Tla1SpOI!a1lon
~ ............., ......lI......1.
<n'
\\
u
~
..
\
UJ
:.:
:s
ill
I!!
'"
<n
'"
,"'
<<
"
~
'"
...
".
<<.
\\
"0
C
~
Gl
, :=
5 '1",61\'\ 51
532.01\'\51'
5 >2'",5T /
<n,
,",
~
"
'i,
J
",
'"
~~
"..
,...\
~,
.
<n'
,".
~
".
1='.
ir't,,,
$ 'lla~ .~~~
~
:s
it
9
<3
Cl
~
-'
..
<a
/~\ ~4.
I" \ ..:;.
('~.-.l ~
--.-- \ ;ogCOut'\'1
\~ U";,,c:.~~.__. .
'\ 0;7--
~
5 311l\'t S1
,.-.:-~~~_..
\ILL... L....
./
{
\
\
~ )
:5
~f
iiji
~
......-
..
~.'
!%'
",'"
I'
>.'"
t
rl
i
...
i
z
~
:5
~
~
<:
.............
"
....
L1.
<(
0::
C
J i
I i
illi
':llic!
I~ ...5
e
i
~
I
II>
~
::J
5
f
i! II>
-8j
If!]
['1
LI
'"
~s
!I
Gl Gl
> >
!!
..
D~
II
Ii
10
!
1
1
J
..
~
J
R 1\ ~~
~ I~ i
~ ,jJ
..
C>
.-. OlJ'l'H lC1-N
~
/J}/J} /J}..d D111;' R in I.J t i IH. DIlI.J
City of Federal Way
Attn: Neal Beets, City Manager
33325 8th Avenue South
P.O. BOX 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
November 26th, 2008
Mr. Beets,
Let me first take the time to thank you and the City of Federal Way for inviting South
King Fire & Rescue to participate in the City Center Access project, Stakeholders
Committee. Our community can only benefit from the mutual respect and cooperation
developing between the City of Federal Way and its Fire Department. Maryanne
Zukowski has been a very patient leader while coordinating a committee made up of
persons with very diverse backgrounds, ideas and interests.
In addressing our preference of the three alternatives available for the City Center
Access, South King Fire & Rescue took into account traffic congestion, freeway access
points, response routes and response times to identify which of the alternatives best
suited emergency services for our community. In ~ddition, the department is looking at
possible locations for a new training center and incorporated available property sites
into our decision making process. With that said, South King Fire & Rescue would
prefer the choice of Alternative 1 with freeway on and off ramps located on a new
overpass at South 312th Street. This choice :would allow for a more rapid concentrated
response to the city center areas and cut response times to the neighborhoods east of
Interstate 5. Another east/west roadway crossing Interstate 5 would be a valuable tool
in our efforts to reach our citizens in need.
Again, we thank you for the opportunity to participate in this decision. Please let me
know if you have additional questions or ways that we can provide assistance.
Sincerely,
.....
Michael Knorr, Deputy Chief
RECEIVED
Cc: Maryanne Zukowski
Fire Chief Allen Church
DEe 0 2 Ill! 1
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
31617 1st AVENUE SOUTH. FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003GHd'IMANAGER'SOFFICE
Seallle: 153/839.6234 Tacoma: 253/927-3118 fax: 253/529.7204
An Equal Opportunity Employer
. ........
. I
. ........
Sandy Paul-Lyle CMC 4717 39th Street NE Tacoma WA 98422253.927.4256 (h)
253.929.1105 (w)
wan8tve@comcast.netSDauJ@d.oaofic.wa.us
. I
I
I
I
I
I
December 10,2008
Maryanne ZukOwski
City of Federal Way
PO Box 9718
Federal Way WA 98003
Dear Maryanne:
Here we are again - choosing an alternative for managing future traffic in an area of Federal Way known as City
Center. The alternatives, once again, are two in number. The difference at this point in the process is that we
WILL, certainly, choose a preferred alternative to the traffic congestion that only continues its congestion in the
area of South 320th Street.
