03 Public_draft
City of Federal Way
City Center Planned Action Draft EIS
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
June 2006
Fact Sheet
Project Title
City of Federal Way City Center Planned Action
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Proposed Action
The action proposed by the City of Federal Way consists of the following related actions by
the City of Federal Way City Council:
1. Adoption of an ordinance designating a portion of the City Center sub-area as a planned
action for the purposes of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance, pursuant
to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164. The planned action designation would
apply to proposed residential, retail, office, hotel, civic, and structured parking
development falling within the development envelope analyzed in this EIS.
Two action alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) assume the comparable development levels
but distribute growth differently. Alternative 1 assumes that growth is focused around
South 320th Street. Alternative 2 distributes future growth more evenly around the
project area.
2. Adoption of a new height of structure standard for multi-unit housing in the City Center
Core (CC-C), including area outside of the planned action project area.
No Planned Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative (Alternative 3) assumes the level and distribution of growth
established in the Comprehensive Plan. The existing standard for height of multi-unit
structures in the City Center Core zone would continue unchanged.
Comprehensive Plan EIS
The City of Federal Way completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the City’s
GMA Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations in 1995. This Planned Action EIS
incorporates by reference the analysis contained in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan EIS as it
relates to the City Center sub-area.
Location
The planned action project area is located in the City Center of the City of Federal Way,
bounded on the north by South 312th Street; on the south by South 324th Street; on the west by
Pacific Highway South and on the east by 23rd Avenue South. The proposed Zoning Code
amendment would apply to the entire City Center Core zoning designation.
Proponent
City of Federal Way
Date of Implementation
2006, with phased development following necessary permit approvals
Lead Agency
City of Federal Way
Responsible Official
Kathy McClung, Director, Community Development Services Department
Contact Person
Patrick Doherty, Economic Development Director
33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
253.835-2612
patrickd@cityoffederalway.com
Required Approvals
Planned Action Designation and Ordinance Adoption
Adoption of Zoning Code Amendment for Multi-Unit Residential Structures in the City
Center Core Zone
EIS Authors and Principal Contributors
The Draft EIS has been prepared under the direction of the City of Federal Way.
Principal Authors:
Jones & Stokes
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300
Bellevue, WA 98005-1946
425.822.1077
Contributing Authors:
City of Federal Way Public Works Department (transportation)
Mirai Associates
11410 NE 122nd Way, Suite 320
Kirkland WA 98034
425.820.0100
(Transportation)
Otak
117 South Main Street, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
206.442.1371
(sketches)
Public Comment
Affected agencies, tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this Draft
EIS. Comments may be provided in writing or verbally. Written comments should be
directed to the contact person address identified above or may be submitted electronically to
patrickd@cityoffederalway.com
During the comment period, a public meeting regarding the DEIS will be held on July 13
2006, 5:00 PM, Council Chambers, Federal Way City Hall, 33325 8th Ave S, Federal Way,
WA 98063-9718.
Date of Draft EIS Issuance
June 26, 2006
Date Comments Due
July 25, 2006
Draft EIS Purchase Price
Paper and CD copies may be purchased at FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Center, 31823
Gateway Center Blvd S, Federal Way. The approximate cost of a black and white paper copy
of the Draft EIS is estimated as follows:
Draft EIS $12.00
Appendices $33.00
Total $45.00
CD copies are also available for approximately $10.00
Previous Environmental Documents
City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan EIS, including the following documents;
CityShape From Vision to Plan Comprehensive Plan Draft EIS, issued November 19, 1993
City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan & Development Regulations Final EIS, issued July
1995
Development Regulations to Implement the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan EIS
Addendum, issued June 1995
Location of Background Information
City of Federal Way Community Development Services Department. See Lead Agency and
Responsible Official Address listed above.
City of Federal Way
City Center Planned Action Draft EIS
Prepared for:
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Avenue South
Federal Way, Washington 98063
Prepared by:
11820 Northup Way, Suite E300
Bellevue, Washington 98005-1946
425/822-1077
June 2006
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Summary .........................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Proposed Action and Location ................................................................................1-1
Proposed Action......................................................................................................1-1
Location ..................................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Description of Alternatives ......................................................................................1-2
Alternative 1 ............................................................................................................1-2
Alternative 2 ............................................................................................................1-2
Alternative 3 (No Action).........................................................................................1-2
1.4 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................1-2
Introduction .............................................................................................................1-2
1.5 Issues to Be Resolved ............................................................................................1-2
1.6 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...............................................................1-2
Chapter 2 Description of the Proposal and Alternatives..............................................2-1
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................2-1
Overview of the Proposed Action............................................................................2-1
Background.............................................................................................................2-3
Objectives of the Proposal ......................................................................................2-6
2.2 Planning Process ....................................................................................................2-6
Growth Management Act ........................................................................................2-6
City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan ..............................................................2-7
Development Regulations .......................................................................................2-7
2.3 Planned Action Process..........................................................................................2-8
Planned Action Overview........................................................................................2-8
Planned Action EIS .................................................................................................2-9
Planned Action Ordinance ......................................................................................2-9
2.4 Environmental Review ............................................................................................2-9
Comprehensive Plan EIS........................................................................................2-9
Scope of Review ...................................................................................................2-10
2.5 Proposed Action and Alternatives.........................................................................2-10
Overview ...............................................................................................................2-10
Alternative 1 ..........................................................................................................2-11
Alternative 2 ..........................................................................................................2-14
Alternative 3 ..........................................................................................................2-15
2.6 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Proposed Action ...................................2-16
2.7 Major Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................2-16
Chapter 3 Affected Environment, Impacts and Mitigation Measures..........................3-1
3.1 Air Quality................................................................................................................3-1
Affected Environment..............................................................................................3-1
i
Impacts ..................................................................................................................3-3
Mitigation Measures................................................................................................3-8
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...............................................................3-8
3.2 Land Use.................................................................................................................3-9
Affected Environment..............................................................................................3-9
Impacts ................................................................................................................3-20
Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................3-24
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................3-24
3.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare ...................................................................................3-24
Affected Environment............................................................................................3-24
Impacts ................................................................................................................3-39
Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................3-44
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................3-44
3.4 Transportation.......................................................................................................3-44
Affected Environment............................................................................................3-44
Impacts ................................................................................................................3-53
Mitigation...............................................................................................................3-67
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................3-75
3.5 Public Services......................................................................................................3-75
Affected Environment............................................................................................3-76
Impacts ................................................................................................................3-79
Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................3-81
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................3-81
3.6 Utilities...................................................................................................................3-81
Affected Environment............................................................................................3-81
Impacts ................................................................................................................3-86
Mitigation Measures..............................................................................................3-88
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.............................................................3-89
Chapter 4 References ......................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Printed References .................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Personal Communications ......................................................................................4-2
ii
List of Appendices
Appendix 1. Distribution List
Appendix 2. Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix 3. SEPA Environmental Checklist
iii
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Summary of Potential Impacts of Proposed Action and No Action Alternative........1-3
Table 2-1. Planned Action Development Envelope ..................................................................2-1
Table 2-2. Alternative 1 (South 320th Street Focus) Development through 2009 ..................2-11
Table 2-3. Alternative 1 (South 320th Street Focus) 2010 - 2014...........................................2-14
Table 2-4. Alternative 2 (Distributed Development) Development through 2009...................2-14
Table 2-5. Alternative 2 (Distributed Development) 2010 – 2014 ..........................................2-15
Table 2-6. Alternative 3 (No Action) Development through 2009 ..........................................2-15
Table 2-7. Alternative 3 (No Action) 2010–2014....................................................................2-16
Table 3-1. National and State of Washington Ambient Air Quality Standards ..........................3-2
Table 3-2. Modeled 1-Hour CO Concentrations (Year 2009 Alternative 1)..............................3-7
Table 3-3. Existing Development Planned Action Project Area ................................................3-9
Table 3-4. Block 1, Sample Commercial Areas Building Footprint and Lot Area Ratios.........3-10
Table 3-5. Block 2, Sample Commercial Areas Building Footprint and Lot Area Ratios.........3-10
Table 3-6. Vacant and Redevelopable Land Summary ..........................................................3-14
Table 3-7. City Center Core Permitted Uses and Development Standards............................3-17
Table 3-8. City Center Frame Permitted Uses and Development Standards .........................3-18
Table 3-9. Population and Employment Densities ..................................................................3-19
Table 3-10. Project Area Employment (# of FTEs).................................................................3-20
Table 3-11. Alternatives 1 and 2 Population and Employment Projections ............................3-21
Table 3-12. Alternative 3 Population and Employment Projections ........................................3-24
Table 3-13. Study Intersections ..............................................................................................3-45
Table 3-14. Level of Service Definitions .................................................................................3-46
Table 3-15. 2004 Intersection Operations PM Peak, AM Peak, and Saturday Peak ..............3-47
Table 3-16. Existing Parking Requirements............................................................................3-49
Table 3-17. 2000-2002 Intersection Collision Rates ...............................................................3-50
Table 3-18. 2000-2002 Corridor Collision Rates.....................................................................3-50
Table 3-19. 2005-2010 Transportation Improvement Program...............................................3-51
Table 3-20. Summary of Peak Hour Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center (2004–2009)
.........................................................................................................................................3-54
Table 3-21. Summary of Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center (2010–2014).............3-55
iv
Table 3-22. 2009 Alternative 1 Intersection Operations..........................................................3-56
Table 3-23. Alternative 1 Parking Requirement......................................................................3-57
Table 3-24. 2009 Alternative 2 Intersection Operations..........................................................3-60
Table 3-25. 2009 Traffic Operations No Action (Alternative 3)................................................3-64
Table 3-26. Parking Requirement for Alternative 3.................................................................3-65
Table 3-27. Mitigation Cost Assumptions ...............................................................................3-67
Table 3-28. PM Peak Hour 2009 Mitigation ............................................................................3-69
Table 3-29. Saturday Peak Hour 2009 Mitigation ...................................................................3-70
Table 3-30. Intersection Operations by Peak Hour with Mitigation .........................................3-70
Table 3-31. Calls for Service in City Center Project Area .......................................................3-77
Table 3-32. Traffic Enforcement Activity 2005........................................................................3-77
Table 3-33. Stations 62 and 64 Fire and EMS Calls for Service 2005....................................3-78
Table 3-34. Water and Sewer Service Demand Estimates.....................................................3-82
Table 3-35. Water and Sewer Demand Estimates by Alternative...........................................3-87
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. City Center Sub Area ..............................................................................................2-2
Figure 2. City Center Zoning Designations ............................................................................2-4
Figure 3. Redevelopment Concepts.......................................................................................2-5
Figure 4. City Center Analysis Blocks ..................................................................................2-12
Figure 5. Overview of Alternatives .......................................................................................2-13
Figure 6. Air Quality Analysis Locations.................................................................................3-5
Figure 7. Vacant and Redevelopable Land..........................................................................3-12
Figure 8. Comprehensive Plan Designations.......................................................................3-16
Figure 9. Representative Retail Development......................................................................3-25
Figure 10. Typical Streetscape ..............................................................................................3-26
Figure 11. Representative Internal Circulation Pattern ..........................................................3-27
Figure 12. The Commons at Federal Way.............................................................................3-28
Figure 13. Example Development Area Locations.................................................................3-31
Figure 14. Example Development Area 1 ..............................................................................3-33
Figure 15. Example Development Area 2 ..............................................................................3-34
Figure 16. Example Development Area 3 ..............................................................................3-35
Figure 17. Example Development Area 4 ..............................................................................3-36
Figure 18. Example Development Area 5 ..............................................................................3-37
Figure 19. Example Development Area 6 ..............................................................................3-38
Figure 20. Example Development Area 7 ..............................................................................3-40
Figure 21. Aerial Sketch of Example Development Area.......................................................3-42
vi
Chapter 1
Summary
1.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes information contained in this Planned Action Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). It contains a summary of the alternatives, significant impacts, mitigation
measures, and significant unavoidable adverse impacts. This summary is intentionally brief;
the reader should consult individual sections of this EIS for detailed information concerning
the affected environment, impacts and mitigation measures.
1.2 Proposed Action and Location
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action consist of two related elements:
Adoption of an ordinance designating a portion of the City Center sub-area as a “planned
action” for the purposes of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance, pursuant
to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164. The planned action would apply to
residential, retail, office, lodging, civic and structured parking development projects
falling within the development envelope and project area analyzed in this EIS. The
planned action designation would apply to development that occurs through 2014.
This action may also include procedural text amendments to the Federal Way Municipal
Code (FWMC) Chapter 22 (Zoning Code) to recognize the Planned Action designation
and process. These changes are not expected to have an environmental impact and are
not discussed further in this EIS.
Adoption of a new structure height standard for multi-unit housing in the City Center
Core zoning designation in the City Center sub-area.