Since coming to Federal Way in 1990, I have envisioned.an elevated "ring" road that encircled the downtown
area: South 324th west to 11th Place South, then north to South 31ih Street and then east to 23rrJ Avenue South
and back to South 324th Street. Only traffic that wanted to be on the surface streets would have to be there; the
traffic en route to Interstate 5 would continue access via the "ring" elevated highway. That may still be the best
solution, but it is not one on the table. It is one that Maryann Mitchell, herself, envisioned..
Thank you for including me in this amazing process. The experience has far exceeded anything I might have
predicted or expected from it. I have learned through this process, even been swayed a bit by it, the merits of
the South 31 ili Street Alternative. I understand the park and stormwater mitigation that will become part of the
selection of this most popular of the two alternatives, even among those who live close to Steel lake, some of
which have been adamantly opposed (some still are) to selection of the South 312th Street Alternative. The
most compelling of all reasons to choose the South 312th Alternative is certainly that the overpass at 312th
across Interstate 5 became part of the Comprehensive Plan many years ago. I do support the South 31 ih
Street Alternative for, among other features, its superlative access to the east side of Federal Way and 1-5.
However, I also remain a supporter of the South 324th Alternative. There are winners. and losers, and some
property owners on South 312th Street are going to be losers if/when that access to 1-5 is built. The losers, if the
South 324th Street Alternative were built, would be some residents at Belmor Park. Progress dictates that
properties be purchased as right of way for public projects that benefit the greater population. There is no
forward progress without change, without some folks bowing to the greater good. If I were one of those
affected, I would be unhappy, at the inconvenience mostly, but 1 would know that the local jurisdiction does not
just come in and take my property. I would get paid the assessed value of my property. I respect the opinions
of all whose lives would be impacted by building either alternative. But past choices might have been different
had folks envisioned a future twenty to thirty years hence.
I would like to offer that both projects be built. In a perfect world, if cost were no object, both alternatives should
be selected. My reasoning is based on the obsolescence of 1-5, SR 167, and 1-405 when they opened. They
were built for a time in the planning process ten or more years before they could actually function as
thoroughfares. If we are going to spend an exorbitant amount of money,let's spend it right to begin with and not
build a project that is obsolete only 5 years into its planning and certainly obsolete upon completion. Let's not
build a project that we will have to tear up and/or change a few years after it is completed. Those who have
questions about this concept should visit the newly opened Puyallup City Hall. It was built smart, with growth
and the future in mind.
The South 312th Street Alternative would open up vast amounts of undeveloped land east of Interstate 5. I don't
remember the exact date that South 348th Street was connected to NE Tacoma, but it was sometime in the early
to mid 1980's. The land that South 348th Street sliced through was raw then and undeveloped, not unlike the
property east of Interstate 5 between South 320th Street and North to South 27200 Street. In twenty plus years,
not only is the land surrounding South 348th Street well developed, but 348thStreet, itself, is inadequate and its
intersection with 1-5 is now called the Triangle Project.
1.
i
. .....- ..
Sandy Paul-Lyle CMC 4717 39th Street NE . Tacoma WA 98422 253.927.4256 (h)
253.929.1105 (w)
wanStve@comcaslnet soaul@ci.oadfic.wa.us
I envision a future of electric cars, and electric busses that will deliver us to a vast network of light rail options to
access the Puget Sound area, Washington State and beyond. But let's build smart, avoiding the mistakes of the
past, and building the right thing from the beginning. Let's build both the South 312th Street and South 324th
Street Alternatives. To choose anything less is, once again, a disservice to the taxpaying public that the project
is intended to serve.
~4L-
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
f
I
I
,
i
I
Once again, I thank you and the City of Federal Way for the opportunity to study, to learn, to network, and to
have an opinion. It has been such a pleasure to serve on the City Center Stakeholders Committee.
Sincerely,
Sandy Paul
NE Tacoma resident, former City of Federal Way employee and currently City Clerk for the City of Pacific