Location
The City Center project area is located within the City of Federal Way; bounded on the south
by South 324th Street; on the north by South 312th Street; on the west by Pacific Highway
South; and on the east by 23rd Avenue South.
For the purpose of this EIS the planned action project area has been divided into three smaller
analysis areas, referred to as Blocks 1, 2 and 3:
City Center Planned Action 1-1
Draft Planned Action EIS
Block 1 consists of the northern portion of the project area and is bounded on the north
by S 312th Street, on the west by Pacific Highway South, on the south by South 316th
Street and on the east by 23rd Avenue S;
Block 2 is located in the central portion of the project area and is bounded on the north by
S 316th Street, on the west by Pacific Highway South, on the south by S 320th Street and
on the east by 23rd Avenue S.; and
Block 3 located in the southern portion of the project area and consists mainly of The
Commons at Federal Way. Block 3 is bounded on the north by S 320th Street, on the west
by Pacific Highway South, on the south by S 324th Street and on the east by 23rd Avenue
S.
The proposed change to the height standard for multi-unit residential structures would apply
to all area within the City-Center Core zone. This area is generally bounded by Pacific
Highway South on the west, South 324th Street on the south, Interstate 5 on the east and South
316th and 317th streets on the north.
1.3 Description of Alternatives
Alternative 1
The proposed land use pattern would create a dense, mixed-use urban neighborhood within
the City Center. Growth would be focused around South 320th Street, with 47% of the new
growth occurring in Block 2 and 41% in Block 3. This alternative would increase the
permitted structure height for multi-unit housing in the City Center Core to 200 feet.
Alternative 2
The proposed land use pattern in Alternative 2 would be similar to Alternative 1, however,
growth would be distributes more evenly throughout the project area. Under this
Alternative, approximately 30% of the new growth would occurring in Block 3, with the
remaining growth spread between Blocks 1 and 2. This alternative would increase the
permitted structure height for multi-unit housing in the City Center Core to 145 feet.
Alternative 3 (No Action)
Alternative 3 assumes the level and distribution of growth will continued as currently
established in the Comprehensive Plan. Existing structure height standards would continue
unchanged.
1.4 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Introduction
Table 1-1 provides a summary of the environmental impacts for each element of the
environment evaluated in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS. For a complete discussion of the
elements of the environment considered in this Draft EIS, please refer to Chapter 3.
City Center Planned Action 1-2
Draft Planned Action EIS
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Ta
b
l
e
1
-
1
.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y o
f
P
o
t
e
n
tia
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f P
r
o
p
os
e
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
an
d
N
o
Ac
t
i
on
A
l
t
e
r
native
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
3.
1
A
i
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Sh
o
r
t
T
e
r
m
Impac
t
s
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
m
m
o
n
t
o
A
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Im
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Te
m
p
o
r
a
ry,
l
o
c
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
m
pa
c
t
s c
a
u
sed
b
y
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
ust
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Od
o
r
s
Sh
o
r
t
t
e
r
m
a
n
d
l
oca
l
i
z
e
d
o
d
o
r
s
co
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
a
v
i
n
g
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
i
n
g
t
a
r
a
n
d
a
s
p
h
a
l
t
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
ns
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d b
e
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
a
nd
l
o
c
a
l
i
z
e
d
Lo
ng
T
e
r
m
Im
pac
t
s
CO
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
i
s
p
red
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
hi
g
h
e
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
t
r
i
p
s
t
h
a
n
a
n
y
o
t
h
e
r
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
C
O
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
ea
c
h
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n m
o
d
e
l
e
d
f
o
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
a
r
e
a
l
l
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
al
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
a
m
b
i
e
nt
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
T
h
u
s
,
n
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
a
ct
s
a
r
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
.
CO
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
e l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
CO
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
e less than
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-3
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
M
e
a
sur
e
s
Sh
o
r
t
T
e
r
m
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
p
pr
o
v
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
th
e
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
A
c
t
i
o
n D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
ul
d
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
f
u
g
i
t
i
v
e
d
u
s
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
co
u
l
d
b
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
ed
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
b
e
s
t
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
:
Us
e
w
a
t
e
r
s
p
r
a
y
s o
r
o
t
h
e
r
n
o
n
-
t
o
xi
c
d
u
s
t
co
n
t
r
o
l
me
t
h
o
d
s
o
n
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
s
.
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
v
e
h
icl
e
s
p
e
e
d
w
h
i
l
e
t
r
a
v
e
l
i
n
g
o
n
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
.
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
t
r
a
c
k
o
u
t
o
f
m
u
d
o
n
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
Co
v
e
r
s
o
i
l
p
i
l
e
s
wh
e
n
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
.
To
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
,
m
ini
m
i
z
e
w
o
r
k
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
od
s
o
f
h
i
g
h
w
i
n
d
s.
Bu
r
n
i
n
g
o
f
s
l
a
s
h
or
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
d
e
b
r
i
s
i
s
n
o
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
ted
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
ex
p
r
e
s
s
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
f
r
o
m
P
S
C
A
A
.
N
o
s
l
a
s
h
b
u
r
n
i
n
g
i
s
a
nti
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
n
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
ojects in the City
Ce
n
t
e
r
.
Mo
b
i
l
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
ion
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
nd
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
em
i
t
a
i
r
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
in
g
NO
x
,
C
O
,
a
n
d
P
M
1
0
.
T
h
e
s
e
e
m
i
ss
i
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
i
z
e
d
.
I
t
is
hi
g
h
l
y
u
n
l
i
k
e
ly
t
h
at
t
h
e
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
w
o
u
l
d
c
a
u
s
e
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
at
ad
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
he
N
A
A
Q
S
l
i
m
i
ts
.
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
a
i
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
o
d
o
r
is
s
u
e
s
ca
u
s
e
d
b
y t
a
i
l
p
i
p
e
e
m
is
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
oll
o
w
i
n
g
:
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
e
n
g
in
e
s
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
ion
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
acc
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
’
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
i
d
li
n
g
o
f e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
w
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
i
s
n
o
t
i
n
u
s
e
.
Lo
ng
T
e
r
m
Th
e
C
O
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
m
o
d
e
l
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
a
c
co
u
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
nts
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
i
n
c
l
u
de
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
t
i
o
n to mitigate traffic impacts.
Th
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
r
e
sen
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
se
ct
i
o
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
te
s
a
ll
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
w
o
u
l
d r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
c
a
r
bo
n
m
o
n
o
x
i
d
e
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
C
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
,
no significant
ai
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
a
ct
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
x
p
ect
e
d
,
a
n
d
n
o
c
o
ns
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
p
ec
i
a
l
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
i
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-4
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
3.
2
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
La
n
d U
s
e
P
a
t
terns
Fo
c
u
s
o
f
n
e
w
g
r
o
w
t
h
Ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
i
n
Bl
o
c
k
s
2
a
n
d
3
.
Bl
o
c
k
1
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
n
e
w
g
r
o
w
t
h
b
u
t
a
t
a
re
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
lo
w
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
t
h
a
n
i
n
B
l
o
c
k
s
2
an
d
3
.
Si
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
t
a
l
a
m
o
un
t
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
a
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
b
u
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
o
r
e
ev
e
n
l
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
Bl
o
c
k
1
w
o
u
l
d
e
xpe
r
i
e
n
c
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
n
d
di
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
f
u
ses
th
a
n
i
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
ov
e
r
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
me
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
n
B
l
o
c
k
1
w
o
u
l
d
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
b
e
l
e
ss
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
t
h
a
n
B
l
o
c
k
s
2
a
n
d
3.
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
n
d
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
f
y
i
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
b
u
t
t
o
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
lesser degree than
un
d
e
r
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
2
0
1
4
Ne
w
r
e
t
a
i
l
s
p
a
c
e
:
75
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
22
0
,
2
7
0
s
f
Ne
w
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
p
a
c
e
:
35
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
10
4
,
4
4
6
s
f
Ne
w
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
s:
60
0
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
-
Ne
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
n
i
t
s
:
75
0
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
27
0
Ne
w
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
pa
r
k
i
n
g
s
t
a
l
l
s
:
75
0
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
-
Ci
v
i
c
U
s
e
s
:
10
0
,
0
0
0
s
f
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
-
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
m
m
o
n
t
o
A
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
La
n
d
u
s
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
t
e
n
sif
y
an
d
t
h
e
m
i
x
o
f
u
ses
w
i
l
l
in
c
r
ea
s
e
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
g
r
e
a
te
r
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
i
n
la
nd
u
s
e
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
.
Ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
,
t
h
e
s
c
a
l
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
in
g
s
ma
y
a
l
s
o
i
n
cr
e
a
s
e
a
s
n
e
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
hts
a
r
e
m
a
x
i
m
i
z
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
d
e
n
sity
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-5
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
La
n
d
U
s
e
C
o
m
p
a
t
i
bil
i
t
y
Mu
l
t
i
-
U
n
i
t
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
He
i
g
h
t
:
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
2
0
0
’
f
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
un
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
no
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Co
r
e
z
o
n
e
,
b
u
t
i
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
co
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
a
nd
bu
l
k
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
i
s
z
o
n
ing
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
1
4
5
’
f
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
n
i
t
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
he
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t
f
o
r
o
f
fi
c
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
a
nd
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
co
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
st
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
us
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
i
s
zo
n
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
io
n
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t
f
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
n
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
u
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
.
N
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t impacts are
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
m
m
o
n
t
o
A
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
La
n
d
u
s
e
c
o
m
p
a
tib
i
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s c
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
u
n
d
e
r
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
a
l
t
e
rn
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.
A
s
v
a
c
a
n
t
l
a
n
d
is developed
an
d
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
,
u
s
e
s
t
ha
t
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
b
u
f
f
e
r
e
d
f
r
om
e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
c
o
-
e
x
i
st in closer
pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
u
s
e
s
w
i
t
h
d
i
f
f
e
r
i
ng
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
le
v
e
ls
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
s
d
e
v
e
lop
m
e
n
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
a
g
r
eater diversity
an
d
m
i
x
o
f
u
s
e
s
in
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
e
d
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
rea
w
i
t
h
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
ten
s
i
t
y
u
s
e
s,
s
u
ch
a
s
s
i
n
g
l
e
a
n
d
mu
l
t
i
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s could
ex
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
i
m
p
a
ct
s
.
Po
p
u
l
a
tio
n,
E
m
pl
o
y
me
n
t H
o
us
in
g
Ne
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
o
s
t
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
Bl
o
c
k
s
2
a
n
d
3
.
Ne
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
wo
u
l
d
b
e
m
o
r
e
d
ist
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
t
h
a
n
i
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Th
e
r
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
l
e
s
s
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
an
d
2
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
m
m
o
n
t
o
A
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Un
d
e
r
a
l
l
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
f
u
t
u
r
e
r
e
s
i
de
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
oy
m
e
n
t
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
on
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
cr
e
a
s
e
, t
h
o
u
g
h
a
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
.
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
M
e
a
sur
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
ing
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
me
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
a
l
o
n
g t
h
e
e
d
ges
of
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
A
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
a
p
p
e
a
r
t
o
b
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
a
c
o
m
pa
t
i
b
l
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
m
o
r
e
i
n
t
ensive to less intensive uses.
Ho
w
e
v
e
r
,
a
s
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
,
t
h
i
s
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
rea
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
t
o
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
t
h
a
t
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
c
o
m
p
a
tib
i
l
i
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
ts a
r
e
n
o
t
b
e
i
n
g
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
.
I
f
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
n
e
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
nd
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
e
d
g
e
ar
e
a
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
.
T
e
c
h
n
i
qu
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
in
cl
u
d
e
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
b
uil
d
i
n
g
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
li
m
i
t
s
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
en
t
s
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g, noise control and other
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-6
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
3.
3
A
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
s
,
L
i
g
h
t
G
l
a
r
e
Vi
s
u
a
l
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
2
0
0
’
f
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
un
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
no
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
e
,
b
u
t
wo
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
wi
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
ve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
rd
s
in
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
s
no
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
ica
nt
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
v
i
s
u
a
l
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
1
4
5
’
f
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
n
i
t
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
he
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t
f
o
r
o
f
fi
c
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
a
nd
i
s
n
o
t
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
s
u
lt
i
n
s
i
g
n
if
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
vi
s
u
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
r
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
h
e
i
g
h
t
l
i
m
i
t
f
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
n
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
re
m
a
i
n
u
n
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
m
m
o
n
t
o
A
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Vi
s
u
a
l
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
Un
d
e
r
a
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
t
he
v
i
s
u
a
l ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
w
i
l
l
ch
a
n
g
e
o
v
e
r
t
i
m
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
a
t
o
f
a
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
lo
w
-
s
c
a
l
e
s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
commercial
ce
n
t
e
r
t
o
a
m
o
r
e
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
m
id-
r
i
s
e
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
-
r
i
s
e
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
ce
n
t
.
T
h
e
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
o
f
t
h
i
s
c
h
a
n
g
e
w
ou
l
d
b
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
under Alternatives 1 and
2
t
h
a
n
u
n
d
e
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
.
Li
g
h
t
a
n
d
G
l
a
r
e
Li
g
h
t
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
s
t
r
e
et
l
i
g
h
t
s
,
p
a
r
k
i
ng
lo
t
s
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
in
g
s w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
en
t
u
n
der any of the
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
l
s
o
t
h
e
p
o
t
en
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
g
l
a
r
e
d
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
ls
u
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
n
e
w development. The
ma
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
b
e
h
i
g
h
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
a
n
d
2
.
Vi
e
w
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
n
e
w
h
i
g
h
a
n
d
m
i
d
-
r
i
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
co
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
d
ecr
e
a
s
e
d
v
i
e
w
s
f
or
t
h
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
l
o
w
-
r
i
s
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
located near these
si
t
e
s
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
i
g
h
t
s
-
o
f
w
a
y
s
.
N
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
o p
u
b
l
i
c
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
o
r
p
a
r
k
s
i
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
.
Sh
a
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Th
e
r
e
i
s
a
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
s
h
a
d
o
w
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
a
l
l
e
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
I
n
t
h
e
s
h
o
r
t
t
e
r
m
,
t
hi
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
most noticeable at
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
lo
w
-
r
i
s
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
n
e
w
t
a
l
l
e
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
I
n
t
he
l
o
n
g
t
e
r
m
,
a
s
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
w
i
t
h
t
a
l
l
e
r
b
uildings located in
cl
o
s
e
r
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
to
o
n
e
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
,
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
s
h
a
d
i
ng
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
ct
a
r
e
a
c
o
u
l
d
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
a
n
d
2 will have
ta
l
l
e
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s in
a
m
o
r
e
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
a
tt
e
r
n
,
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
s
h
a
d
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
d
e
v
e
lopment in
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
.
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
M
e
a
sur
e
s
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
o
m
mun
i
t
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
view
/
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
p
o
t
en
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s a
ss
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
l
i
g
ht and glare, shadows, and
ae
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
i
m
p
a
ct
s
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
h
e
i
g
h
t
f
o
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
u
n
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
C
o
r
e
z
o
n
e
w
o
u
ld
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
n
l
y
w
i
t
h
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
hro
u
g
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
and public benefits review
pr
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
a
s
se
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
s
h
a
d
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
s
d
e
ve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
a
n
d
a
m
e
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
t
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
sh
a
d
o
w a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
in
p
u
bl
i
c
p
l
a
ces as needed.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-7
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
3.
4
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
20
0
9
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
O
p
e
rat
i
o
n
s
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
–
F
i
v
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
ns
ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
cy
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
S
2
7
2
nd
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h.
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
–
T
w
o
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
cy
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
I
-
5
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
a
n
d
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
o
a
d
S/
S
2
7
2
nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
–
F
o
u
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
e
xce
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
de
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
r
o
un
d
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
–
F
i
v
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
ns
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
Cit
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
cy
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
S
27
2
nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
.
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
–
T
w
o
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
Cit
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
cy
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
I
-
5
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
a
n
d
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
o
a
d
S
/
S
2
7
2
nd
St
r
e
e
t
.
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
–
F
o
u
r i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
cy
t
h
r
e
sh
o
l
d
,
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
ar
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
ct
a
r
e
a
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
–
F
i
v
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
ns exceed the
Ci
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
cy
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
S
2
7
2
nd
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h.
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
–
T
w
o
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
cy
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
l
o
c
a
t
e
d at the I-5
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
a
m
p
a
n
d
M
i
l
i
t
a
r
y
R
o
a
d
S
/
S
2
7
2
nd
St
r
e
e
t
.
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
–
T
w
o
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
e
xceed
th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
nc
y
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
,
l
o
cated at S 320th
St
r
e
e
t
/
2
0
th
A
v
e
S
a
n
d
S
3
2
0
th Street/23rd Ave S.
20
1
4
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
2
0
1
4
,
a
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4,
0
0
0
s
p
a
c
e
s
w
ou
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
co
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
N
o
A
c
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
T
h
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
he
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
w
o
u
ld
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
11
,
4
9
0
s
t
a
l
l
s
.
In
2
0
1
4
,
a
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4,
0
0
0
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
p
a
ces w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
to
t
h
e
N
o
A
c
t
i
o
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
T
h
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ar
e
a
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
1
,
49
0
s
t
a
l
l
s
.
In
2
0
1
4
,
a
t
o
t
a
l
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1,540 parking
sp
a
c
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
n
e
w development.
Th
e
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
pa
r
k
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
Ce
n
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
7
,
4
8
5
st
a
l
l
s
.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-8
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
20
1
4
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
a
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
e
a
r
l
y
2
,
4
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
ad
d
e
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
4
,
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
o
n
S
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
.
T
o
t
a
l
P
M
pe
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
fr
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
5
,
10
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
AM
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
n
e
a
r
l
y
1
,
1
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
wo
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
20
1
4
,
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
o
n S
o
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
To
t
a
l
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2
,
20
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
o
ver
2,
5
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
v
i
c
i
n
ity
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
20
1
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
4
.
T
o
t
a
l
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
12
,
1
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
Du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
e
a
r
l
y
2,
4
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
20
1
4
,
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
o
n
S
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
So
u
t
h
.
T
o
t
a
l
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
u
n
de
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y 5
,
10
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
,
n
e
a
r
l
y
1
,
1
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
be
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
4
,
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
o
n
S
o
u
t
h
32
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
T
o
t
al
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2
,
20
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
o
ver
2
,
5
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
wo
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
2
0
1
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
4
i
n
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
v
i
c
i
n
ity
.
T
o
t
a
l
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
p
e
a
k
ho
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2
wo
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
2
,
1
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
a
n a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
4
2
0
new PM peak hour
tr
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
a
r
e
a
r
o
a
dways between
20
1
0
a
n
d
2
0
1
4
.
T
o
t
a
l
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
un
d
e
r
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
8
6
0
tr
i
p
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
2
1
4
tr
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
.
T
o
t
a
l
A
M
p
e
a
k
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
45
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
,
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
4
40
t
r
i
p
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
d
d
e
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
20
1
0
a
n
d
2
1
0
4
.
T
o
t
a
l
S
a
t
u
r
d
a
y
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
gr
o
w
t
h
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
,
05
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
m
m
o
n
t
o
A
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
Pr
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
r
a
ff
i
c
c
o
l
lision
s
w
o
uld
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
d
e
m
a
n
d
a
t
t
h
e
F
e
d
e
r
a
l W
a
y
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
C
e
n
t
er
m
a
y
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
A
c
c
e
ss
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
In
c
r
e
a
s
ed
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y w
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
wi
t
h
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
eve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
M
o
b
i
l
ity
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
ie
s
pr
o
p
o
s
ed
i
n
t
h
e
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
n
ec
t
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s in t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-9
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
M
e
a
sur
e
s
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
nat
i
v
e
3
:
2nd
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
31
2
th
S
t
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
Op
t
i
m
i
z
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
imi
n
g
a
t
S
3
3
6
th
St
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
nat
i
v
e
3
:
2nd
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
1
2
th
St
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
Op
t
i
m
i
z
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
imi
n
g
a
t
S
3
3
6
th
S
t
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
Hig
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
2nd
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
1
2
th St/Pacific
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
Op
t
i
m
i
z
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
imi
n
g
a
t
S
3
3
6
th St/Pacific Highway
So
u
t
h
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
No
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
eq
u
i
r
e
d
.
No
m
i
ti
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
eq
u
i
r
e
d
.
No
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
eq
u
i
r
e
d
.
Sa
t
u
r
d
a
y
P
e
a
k
Ho
u
r
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
r
e
q
u
i
red
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
un
d
e
r
A
l
t
e
r
nat
i
ve
3
:
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
tu
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
S
t
/
2
0
th
A
v
e
S
Se
c
o
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
S
t
/
2
3
rd
A
v
e
S
In
ad
di
t
i
on
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
ow
i
ng
ad
d
i
ti
o
n
a
l
m
e
a
sur
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
re
d
fo
r
A
l
te
r
n
a
tiv
e
s
1
o
r
2
:
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
1
6
th
St
/
P
a
c
H
w
y
S
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
St
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
We
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
St
/
2
3
rd
A
v
e
S
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
r
e
q
u
i
red
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
un
d
e
r
Al
t
e
r
n
a
tiv
e
3
:
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
S
t
/
2
0
th
A
v
e
S
Se
c
o
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
St
/
2
3
rd
A
v
e
S
In
ad
di
t
i
on
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
ow
i
ng
add
i
ti
on
a
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
r
equ
i
r
e
d
fo
r
Al
t
e
rn
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
o
r
2:
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
1
6
th
S
t
/
P
a
c
Hw
y
S
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
S
t
/
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
Hig
h
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
We
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
2
0
th
S
t
/
2
3
rd
Av
e
S
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t turn lanes at S
32
0
th
S
t
/
2
0
th
A
v
e
S
Se
c
o
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
S
3
2
0
th St/23rd
Av
e
S
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-10
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
t
iga
ti
o
n
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
t
iga
ti
o
n
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
a
r
e
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s,
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
o
n
-
s
i
t
e c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
me
e
t
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
s
t
at
e
co
m
m
u
t
e
r
t
r
i
p reduction and
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
m
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
nt
s
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
On
-
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
riz
e
d
m
o
d
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Gr
i
d
r
o
a
d
wa
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ri
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
d
e
di
c
a
t
i
o
n
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
ema
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
3.
5
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Po
l
i
c
e
L
O
S
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
n
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
n
e
e
d
of
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
8
of
f
i
c
e
r
s
b
y
2
0
1
4
to
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
L
O
S
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
ne
e
d
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2
o
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
b
y
2
0
1
4
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
L
O
S
.
Pa
r
k
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
L
O
S
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
nt
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
in
an
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
1
9
.
3
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
ne
w
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
LO
S
.
Sa
m
e
a
s
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
s
i
d
e
nt
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
in an increased
de
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
7
a
c
r
e
s
o
f
n
e
w
p
a
r
k
l
a
n
d
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
cu
r
r
e
n
t
L
O
S
.
Im
p
a
c
t
s
C
o
m
m
o
n
t
o
A
l
l
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Po
l
i
c
e
&
F
i
r
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y C
e
n
t
e
r
m
a
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
i
m
e
s
o
f
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s.
Fir
e
Fu
t
u
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n a
n
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
c
a
ll
s
f
o
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
n
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
m
a
y
i
m
p
act response
ti
m
e
.
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
F
i
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
en
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
t
h
a
t
i
t
h
a
s
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
lan
ne
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
me
e
t
t
h
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
m
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r any of
th
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-11
Cit
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
lan
ned
A
c
ti
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
A
c
t
i
on
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
1
So
u
t
h
3
2
0
th
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
o
c
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
at
i
v
e
2
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Al
t
e
r
n
ative 3
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
M
e
a
sur
e
s
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
P
o
l
i
c
e
a
n
d
F
i
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
co
n
str
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
o
p
er
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
u
t
u
r
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
un
de
r
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
re
l
i
a
b
l
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
a
c
c
e
ss
is
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
P
a
r
k
s
a
n
d
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
nt
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
o
p
p
or
t
u
n
i
ti
e
s
f
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c
u
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
,
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
.
Re
d
u
c
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
h
r
u a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
C
P
T
E
D
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
ad
v
a
n
c
e
d
n
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
c
o
ns
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
ule
s
a
n
d
an
y
p
l
a
nn
e
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
a
g
e
s
.
Av
o
i
d
o
r
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
a
g
e
s
d
u
ri
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
to
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
i
m
e
s
.
3.
6
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Im
p
a
c
ts
C
o
m
m
o
n
to
a
l
l
A
l
te
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
a
n
d
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
ce
La
k
e
h
a
v
e
n
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
a
t
e
s tha
t
i
t
h
a
s
a
v
a
i
la
bl
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
p
rov
i
d
e
d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
wa
t
e
r
a
n
d
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
an
y
o
f
t
h
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
A
lte
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
a
n
d
2
w
i
l
l
h
a
ve
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
w
a
t
e
r
d
e
m
a
n
d
a
n
d
se
w
e
r
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
r
a
t
e
.
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
to have
sl
i
g
h
t
l
y
l
e
ss
d
e
m
an
d
.
Energy Construction ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
cou
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
el
e
c
t
r
i
c
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
wi
t
h
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
t
o
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
li
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
er construction related
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
Ov
e
r
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
t
e
r
m
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
wi
l
l
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
e
n
e
r
g
y
,
b
o
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
n
d
g
a
s. PSE indicates it has
pl
a
n
n
e
d
f
o
r
g
r
o
w
t
h
a
n
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
a
de
q
u
a
t
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
in
cr
e
a
s
e
d
d
e
m
a
n
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
.
Te
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
ion
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
n
d
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
us
e
o
f
a
n
d
d
e
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
oducts. Service providers
ha
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
h
a
v
e
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
de
m
a
n
d
.
Mi
t
i
g
a
tio
n
M
e
a
sur
e
s
En
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
n
ew
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
lo
ca
l
,
s
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
f
e
de
r
a
l
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
f
o
r
e
n
e
r
g
y
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
r
o
u
g
h
t
-
t
o
l
e
r
a
n
t
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
(
x
er
i
s
c
a
pi
n
g
)
f
o
r
n
e
w
d
e
ve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
En
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
n
e
w
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
c
i
v
i
c
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
in
c
o
rp
o
r
a
t
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
ns
e
r
va
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
r
e
c
yc
l
i
n
g
,
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
ir operations.
Dr
a
f
t
P
l
a
nned
A
c
ti
on
E
I
S
1-12
City Center Planned Action
1.5 Issues to Be Resolved
Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance and concurrent Zoning Code amendments to
increase the multi-unit residential structure height standard in the City Center Core zone
would support development and re-development of the area to a more intensive mixed-use
character consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The key environmental issue
facing decision-makers is the impact of additional traffic on area roadways and mitigating
measures to address such impacts.
1.6 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Air Quality
Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities.
Land Use
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated.
Aesthetics, Light and Glare
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to aesthetics, light and glare are anticipated. The
design standards, guidelines, and mitigating measures described above, together with the
City’s development regulations are adequate to mitigate the significant adverse impacts
anticipated with redevelopment.
Transportation
Although numerous measures will mitigate transportation-related impacts, increases in traffic
congestion at some nodes and/or along some corridors will result in remaining significant,
unavoidable, adverse impacts on the area’s transportation system. Development of the
Federal Way City Center would generate additional traffic volumes on the area’s roadways.
However, the increased intersection capacity and associated traffic improvements would
mitigate undesired impacts. The proposed mixed-use land use pattern, on-site improvements
and public and private TDM actions, along with high levels of existing and future transit
service may further reduce vehicle trips thereby further mitigating impacts.
Public Services
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public services are anticipated.
Utilities
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated.
Draft Planned Action EIS 1-13
City Center Planned Action
Chapter 2
Description of the Proposal and Alternatives
2.1 Introduction
Overview of the Proposed Action
The action proposed by the City of Federal Way consists of the following related actions:
1. Adoption of an ordinance designating a portion of the City Center sub-area (see Figure 1)
as a planned action for the purposes of State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
compliance, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031(2)(a) and WAC 197-11-164. The planned
action designation would apply to construction of proposed residential, retail, office,
hotel, civic and structured parking development falling within the development envelope
and project area analyzed in this EIS. The total development envelope analyzed in this
EIS is summarized in Table 2-1. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
Table 2-1. Planned Action Development Envelope
Uses Development Envelope
Retail 750,000 sf
Office 350,000 sf
Lodging 600 rooms
Residential 750 units
Civic 100,000 sf
Structured Parking 750 stalls
Source: City of Federal Way, 2003
The planned action designation would apply to development that occurs through 2014.
This action may also include procedural text amendments to the Federal Way Municipal
Code (FWMC) Chapter 22 (Zoning Code) to recognize the Planned Action designation
and process. These changes are not expected to have an environmental impact and are
not discussed further in this EIS.
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-1
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 1:
City Center Sub Area
City Center Planned Action
Although the planned action designation would not apply to individual development
proposals outside of the development envelope or project area, the environmental
analysis conducted in this EIS could be used to help achieve SEPA compliance for such
proposals.
WAC 197-11-600 provides the criteria and procedure for use of existing environmental
documents for SEPA compliance.
2. Adoption of a new structure height standard for multi-unit housing in the City Center
Core (CC-C) zoning designation in the City Center sub-area, including area outside of the
planned action project area (see Figure 2). The new height standard would be 200 feet
under Alternative 1 and 145 feet under Alternative 2.
Background
The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan lays out a long-range vision for the future of
Federal Way. The Plan includes nine elements: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital
Facilities, and Private Utilities; Economic Development; Natural Environment; Potential
Annexation Areas; and City Center.
Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan addresses the City Center sub-area. City Center
contains approximately 414 acres and is bound by South 312th Street, South 324th Street,
Interstate 5, 11th Place South and 13th Avenue South (see Figure 1). As described in the
Comprehensive Plan, City Center is characterized by:
Typical suburban strip retail and mall development;
Large areas of surface parking around the retail development;
Disjointed and over-sized block grid network;
Lack of consistent pedestrian improvements; and
Little residential population.
The future vision for City Center states, “By the end of the comprehensive planning horizon,
the Federal Way City Center will have evolved into the cultural, social, and economic center
of the City and fulfilled its role as one of Puget Sound’s regional network of urban centers.
This role will be reinforced by pedestrian-oriented streetscapes; an efficient multi-modal
transportation system; livable and affordable housing; increased retail, service, and office
development in a compact area; a network of public spaces and parks, superior urban design;
and a safe, essential and vibrant street life.” Figure 3 illustrates potential development
consistent with this vision that could occur in a portion of City Center.
In support of this vision, the principal purposes of the City Center chapter are to:
Create an identifiable downtown that is the social and economic focus of the City;
Strengthen the City as a whole by providing for long-term growth in employment and
housing;
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-3
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 2:
City Center Zoning
Designations
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
:
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
W
a
y
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
Ac
t
i
o
n
E
I
S
Figure 3:Redevelopment Concepts
City Center Planned Action
Promote housing opportunities close to employment;
Support development of an extensive regional transit system;
Reduce dependency on automobiles;
Consume less land with urban development;
Maximize the benefit of public investment in infrastructure and services;
Reduce costs of and time required for permitting;
Provide a central gathering place for the community; and
Improve the quality of urban design for all developments.
The City Center chapter contains a number of policies intended to help achieve these goals.
City Center Policy CCP5 specifically addresses the intent to prepare a Planned Action EIS for
the City Center area. The policy states that the City should “[c]omplete an area-wide
environmental impact statement and SEPA Planned Action and provide streamlined permit
review in the City Center to accelerate changes to the core area.”
This proposal is intended to support the principal purposes of the City Center Chapter and to
specifically implement Policy CCP5.
Objectives of the Proposal
The Proposed Action is intended to achieve the following objectives:
Support the principal objectives of the City Center Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan,
particularly those that promote a more intensive urban style of development in the City
Center and the reduction in costs and time required for permitting.
Fulfill the direction of City Center Element Policy CCP5.
Provide an incentive to development proposals that are consistent with the overall intent
of the City Center vision.
Provide greater certainty to potential developers, city decision-makers and the general
public regarding the future development pattern and likely impacts of future development
in the City Center area.
2.2 Planning Process
Growth Management Act
The Growth Management Act (GMA), adopted by the 1990 Washington State Legislature
and amended periodically thereafter, contains a comprehensive framework for managing
growth and development within local jurisdictions. Many of the provisions of the GMA
apply to the state’s largest and fastest growing jurisdictions, including King County and all
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-6
City Center Planned Action
cities within the county. Additionally, some provisions, such as requirements to identify and
regulate critical areas, apply to all local jurisdictions.
Comprehensive plans for cities planning under GMA must include a land use element
(including a future land use map), housing element, transportation element, public facilities
element, and utilities element. Additional elements may be added at the local jurisdiction’s
option. The GMA plan must provide for adequate capacity to accommodate the city’s share
of projected regional growth. The plan must also ensure that planned and financed
infrastructure can support planned growth at a locally acceptable level of service.
As required by the GMA, the City of Federal Way has prepared and adopted a local
comprehensive plan to guide future development and fulfill the City’s responsibilities under
GMA.
City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
The City’s Comprehensive Plan was prepared in accordance with the GMA and underwent an
extensive public participation process that included City residents, property owners, and
business owners as documented in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Introduction. The
Comprehensive Plan in its entirety contains nine elements: Land Use, Transportation,
Economic Development, Housing, Capital Facilities, City Center, Potential Annexation Area,
Natural Environment, and Private Utilities.
The GMA requires the plan to be updated no more than once a year except under special
circumstances. The GMA also requires a review and update of the plan every ten years. In
compliance with these requirements, the City of Federal Way has annually updated the
Comprehensive Plan.
Development Regulations
Zoning Requirements
Zoning designations in City Center are the City Center Core (CC-C) and City Center Frame
(CC-F). The CC-C designation is intended to provide for a concentration of growth into a
high-density, mixed-use center for Federal Way. The CC-F designation provides for
medium-density mixed-use development in the area surrounding the CC-C designation and
extending to the boundary of the City Center sub-area. The CC-F zone allows for similar
uses to the CC-C zone, but at a lower density and intensity. The development standards in
the CC-F designation are intended to allow a compatible transition to the surrounding area.
Article X1, Chapter 22 of the Federal Way City Code establishes the district regulations for
the zoning designations in the City. Division 8 establishes the uses and development
standards for development in the CC-C and CC-F zones. Permitted uses in the CC-C and CC-
F zones include office, retail, entertainment, hotel, convention and trade centers, multi-unit
housing, and a variety of public uses.
Division 8 also establishes required review processes, lot size, required yards, structure height
and required parking. Requirements related to building height are described below.
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-7
City Center Planned Action
Height of Structure – In the CC-C zone, permitted building heights vary depending on the
use. Office and hotel uses are permitted a base height of 95 feet, retail and multi-unit
residential uses to a base height of 70 feet. In all cases, heights are allowed to increase
subject to special regulations. Office and hotel uses may increase to 145 feet; retail uses to
95 feet; and multi-unit residential uses to 85 feet.
In the CC-F zone, the base height limit for office and retail structures is 35 feet, with potential
increased building height allowed on a case-by-case basis. Base height limit for multi-unit
residential uses is 70 feet and for hotel uses is 45 feet. An increased structure height may be
allowed for all uses on a case-by-case basis.
Community Design Guidelines
Article XIX, Chapter 22, of the Federal Way City Code establishes Community Design
Guidelines applicable to all zones in the City and to all development applications except
single family residential. New development proposals in the planned action project area
would be subject to the Community Design Guidelines and review process.
As described in Section 22-1630, the purpose of the Community Design Guidelines are to
establish minimum design standards to protect property values and enhance the general
appearance of the city; increase flexibility and encourage creativity in building and site
design; achieve predictability in design review; improve and expand pedestrian amenities;
and implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.
Proposals subject to community design guidelines are processed as a component of the
underlying land use process. The director of community development services has the
authority to approve, modify, or deny proposals under this process.
Site design guidelines (Section 22-1634) address general site criteria, parking (surface lots
and structured parking), pedestrian circulation and public spaces, landscaping, commercial
service and institutional facilities and other site elements. Guidelines for building design
(Section 22-1635) address general building criteria, landscape screening, and building
articulation and scale. Additional guidelines are provided for building and pedestrian
orientation and mixed-use residential buildings. Section 22-1638(c) provides specific
guidelines for the City Center Core and Frame zones. Guidelines in this section address
parking (surface and structured parking), entrance and building facades, and the location of
drive-through facilities.
2.3 Planned Action Process
Planned Action Overview
According to WAC 197-11-164, a Planned Action is defined as a project that: is designated a
planned action by ordinance; has had the significant environmental impacts addressed in an
EIS; has been prepared in conjunction with a comprehensive plan or subarea plan; is located
within an urban growth area; is not an essential public facility; and is consistent with an
adopted comprehensive plan.
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-8
City Center Planned Action
The City proposes to designate the City Center project area (Figure 1) as a planned action,
pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and implementing rules. As shown
in Figure 1, the project area is bounded on the south by South 324th Street; on the north by
South 312th Street; on the west by Pacific Highway South; and on the east by 23rd Avenue
South. Federal Way will follow applicable procedures, described generally below, to review
proposed projects within the project area through the land use review process associated with
each project to determine their impacts and impose any appropriate development conditions.
Planned Action EIS
The significant environmental impacts of projects designated as Planned Actions must be
identified and adequately analyzed in an EIS (WAC 197-11-164). Planned Action projects
should only be designated when a city can reasonably analyze the site-specific impacts that
would occur as a result of the types of projects designated.
Planned Action Ordinance
According to WAC 197-11-168, the ordinance designating the Planned Action shall include
the following:
1. A description of the type of project action being designated as a Planned Action;
2. A finding that the probable significant environmental impacts of the Planned Action have
been identified and adequately addressed in an EIS;
3. Identification of mitigation measures that must be applied to a project for it to qualify as a
Planned Action.
Following the completion of the EIS process, the City of Federal Way would designate the
Planned Action by ordinance. The ordinance would identify mitigation, as described in this
EIS, which would be applicable to future site-specific development actions. Mitigation could
include requirements that would apply to all development in the planned action area as well
as measures that may apply on a case-by-case basis.
2.4 Environmental Review
Comprehensive Plan EIS
The City of Federal Way completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the City’s
GMA Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations in 1995. The Comprehensive Plan
EIS considered impacts associated with the proposed land use pattern, including land use in
the proposed City Center sub-area (Comprehensive Plan Chapter 7). Elements of the
environment that were considered in the Comprehensive Plan EIS include earth; air quality;
water resources; plants and animals; energy; environmental health; land & shoreline use;
aesthetics, light and glare; transportation; public services and utilities. This Planned Action
EIS incorporates by reference the analysis contained in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan EIS as
it relates to the City Center sub-area.
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-9
City Center Planned Action
Scope of Review
Pursuant to SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-408 through 410), a Determination of Significance
was issued by the City of Federal Way on September 3, 2003. Interested citizens, agencies,
organizations, and affected tribes were invited to submit comments on the scope of the EIS.
The scoping process included one public meeting, held on September 17, 2003. This meeting
provided information about the EIS process, the proposal and alternatives, a SEPA
Environmental Checklist on the proposal (Appendix 3) and an opportunity to comment on the
proposed scope of the environmental review. No comments were received on the scope of
the EIS.
This Draft EIS addresses the following elements of the environment:
Land Use – The land use analysis includes an evaluation of the amount, types, scale and
pattern of uses. The focus of the analysis is on land use compatibility with existing and
planned development within and adjacent to the project area.
Transportation – The transportation analysis identifies and evaluates potential impacts
to morning/evening peak hour traffic and Saturday traffic in and around the project area.
The period through 2009 is analyzed in detail, with a more generalized analysis for the
period between 2010 and 2014.
Aesthetics – The aesthetics discussion includes a narrative evaluation of the design and
character of existing buildings and the nature of change to the urban character that may
result from the proposal and alternatives.
Public Services – The public services analysis reviews police, fire and emergency
medical services, parks and recreation, and energy and communication. Existing levels
of service, estimated needs and demand for services, and measures needed, if any, to
respond to projected demand from the proposal and alternatives are described.
Utilities – The utilities analysis focuses on water and sewer service. Existing capacity,
constraints, planned improvements are described and compared to future demand for
water and sewer service resulting from the proposal and alternatives.
Air Quality – Air quality analysis focuses on potential air quality impacts resulting from
increased traffic associated with the proposal and alternatives.
2.5 Proposed Action and Alternatives
Overview
This EIS evaluates three alternative land use scenarios for the City Center project area. For
the purpose of analysis and discussion in this EIS, the planned action project area has been
divided into three smaller analysis areas, referred to in this Draft EIS as Block 1, Block 2 and
Block 3. Block 1 consists of the northern portion of the project area and is bounded on the
north by S 312th Street, on the west by Pacific Highway South, on the south by South 316th
Street and on the east by 23rd Avenue S. Block 2 is located in the central portion of the
project area and is bounded on the north by S 316th Street, on the west by Pacific Highway
South, on the south by S 320th Street and on the east by 23rd Avenue S. Block 3 is located in
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-10
City Center Planned Action
the southern portion of the project area and consists mainly of The Commons at Federal Way.
Block 3 is bounded on the north by S 320th Street, on the west by Pacific Highway South, on
the south by S 324th Street and on the east by 23rd Avenue S. Please refer to Figure 4.
Alternatives 1 and 2 assume the maximum development identified in Table 2-1, but distribute
growth differently. Alternative 1 assumes that growth is focused around South 320th Street,
with over 85 percent of new growth occurring in Blocks 2 and 3. Alternative 2 distributes
future growth more evenly around the project area. Alternative 3 (No Action) assumes the
level and distribution of growth established in the Comprehensive Plan. Figure 5 shows the
relative distribution and amount of total growth assumed under each of the three alternatives.
The alternatives also include different assumptions regarding maximum structure height in
the City Center-Core and City Center-Frame zones. Under Alternative 3 (No Action) the
existing structure height standards would continue unchanged.
Alternative 1
Land Use Pattern. The proposed land use pattern would create a dense, mixed-use urban
neighborhood focused around South 320th Street, with development focused in Blocks 2 and
3. The total amount of new development anticipated for the City Center area is as described
in Table 2-1 and Figure 5. The new development would be distributed over time and
throughout the project area as shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
Table 2-2. Alternative 1 (South 320th Street Focus)
Development through 2009
Blocks
1 2 3 Total
Retail (sf) 67,500 202,500 180,000 450,000
Office (sf) 37,500 112,500 60,000 210,000
Lodging (rooms) 60 180 120 360
Residential (units) 75 225 150 450
Civic (sf) 0 0 0 0
Structured Parking (stalls) 0 150 300 450
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2003
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-11
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 4:
City Center Analysis
Blocks
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 5:
Overview of Alternatives
Land UseBlock 1Block 2Block 3Total
Retail112,500337,500300,000750,000
Office62,500187,500100,000350,000
Hotel 100 rooms300 rooms200 rooms600 rooms
Residential125 units375 units250 units750 units
Civic Uses050,000 sf50,000 sf100,000 sf
Structured
Parking
0250 spaces500 spaces750 spaces
Land UseBlock 1Block 2Block 3Total
Retail255,000 sf255,000 sf240,000 sf750,000 sf
Office135,000 sf135,000 sf80,000 sf350,000 sf
Hotel220 rooms220 rooms160 rooms600 rooms
Residential275 units275 units200 units750 units
Civic Uses50,000 sf50,000 sf0100,000 sf
Structured
Parking
175 spaces175 spaces400 spaces750 spaces
Alternative 1: South 320th Street Focus
Alternative 2: Distributed Development
Alternative 3: No Action Alternative
Total Development
Block 1
12%
Block 3
47%
Block 2
41%
Total Development
Block 2
35%
Block 3
30%
Block 1
35%
Total Development
Block 2
36%
Block 1
32%Block 3
32%
Land UseBlock 1Block 2Block 3Total
Retail68,790 sf83,400 sf68,080 sf 220,270 sq
Office48,476 sf39,970 sf16,000 sf104,446 sf
Residential70 units100 units100 units270 units
City Center Planned Action
Table 2-3. Alternative 1 (South 320th Street Focus)
2010 - 2014
Blocks
1 2 3 Total
Retail (sf) 45,000 135,000 120,000 300,000
Office (sf) 25,000 75,000 40,000 140,000
Lodging (rooms) 40 120 80 240
Residential (units) 50 150 100 300
Civic (sf) 0 50,000 50,000 100,000
Structured Parking (stalls) 0 100 200 300
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2003
Under this Alternative, approximately 47 percent of new growth would be located at The
Commons at Federal Way site (Block 3). Approximately 41 percent would occur in Block 2
and the remainder (12%) in Block 1.
Development Regulations. Alternative 1 would amend FWMC Division 8, Section 22-797
to allow a maximum structure height for multi-unit housing of 200 feet. The current height
standard is 70 feet or 85 feet.
Alternative 2
Land Use Pattern. Similar to Alternative 1, the proposed land use pattern would create a
dense, mixed-use urban neighborhood in the project area. In contrast to Alternative 1,
Alternative 2 would distribute growth relatively more evenly throughout the project area.
Relatively more growth is allocated to Block 1 and relatively less to Blocks 2 and 3. The
total amount of new development anticipated for the City Center area is as described in
Table 2-1 and Figure 5 and would be distributed over time and throughout the project area as
shown in Tables 2-4 and 2-5.
Table 2-4. Alternative 2 (Distributed Development)
Development through 2009
Blocks
1 2 3 Total
Retail (sf) 153,000 153,000 144,000 450,000
Office (sf) 81,000 81,000 48,000 210,000
Lodging (rooms) 132 132 96 360
Residential (units) 165 165 120 450
Civic (sf) 0 0 0 0
Structured Parking (stalls) 175 0 240 415
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2003
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-14
City Center Planned Action
Table 2-5. Alternative 2 (Distributed Development)
2010 – 2014
Blocks
1 2 3 Total
Retail (sf) 102,000 102,000 96,000 300,000
Office (sf) 54,000 54,000 32,000 140,000
Lodging (rooms) 88 88 64 240
Residential (units) 110 110 80 300
Civic (sf) 50,000 50,000 0 100,000
Structured Parking (stalls) 0 175 160 335
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2003
Under this Alternative, approximately 30 percent of new growth would be located at The
Commons at Federal Way site (Block 3). Remaining development potential would be spread
between Blocks 1 and 2, which each area accommodating approximately 35 percent of the
new growth anticipated under the planned action.
Development Regulations. Alternative 2 would amend FWMC Division 8, Section 22-
797 to allow a maximum structure height for multi-unit housing of 145 feet. The current
height standard is 70 feet or 85 feet.
Alternative 3
Land Use Pattern. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, the land use pattern in the City
Center project area would be characterized by an intensively developed urban core that
includes mixed use, office, retail and residential development. Greatest intensity of
development would occur in the City Center Core area, with development transitioning in the
City Center Frame to the surrounding area. Overall, anticipated growth under this alternative
would be approximately 32 percent of that anticipated for office and retail development and
36 percent of that anticipated for residential development under the action alternatives.
Tables 2-6 and 2-7 below show the projected growth by Block area and time period.
Table 2-6. Alternative 3 (No Action)
Development through 2009
Blocks
1 2 3 Total
Retail (sf) 41,270 50,040 40,850 132,160
Office (sf) 29,086 23,980 9,600 62,666
Residential (units) 40 60 60 160
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2003
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-15
City Center Planned Action
Table 2-7. Alternative 3 (No Action)
2010–2014
Blocks
1 2 3 Total
Retail (sf) 27,520 33,360 27,230 88,110
Office (sf) 19,390 15,990 6,400 41,780
Residential (units) 30 40 40 110
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2003
Under this Alternative, approximately 32 percent of the new growth would be located at The
Commons at Federal Way site (Block 3). Approximately 36% would be located in Block 2,
with the remainder (32%) in Block 1
Development Regulations. Under the No Action Alternative, existing development
standards would continue unchanged. Development standards for structure height would not
be amended.
2.6 Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying Proposed
Action
The Proposed Action includes adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance for future
development in the City Center sub-area and adoption of increased structure height standards
for multi-family residential development in the City Center – Core and Frame zones.
Delaying implementation of the Proposed Action would delay the potential impacts identified
in this EIS, including potential land use conflicts, changes to visual character, increased
traffic congestion and increased demand for public services and utilities. This delay could be
considered environmentally beneficial in the short-term. Deferring implementation would
also delay and reduce the likelihood that the City Center sub-area will develop in a manner
consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Delay would not allow new
development and associated review processes to benefit from the analysis developed through
this Planned Action process.
2.7 Major Issues to be Resolved
Adoption of a Planned Action Ordinance and concurrent Zoning Code amendments to allow
increased structure heights in the City Center Core and Frame zones would support
development and re-development of the area to a more intensive mixed-use character
consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. The key environmental issue facing
decision-makers is the impact of additional traffic on area roadways and mitigating measures
to address such impacts.
Draft Planned Action EIS 2-16
City Center Planned Action
Chapter 3
Affected Environment, Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
3.1 Air Quality
Affected Environment
This chapter discusses the potential impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable
significant adverse impacts to air quality in the project area. Potential air quality impacts will
be primarily related to increases or decreases in vehicular traffic on surface streets.
Existing Area Conditions
The general air quality in the project area is dominated by vehicular trips from I-5, Pacific
Hwy South (SR 99), South 320th Street and numerous City streets. Secondary sources of
emissions are from commercial land uses and nearby SeaTac Airport. (See Section 3.2, Land
Use Patterns.)
The vehicular air pollution sources, in the form of tailpipe emissions generated during local
and regional trips, are characteristic of urban commercial and interstate pass-through trips.
Local emissions are dominated by vehicular emissions related to commercial, residential, and
pass-through regional trips. Additionally, space heating source emissions contribute to
background air quality.
Regulatory Overview
Three agencies have air quality jurisdiction in the project area: the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology),
and the Puget Sound Clean Air Authority (PSCAA). Although their regulations are similar in
stringency, each agency has established its own standards. Unless the state or local agency
has adopted a more stringent standard, the EPA standards apply.
EPA and Ecology establish regulations designed to limit emissions from air pollution sources
and to minimize concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air. Table 3-1 lists both the
national and State of Washington ambient air quality standards. The National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) consist of primary standards designed to protect public health
and secondary standards designed to protect public welfare (e.g., preventing air pollution
damage to vegetation). Washington has established additional state ambient standards for
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-1
City Center Planned Action
total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxide standards more stringent than the federal
requirements.
Table 3-1. National and State of Washington Ambient Air Quality Standards
National (EPA)
Pollutant Primary Secondary Washington State
Carbon Monoxide
8-hour average
1-hour average
9 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
9 ppm
35 ppm
Particulate Matter
PM10
Annual average
24-hour average
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
150 µg/m3
PM2.5
Annual average
24-hour average
15 µg/m3
65 µg/m3
15 µg/m3
65 µg/m3
15 µg/m3
65 µg/m3
Lead
Quarterly average 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3
Sulfur Dioxide
Annual average
24-hour average
3-hour average
1-hour average
0.03 ppm
0.14 ppm
No standard
No standard
No standard
No standard
0.50 ppm
No standard
0.02 ppm
0.10 ppm
No standard
0.40 ppma
Ozone
8-hour averageb 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide
Annual average 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm 0.05 ppm
Source: Jones & Stokes, 2005
Notes: Annual standards never to be exceeded. Short-term standards not to be exceeded more than once per year
unless noted.
ppm = parts per million
PM10 = particles 10 microns or less in size
PM2.5 = particles 2.5 microns or less in size
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
a 0.25 ppm not to be exceeded more than two times in 7 consecutive days.
b Not to be exceeded on more than 1 day per calendar year as determined under the conditions indicated in
Chapter 173-475 WAC.
Attainment Status
Ecology maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the state. These
stations are placed in areas where there may be air quality problems, usually in or near urban
areas or close to large air pollution sources. A limited number of additional stations are
located in remote areas to provide an indication of regional background air pollution levels.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-2
City Center Planned Action
Based on monitoring information collected over a period of years, the state and federal
agencies designate regions as being “attainment”, “nonattainment”, or “unclassifiable” areas
for regulated air pollutants. “Attainment” status indicates that air quality in an area meets the
federal, health-based ambient air quality standards; “nonattainment” status indicates that air
quality in an area does not meet those standards. “Unclassifiable” status indicates that there
are no relevant monitoring data for the area, in which case the area has the same regulatory
status as “attainment” status. Regions previously designated as nonattainment that have
demonstrated consistent improvements in air quality have been reclassified as “maintenance”
areas, requiring approval of maintenance plans by Ecology.
The project area is within the portion of the County that was classified as nonattainment for
CO and ozone in the 1990s. In 1996 PSCAA redesignated the entire region to be in
attainment for ozone and CO, and maintenance plans for those pollutants have been approved
by EPA (PSRC 2003). Although there are no CO or ozone monitors in the immediate project
area PSCAA's monitors in the region have demonstrated compliance with the ambient
standards since achieving attainment status. The project area is part of the approved
maintenance area for CO and ozone.
Transportation Conformity
Federally funded transportation projects proposed for construction within nonattainment areas
or maintenance areas are subject to the Transportation Conformity regulations specified under
the Clean Air Washington Act. The permitting agency must demonstrate conformity by the
following steps:
Conduct a regional air quality analysis by consulting with the regional transportation
planning agency (in this case PSRC) to confirm the proposed roadway project was
included in an approved regional transportation plan, and that PSRC included the
emissions from the proposed project in their regional air quality modeling for their
required annual Air Conformity Analysis.
Conduct a project-level carbon monoxide "hot spot" analysis to model the worst-case
concentrations adjacent to the roadway, and compare the modeled concentrations to the
allowable ambient air quality standards.
Because the proposal is not for a federally funded transportation project, it is not subject to
the Transportation Conformity regulations. Regardless, the emission calculation and ambient
air quality modeling protocols specified by the regulation were used for this assessment as
relevant tools to evaluate the ambient air quality impacts associated with the project
alternatives.
Impacts
The proposed action could affect air quality in two ways. First, during construction, dust
impacts from construction activities can be significant, even if localized and temporary.
Second, increased traffic due to population and employment growth associated with
development under the planned action will generate vehicle emissions (which will continue to
be the single largest air pollutant source category within City Center).
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-3
City Center Planned Action
Method of Analysis for CO Hot-Spot Analysis
The CO hot spot analysis was conducted in accordance with the PSRC/Ecology guidance
document "Guidebook for Conformity" (KJS 1995). Hot-spot modeling was done for the
2009 Build Year. Two standard computerized tools were used to evaluate potential air
quality impacts from the Build Alternative, using a three-step process. First, peak-hour
traffic volumes and intersection turning movements were identified based on the
transportation analysis. Second, MOBILE6.2 CO pollutant emission factors for the modeled
years were obtained from PSRC (McGourty 2005). Third, EPA's CAL3QHC computer
dispersion model was used to estimate ground-level concentrations at receptors adjacent to
the roadway, and the modeled concentrations were compared to the allowable ambient air
quality standards.
Intersections Selected for Hot-Spot Analysis
PSRC/Ecology guidance specifies that the hot-spot analysis must be conducted at up to six
intersections within the project area, representing the most congested conditions. Hot-spot
modeling should be done for the three intersections with the worst level of service (LOS), and
the three intersections with the highest peak-hour traffic volumes (KJS 1995). LOS is a
measure of the weighted average vehicle delay during the peak traffic period at a signalized
intersection. LOS "A" is the least congested, with an average delay of less than 10 seconds
per vehicle. LOS "F" represents a weighted average delay of more than 80 seconds per
vehicle. Please refer to the Transportation discussion (Section 3.4) of this Draft EIS for
additional information. This combination of requirements provides the criteria for selecting
intersections for the air quality analysis, and conversely, for eliminating intersections that do
not warrant quantitative analysis.
PM peak-hour traffic volumes and LOS at 22 intersections within and near the project area
were identified for Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 for the 2009 Build Year.
The traffic volumes of 2009 Alternative 1 were used for the hot-spot modeling because
Alternative 1 will generate higher peak hour-volumes than the other alternatives. Under
Alternative 1, the three intersections with the worst LOS are S 272nd/Pacific Highway South,
S 272nd/Military Road S, and S 272nd Street/I-5 southbound ramp. The three intersections
with the highest volumes are S 272nd Street/ Pacific Highway S, S 320th Street/Pacific
Highway S, and S 336th Street/Pacific Highway S. The following five project intersections
were included in the CO hot-spot analysis (see Figure 6).
S 272nd Street and Pacific Highway S
S 272nd Street and I-5 southbound ramp
S 272nd Street and Military Road S
S 320th Street and Pacific Highway S
S 336th Street and Pacific Highway S
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-4
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 6:
Air Quality Analysis
Locations
5
5
99
99
S.320th Street
S.272nd Street
Pacific
Highway
S.336th Street
Steel Lake
PUGETSOUND
NorthLake
2
3
1
Source:Terraserver USA (June 2002)Air Quality Analysis Location
0 0.5 1
Miles
City Center Planned Action
Short Term Impacts
Construction associated with growth and development would occur under all of the
alternatives. During construction, dust from excavation and grading could cause temporary,
localized increases in the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and suspended particulate
matter. Construction activity would be required to comply with the PSCAA’s Regulation I,
Section 9.15 requiring reasonable precautions to minimize dust emissions.
Construction activities would likely require the use of diesel-powered heavy trucks and
smaller equipment such as generators and compressors. These engines would emit air
pollutants that could slightly degrade local air quality in the immediate vicinity of the
activity. However, these emissions would be temporary and localized, and the resulting
construction emissions would likely be far outweighed by emissions from existing traffic
around the project area.
Some construction activities could cause odors detectible to some people in the vicinity of the
activity. This could be particularly true during paving operations using tar and asphalt. Such
odors would be short-term and localized. Construction activities would be required to comply
with the PSCAA regulations requiring the best available measures to control the emissions of
odor-bearing air contaminants (Regulation I, Section 9.11). In addition, no slash burning
would be permitted in association with the development of this project.
Construction equipment, material hauling, and detours for excavation and grading could
affect traffic flow in the project area. If construction delays traffic enough to significantly
reduce travel speeds in the area, general traffic-related emissions would increase.
Long Term Impacts
2009
Development under all of the alternatives will increase the traffic volumes of streets within
and surrounding the City Center project area. Alternative 1 is predicted to generate the
highest vehicle trips based on the traffic analysis. Therefore, the air quality impact analysis
was performed for Alternative 1 as the worst-case scenario.
Carbon monoxide (CO), is the air pollutant of primary concern for mobile vehicles, is the
pollutant emitted in the largest quantity and is the only pollutant for which modeling
guidelines have been established. Therefore, in accordance with PSRC/Ecology guidance CO
is the only pollutant that was quantitatively modeled for the hot-spot analysis (KJS 1995).
Table 3-2 displays the results of the CAL3QHC dispersion modeling for CO concentrations
adjacent to each of the five subject intersections for the 2009 Alternative 1. The table lists
both the modeled 1-hour and 8-hour average concentrations. The listed CO concentrations
include an assumed background value representative of suburban areas.
The listed concentrations represent the maximum values modeled for hypothetical receptors
located on the sidewalks adjacent to each intersection, with stagnant atmospheric conditions,
under the most restrictive wind speed and wind direction. Thus, the listed values represent
worst-case concentrations that are likely higher than would ever actually be experienced by
local residents and pedestrians.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-6
City Center Planned Action
As shown in Table 3-2 the modeled worst-case CO concentrations at each intersection for
Alternative 1 are all below the allowable ambient air quality standards. The forecasted traffic
volumes are higher for Alternative 1 than for any other alternative. Therefore, it is expected
that none of the alternatives would cause any significant operational air quality impacts.
Table 3-2. Modeled 1-Hour CO Concentrations (Year 2009 Alternative 1)
Intersection 1-hour average (ppm) 8-hour average (ppm)
S 272nd Street/Pacific Highway S 9.5 6.7
S 272nd Street/I-5 southbound ramp 7.7 5.4
S 272nd Street/Military Road S 8.7 6.1
S 320th Street/Pacific Highway S 11.2 7.9
S 336th Street and Pacific Highway S 10.5 7.4
Allowable ambient air quality standards: 35 ppm (1-hour), 9 ppm (8-hour)
Listed values include assumed background: 3 ppm (1-hour); 2.1 ppm (8-hour)
All intersections were modeled for the weekday PM condition.
Source: Jones & Stokes, 2006
Table 3-2 shows the modeled CO concentrations for the weekday PM peak traffic volumes.
As this table shows, Alternative 1 would not cause any significant operational air quality
impacts during the peak hour period. Because Alternative 1 is expected to generate the
highest peak hour traffic volumes, it is not expected that either of the remaining alternatives
would result in any significant air quality impacts.
2014
Quantitative CO hot-spot modeling was not conducted for the year 2014 because the site-
specific data required for hot-spot modeling (intersection levels of service and intersection
turning movements) were not available for that year. However, based on the favorable CO
hot-spot modeling results for 2009 it is concluded the ambient air quality impacts for 2014
would be less than the allowable air quality limits, so planned development would not cause
signficant air quality impacts in 2014. This conclusion is based on two sets of facts. First, as
listed in Table 3-2 the modeled CO concentrations for 2009 are well within the allowable air
quality limits, even though the CO modeling approach used a worst-case screening model and
conservatively high background concentrations. Second, it is likely that CO
concentrations will steadily decrease between the years 2009 to 2014 because the increase in
future traffic volumes will be more than offset by future emission reductions from individual
vehicles. Future traffic volumes are forecast to increase at rates of only 1.5% to 3.3% per
year. However, EPA's MOBILE62 emission factor model indicates CO emission factors for
individual vehicles will decrease by 3.5% to 4.0% per year. Because the annual decrease in
CO emission factors exceeds the annual increase in traffic volume, ambient CO impacts are
expected to decrease in the future.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-7
City Center Planned Action
Mitigation Measures
Short Term
Construction activities related to development approved under the Planned Action
Designation could generate fugitive dust, which could be mitigated using the following best
management practices:
Use water sprays or other non-toxic dust control methods on unpaved roadways.
Minimize vehicle speed while traveling on unpaved surfaces.
Prevent trackout of mud onto public streets.
Cover soil piles when practical.
To the extent practical, minimize work during periods of high winds.
Burning of slash or demolition debris is not permitted without express approval from
PSCAA. No slash burning is anticipated for any construction projects in the City Center.
Mobile construction equipment and portable stationary engines would emit air pollutants
including NOx, CO, and PM10. These emissions would be temporary and localized. It is
highly unlikely that the temporary emissions would cause ambient concentrations at adjoining
parcels to approach the NAAQS limits. Typical mitigation measures to minimize air quality
and odor issues caused by tailpipe emissions include the following:
Maintain the engines of construction equipment according to manufacturers’
specifications.
Minimize idling of equipment while the equipment is not in use.
Long Term
The CO concentrations modeled for this air quality assessment account for intersection
improvements already included as part of the proposed action to mitigate traffic impacts. The
analysis presented in this section indicates all of the project alternatives would result in
compliance with applicable carbon monoxide standards. Consequently, no significant air
quality impacts would be expected, and no consideration of special air quality mitigation
measures is necessary.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Temporary, localized dust and odor impacts could occur during the construction activities.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-8
City Center Planned Action
3.2 Land Use
This section describes the project areas existing land uses, relationship to surrounding land
uses, site and surrounding area comprehensive plan and zoning classifications; and analyzes
potential impacts resulting from the proposed action.
Affected Environment
Overview
The City Center project area consists of approximately 200 acres located in downtown
Federal Way (see Figure 1). The project area contains a variety of uses, including
commercial, office, parking, and multi-family residential uses. Table 3-3 summarizes the
existing development in the project area.
Table 3-3. Existing Development Planned Action Project Area
Block
Commercial
(retail, office,
restaurant, services) Residential Hotel
Block 1 538,224 sf 190 units --
Block 2 500,221 sf N/A 230 rooms
Block 3 850,469 sf N/A --
Total 1,888,914 sf 190 units 230 rooms
Source: King County Department of Assessments, 2006.
Commercial uses, including freestanding retail stores, hotels, retail centers and services are
the predominant land use. In terms of area, the other major land use in the project area is
parking and private circulation. Surface parking is plentiful throughout the project area,
constituting an estimated 50 to 70 percent of the land area.
Some offices uses, including the offices of the Federal Way School District Administration,
are located in Blocks 1 and 2. The only housing in the project area are two multi-family
developments in the northeast corner of Block 1.
Block 1
Block 1 is primarily developed with large freestanding retail stores including Wal-Mart and
Top Foods. In addition, smaller retail and service uses are located in small strip commercial
centers scattered throughout Block 1. Many small businesses also line Pacific Highway
South on the west side of Block 1, including a number of stores that specialize in ethnic foods
and services. Hillside Plaza and a commercial center anchored by 24-Hour Fitness are
located on the eastern portion of Block 1. Building footprints of these developments tend to
be small relative to lot size. Please see Table 3-4 for some examples of building area relative
to lot size.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-9
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-4. Block 1, Sample Commercial Areas Building Footprint and Lot Area Ratios
Commercial Area Lot Area
Building
Footprint
Ratio of Building
Footprint to Lot
Area
Land Area used
for Parking,
Circulation and
Landscaping
Walmart 433,422 sf 122,549 sf .28 310,873 sf
Top Foods Grocery 304,870 sf 65,714 sf .22 239,156 sf
Hillside Plaza 383,818 sf 110,234 sf .29 273,584 sf
Source: King County Department of Assessments 2006.
Other uses found in Block 1 include the Federal Way School District Administration building
and two multi-family residential buildings. These two residential complexes contain a total
of 190 units. Steel Lake Plaza Apartments are located at the corner of 23rd Avenue South
and S. 312th Street. This development has a total of 54 units developed at a density of
approximately 27 units per acre. Brightwater Apartments are located immediately west of
Steel Lake Plaza Apartments along S. 312th Street, extending just past 20th Avenue S.
Brightwater has a total of 126 units developed at approximately 26 units per acre.
At the northwest corner of Block 1 and at the northwest corner of S. 316th Street and 20th
Avenue South, there are numerous vacant and/or for-sale commercial businesses (Figure 7).
Access to and within Block 1 is provided by the public rights-of-way that surround the area,
as well as a number of intra-block circulation routes and informal circulation via the surface
parking that surrounds the retail uses.
Block 2
Development in Block 2 is primarily composed of retail, service and parking uses. Retail
establishments are clustered along S. 320th Street and Pacific Highway South. Commercial
centers include SeaTac Village, Center Plaza, and SeaTac Plaza. The buildings that house
these uses occupy one-third or less of their respective lots, with the remaining area occupied
primarily by surface parking and some limited landscaping. Table 3-5 below summarizes the
ratio of building area to lot area for these three developments.
Table 3-5. Block 2, Sample Commercial Areas Building Footprint and Lot Area Ratios
Commercial Area Lot Area
Building
Footprint
Ratio of Building
Footprint to Lot
Area
Land area used
for parking,
circulation and
landscaping
SeaTac Village 688,456 sf 166,897 sf 0.24 521,559 sf
Center Plaza 263,907 sf 68,855 sf 0.26 195,052 sf
SeaTac Plaza 363,101 sf 107,394 sf 0.31 233,957 sf
Source: King County Department of Assessments, 2006.
Block 2 also has two hotels, Best Western Executel and Comfort Inn, which provide a total of
230 hotel rooms.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-10
City Center Planned Action
There are a number of vacant or underdeveloped parcels particularly in the northern portion
of this block, along S. 316th Street (Figure 7). The 25,024 sf cinema building located at S.
316th Street and 20th Avenue South, is closed and vacant. The Federal Way Transit Center,
owned and operated by Sound Transit, is located at the southwest corner of 23rd Avenue
South and S. 316th Street. The Transit Center includes bus bays and a 1,200 stall parking
structure.
Similar to Block 1, access to Block 2 is provided via the adjacent public rights-of-way, intra-
block circulation routes and informal circulation through the large surface parking areas.
Block 3
Block 3 differs from the rest of the project area in that it is developed with The Commons at
Federal Way, a single commercial center. The Commons at Federal Way is an enclosed
regional shopping center of approximately 736,051 square feet.
The mall offers a variety of retail shops, food, and entertainment. Anchor stores for the mall
include Sears, Macy's and Target. Sears is located on a separately owned parcel just west of
the main mall building. Two small areas of commercial use are located in the northeast
corner of the property, separate from the primary development.
The entire block is approximately 62 acres (2,697,235 square feet) with paved surface
parking covering approximately 70 percent of the area.
Surrounding Land Uses
A mix of commercial, residential and public uses are found in the area surrounding the
project area. To the east, commercial uses located within the City Center sub-area extend
from the project area to Interstate 5. Uses in this area include Steel Lake Park, Harry S.
Truman High School, multi-family housing developments, a church, the Gateway Center
containing a cinema, shops and hotel, office complexes, and a mix of free-standing retail and
services uses.
To the west, newer retail strip malls and commercial uses, including Pavilion Center, are
located on the west side of Pacific Highway South. Commercial uses extend along Pacific
Highway South, to the northwest and southwest of the project area, including some multi-
story office buildings and hotels. A mix of single family and multi-family residential uses are
located west of the Pacific Highway South commercial area. Celebration Park is located to
the southwest of the project area.
To the north of 312th Street, a small multi-family area is located at 18th Avenue South. The
balance of the area to the north is a developed single-family residential neighborhood. Steel
Lake Park is located in this area, north of S 308th Street.
South of The Commons at Federal Way, property is developed with a mix of commercial and
multi-family uses, including Belmor Mobile Home Park.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-11
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 7:
Vacant and
Redevelopable Land
City Center Planned Action
Vacant and Redevelopable Land
Vacant Land
Based on a review of the project area and King County Assessor's data, approximately 5 acres
are vacant in Block 1 and 3 acres in Block 2, for a total of approximately 8 acres of vacant
land. See Figure 7 for the location of these parcels.
Redevelopable Land
The identification of redevelopable land is dependent on a variety of factors, including
general and localized economic conditions, perceived market opportunities and the financial
and investment goals of individual property owners. For this analysis, two measures have
been used. The first is based on the King County Buildable Lands Report. The King County
Buildable Lands Report is an analysis, required by the Washington GMA, which measures
capacity to absorb growth in local jurisdictions. For the purpose of this study, jurisdictions in
King County, including the City of Federal Way, were required to establish a methodology
for identifying redevelopable land. The approach used by Federal Way and many other
jurisdictions compares the value of improvements on a property to the value of the property
itself. Properties with relatively low improvement values compared to property values are
assumed to be more likely to be redeveloped. In commercial areas, redevelopable properties
are identified as those in which the improvement value is 50 percent or less of the property
values.
This approach was used to identify redevelopable properties in the project area. Under this
approach a total of 5 acres are identified as redevelopable in the project area. By Block area,
this breaks down to approximately 2.8 acres in Block 1, 6.05 acres in Block 2, and 0.65 acres
in Block 3. See Figure 6 for the location of these parcels.
A second measure of the redevelopment potential in the project area considers the potential
for development of existing paved surface parking areas. As discussed previously, paved
parking is a predominant land use in the project area. Typical commercial center
development in the project area has two-thirds or more of developed area used for surface
parking. Some portion of these parking areas could be reduced or consolidated in structured
parking facilities to allow redevelopment of existing parking areas.
Based on King County Assessor’s data, the project area has a total of approximately 8.15
acres of vacant and redevelopable land in Block 1; 8.97 acres in Block 2; and 0.65 acres in
Block 3, for a total of 17.7 acres of vacant and redevelopable land in the Project area (see
Table 3-6). If existing paved surface parking areas were considered, the amount of re-
developable land would increase significantly. The degree to which the paved parking areas
could be used depends on whether new development would consolidate parking into
structured parking.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-13
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-6. Vacant and Redevelopable Land Summary
Vacant Land1 Redevelopable Land2 TOTAL
Block 1 5.35 acres 2.80 acres 8.15acres
Block 2 2.92 acres 6.05 acres 8.97 acres
Block 3 0 acres 0.65 acres 0.65 acres
TOTAL 6.7 acres 5.08 acres 17.7 acres
Source: Jones & Stokes, 2006.
1. Based on King County Assessor’s data, 2006.
2. King County Buildable Lands Report methodology; using 2006 King County Assessor’s data.
Land Use Compatibility
In general, the project area consists of low scale retail and service uses with large parking
areas. The large existing parking areas allow ample parking for typical demand and appear to
have sufficient capacity for peak times. Because the uses are low-scale, spread out and
similar in character, little or no potential land use conflicts are evident.
In the areas adjacent to the project area, there is a potential for land use conflicts where
residential uses adjoin intensive commercial activity. Conflicts could arise from lighting,
noise and general activity levels that may spill over from commercial to residential areas.
Development in the Planned Action Area could also have greater height and bulk compared
to adjoining development, resulting in increased shadowing and disparity in building scale.
The proposed Zoning Code amendment to allow for increased multi-unit structure height in
the City Center-Core zoning designation could result in greater building height for multi-unit
structures with the potential for increased shadowing and greater disparity in building scale.
However, as discussed below, because the proposed change under either alternative is
comparable to existing height standards for other uses in this designation, the impact is not
expected to be significant.
Another potential conflict within the project area is between pedestrian and auto-related uses.
Currently, the project area is heavily auto-oriented. Pedestrian connections are not
consistently provided and are interrupted by driveways and parking lots.
Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
As shown on Figure 3, the project area is currently designated City Center Core (CC-C) from
S. 324th Street to S. 316th Street. From S. 316th to S. 312th the area is designated City
Center Frame (CC-F).
The intent of the CC-C land use designation is to create a high-density mixed-use “center” for
Federal Way, and become an urban center as envisioned in VISION 2020 and the King
County County-wide Planning Policies. The CC-C designation recognizes that traditional
city centers are places where diverse office, retail, and government uses are concentrated, as
well as cultural and civic facilities, community services, and housing. The CC-C designation
is intended to allow for and encourage this level of diversity and concentration of uses.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-14
City Center Planned Action
Within the planned action project area, the CC-C designation applies to Blocks 2 and 3. This
designation also applies to the area east of Blocks 2 and 3, extending to Interstate 5.
The City Center Frame area provides for an area of dense mixed-use development
surrounding and supporting the core. The CC-F designation provides a transition between
high-activity areas in the core area and less dense neighborhoods outside of the Frame. The
Frame area allows uses that are similar to those in the core area, but are of lower density and
intensity. The CC-F designation applies to Block 1 in the planned action project area.
Adjacent to the project area, the designation is also found on the west side of Pacific
Highway South, and surrounding Steel Lake Park.
As shown in Figure 8, Comprehensive Plan designations for the surrounding area includes:
Community Business – Community Business is the City’s largest retail designation in
terms of area and is intended to allow for a wide range of commercial businesses. The
Community Business designation is found along Pacific Highway South, to the northeast
and southeast of the project area.
Multi-Family – The multi-family designation allows for a range of multi-family densities.
This designation is found to the north and south of the project area. Densities in these
areas include 1 unit per 1,800 sf of lot area, up to 1 unit per 3,600 sf of lot area.
Single Family – The Single Family designation near the project area allow for densities
of 1 unit per 7,200 sf of lot area. This designation is located north of the project area and
west of the CC-F designation on the west side of the CC-F designation.
Existing Zoning Code Designations
Zoning designations are generally consistent with the comprehensive plan land use
designations described above.
As shown in Figure 3, the area is currently zoned City Center Core (CC-C) from S. 324th
Street to S. 316th Street. From S. 316th to S. 312th the area is zoned City Center Frame
(CC-F). Tables 3-7 and 3-8 identify the major permitted uses and standards provided for in
each zone.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-15
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 8:
Comprehensive Plan
Designations
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-7. City Center Core Permitted Uses and Development Standards
Permitted Uses Maximum Building Height Minimum Parking Requirement
Office 95’ above average building elevation
to a maximum of 145' subject to
special regulations for this use.
1 stall/300 sf
Retail, including regional retail
shopping center
70’ above average building elevation
to a maximum of 95' subject to
special regulations for this use.
1 stall/300 sf
Hotel/Convention/Trade
Centers
95’ above average building elevation
to a maximum of 145' subject to
special regulations for this use.
1 stall/guest room; convention/trade
center case by case
Entertainment 70’ above average building elevation
to a maximum of 95’ subject to
special regulations for this use.
1 space/200 gsf for private clubs and
lodges; all other uses 100 space/100
gsf
Parking garage 45 feet above average building
elevation
case by case
Multi-Unit Housing 70’ above average building elevation
to a maximum of 85’ subject to
special regulations for this use.
1.7 stalls/unit
Hospital/Nursing Home 35 feet above average building
elevation
case by case
Government Facility 75 feet above average building
elevation
case by case
Public Utility 35 feet above average building
elevation
case by case
Schools 35 feet above average, with gym up
to 55' if beyond 100' from residential
zone.
case by case
Personal Wireless Service
Facility
Not specified; subject to Zoning
Code Section 22-967.
Not applicable
Source: City of Federal Way, 2006.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-17
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-8. City Center Frame Permitted Uses and Development Standards
Permitted Uses Maximum Building Height Minimum Parking Requirement
Office 35’ above average building elevation 1 stall/300 sf
Retail 35’ above average building elevation 1 stall/300 sf
Hotel/Convention/Trade
Centers
45’ above average building elevation 1 stall/guest room convention/trade
center case by case
Entertainment 60’ above average building elevation 1 space/200 gsf for private clubs and
lodges, all other uses 100 space/100
gsf
Vehicle Service Station 35’ above average building elevation case by case
Multi-Unit Housing 70’ above average building elevation
to a maximum of 85’ subject to special
regulations for this use.
1.7 stalls/unit
Group Homes/Transition
Housing
35’above average building elevation. case by case
Schools, Day Care
Facilities, Churches
35’; gyms to 55’ if located more than
100 feet from adjacent residential
zone.
case by case
Hospital facilities 35’ above average building elevation case-by case
Source: City of Federal Way, 2006
As shown in Figure 3, zoning designations in the surrounding area also correspond to
comprehensive plan land use designations. Zoning designations include:
Community Business (BC) – BC allows general retail uses and is located along Pacific
Highway South, to the north and south of the City Center sub-area.
RM 1800 – This multi-family zoning designation allows multi-family development to a
maximum density of 24 units per acre. This designation is found north of the project
area.
RS 7.2 – The single-family designation allows a density of six units per acre and is the
primary zoning designation for the single-family area surrounding the City Center sub-
area. In addition, Steel Lake Park and Celebration Park are both zoned RS 7.2.
RM 2400, RM 3600 – These multi-family designations allow maximum densities of 18
and 12 units per acre, respectively. These designations are found in the area south of The
Commons at Federal Way.
Community Design Standards
Article XIX of the Federal Way City Code establishes Community Design Guidelines
applicable to all zones in the City and to all development applications except single family
residential. Proposals subject to community design guidelines are processed as a component
of the underlying land use process. The director of community development services has the
authority to approve, modify, or deny proposals under this process.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-18
City Center Planned Action
Site design guidelines (Section 22-1634) address general site criteria, parking (surface lots
and structured parking), pedestrian circulation and public spaces, landscaping, commercial
service and institutional facilities and other site elements. Guidelines for building design
(Section 22-1635) address general building criteria, landscape screening, and building
articulation and scale. Additional guidelines are provided for building and pedestrian
orientation and mixed-use residential buildings. Section 22-1638(c) provides specific
guidelines for the City Center Core and Frame zones. Guidelines in this section address
parking (surface and structured parking), entrance and building facades, and the location of
drive-through facilities.
Please refer to the Aesthetics section of this Draft EIS for additional discussion of these
Guidelines.
Population, Employment, Housing
For the purpose of this analysis, population and employment estimates are based on current
City of Federal Way assumptions for multi-family residential household size and employment
density for various commercial uses. These assumptions are summarized in Table 3-9 below
and used in the analysis that follows.
Table 3-9. Population and Employment Densities
Land Use Density Factors
Multifamily housing 2.36 persons per household
Retail 400 sf per employee
Office 350 sf per employee
Other 800 sf per employee (used only for Alternative 3 - No Action)
Lodging 1 employee per 1.49 rooms
Sources: City of Federal Way, 2003 and King County Buildable Lands Report
Within the project area, housing and residential population is limited to two apartment
complexes in Block 1. The Steel Lake Apartments have 18 one-bedroom units and 36 two-
bedroom units for a total of 54 units. The Brightwater Apartments has 52 one-bedroom, 63
two-bedroom, and 21 three-bedroom units for a total of 136 units. Based on the estimated
population in these two projects, the project area contains approximately 448 residents.
The project area is primarily an employment center and has an estimated employment
population of 4,215 (see Table 3-10, below). The largest component of employment
population is in the retail sector, with 3,170 employees or 75 percent of the total employment
population. Office employment comprises the next largest sector, with 873 employees, or 21
percent of total employment. Together these two employment sectors comprise 4043
employees, or 96 percent of all employment in the project area.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-19
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-10. Project Area Employment (# of FTEs)
Block Retail Office Other Lodging TOTAL
Block 1 721 200 2 0 923
Block 2 1020 380 5 154 1,559
Block 3 1,429 292 11 0 1,732
Total 3,170 873 18 154 4,215
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2006
Proportionately, Block 3 has the largest employment population, with 1,732 employees or 41
percent of the total. Within Block 3, 82 percent of the employment population is in the retail
sector. Block 2 has 1,559 employees, or approximately 37 percent of the total employment
population. Within Block 2, 65 percent of employees are in the retail sector, followed by
office employees, who comprise 24 percent of Block 2 employment. Block 2 has the only
lodging employment with approximately 154 people. Block 1 has the smallest employment
population, with 923 employees. The mix of retail, office, and other employee population is
comparable to the project area as a whole.
In the surrounding area, residential population is found in the areas zoned for and developed
with single and multi-family residential areas.
The two largest employers in the surrounding area include Weyerhaeuser and the Federal
Way School District, with 3,586 and 2,885 employees, respectively (Federal Way Chamber
of Commerce). Other large employers in the area with approximately 500-600 employees
each include World Vision, the U.S. Post Office, and St Francis Hospital.
Impacts
Land Use Patterns
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Under all of the alternatives, the land use pattern in the project area will intensify and the mix
of uses will increase to create a greater diversity in land use pattern. Over time, the scale of
buildings may also increase as new development occurs and is built in a manner consistent
with the standards allowed under the Federal Way Zoning Code.
The primary difference between alternatives is the overall amount, pace and location of
development that may occur. Potential changes to land use patterns anticipated under each
alternative are described below.
Alternative 1
As shown in Table 3-11, development through 2009 under Alternative 1 would introduce a
total of 450,000 sf of new retail space, 210,000 sf of office space, 360 hotel rooms, 450
residential units, and 450 structured parking stalls. Growth will be focused in Blocks 2 and 3,
in the vicinity of S 320th Street. In these areas, existing low scale retail development may be
displaced and surface parking areas may be redeveloped. The land use pattern will become
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-20
City Center Planned Action
more efficient with more of the available developable land in active use. Block 1 will also
experience some of these impacts, but to a relatively less degree than Blocks 2 and 3.
Table 3-11. Alternatives 1 and 2 Population and Employment Projections
Additional Population through 2009 2010 – 2014 Total
Residential 1,062 708 1,770
Employment
Office 599 399 998
Retail 1,125 751 1,876
Other (civic) 0 399 399
Lodging 242 162 404
Total New Employment 1,966 1,711 3,677
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2003
Between 2010 and 2014, growth under Alternative 1 will continue, with an additional
300,000 square feet of retail development, 140,000 square feet of office development, 240
hotel rooms, 300 residential units, 100,000 square feet of civic uses and 300 spaces of
structured parking would be developed. As in the prior time period, growth will continue to
be focused in Blocks 2 and 3. The land use pattern will continue to grow more intensive and
diverse, with new development of vacant land, surface parking areas, and under-developed
properties. Under Alternative 1, Block 1 will continue to experience new growth at relatively
lower levels of intensity, compared to Blocks 2 and 3.
The proposed increased in structure height for multi-unit housing would have an incremental
impact on building heights in the CC-C zone. Multi-unit housing would be allowed to
develop to a height that is 55 feet higher than the current height limit for office and hotel uses
in this zone. If multi-unit structures were built to the maximum height limit, these structures
would be among the tallest buildings in the CC-C zone.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would result in the same total amount of development as Alternative 1, but
would distribute development more evenly throughout the project area. In general, impacts to
the overall land use pattern would be similar to Alternative 1. Development and
redevelopment of vacant land, excess surface parking areas, and under-developed parcels
would be expected. Compared to Alternative 1, a greater growth and diversity of uses in
Block 1 would be expected. However, because the underlying zoning in Block 1 limits
building height and bulk to allow for a transition to the lower intensity area to the north, it is
expected that overall development levels on Block 1 would continue to be less intensive than
Blocks 2 and 3.
Adoption of the proposed increased height limit for multi-unit structures would have the
similar impacts as described under Alternative 1. However, because building heights would
be limited to 145 feet, equal to the existing height limit for office buildings and hotels, the
overall impact is not expected to be significant and comparable to development that is
currently permitted in the CC-C zone.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-21
City Center Planned Action
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 (No Action) assumes a total increase of 220,270 sf of retail space, 104,446 sf of
office space, and 270 residential units. Overall, Alternative 3 would result in increased
intensification and diversity in the project area, but to a significantly lesser degree than under
Alternatives 1 and 2.
Under Alternative 3, the Zoning Code structure height standards in the CC-C and CC-F zones
would remain.
Land Use Compatibility
Alternative 1
The proposed increase to 200 feet for multi-unit structures would allow these structures to be
the tallest within this zoning designation. The next tallest structure height would be allowed
for office and hotel uses, with a maximum building height of 145 feet. This increased height
for multi-unit structures may be incrementally noticeable within the City Center Core zone.
However, the proposed height is generally compatible with building height and bulk
standards within this zoning designation and is not expected to result in significant land use
compatibility impacts.
Alternative 2
The proposed increase to 145’ for multi-unit structures would be equal to the current height
limit for office and hotel structures in the CC-C zone and comparable to the height standard
for other uses in this zone. The proposed height standard is not expected to result in
significant land use compatibility impacts.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, the current height limit of 70 feet for multi-unit residential structures
would remain unchanged. This height limit is equal or similar to standards for retail,
entertainment, and government facilities uses in the CC-C zone. No land use compatibility
impacts are expected to result.
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
As properties within the project area redevelop, vacant land, under-developed land, and
surface parking lots will be consumed. Uses that are currently separated and buffered from
each other will be required to co-exist in closer proximity. Under these circumstances, the
potential for land use conflict increases. Land use conflicts arise when activity levels differ
greater between uses, when spillover lighting and noise levels affect adjoining uses, or when
building height, bulk and scale differ greatly between uses. The potential for such conflict
will increase with greater diversity and mix of uses in the project area.
Within the Planned Action project area, land use compatibility impacts may occur where
intensive redevelopment occurs next to existing lower intensity land uses within the project
area. These contrasts will be incremental and short-term. Over the period of the planned
action designation, the contrast between the older one story structures and the redeveloped
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-22
City Center Planned Action
properties will fade as the project area fully develops and reflects a more uniform pattern,
building design and scale.
Around the edges of the project area, adjoining lower intensity uses, such as single and multi-
family residential areas could also experience impacts. However, for residential areas north
of the project area, the current CC-F zoning designation has development standards intended
to ensure a transition to lower intensity uses. In this area, these development standards
should mitigate any potential land use compatibility impacts. To the south, existing multi-
family development directly adjoins Block 3 in the project area. Potential land use conflicts
could result if Block 3 is intensively developed in the area near these multi-family residences.
Land use compatibility impacts could result under any of the alternatives and during any of
the time periods. The potential for land use conflicts increases with increasing intensity and
density.
Population, Employment, Housing
Impacts Common to all Alternatives
Under all of the alternatives, future residential and employment population will increase. The
alternatives differ as to the amount and timing of these increases. Impacts resulting to
population, housing and employment for each alternative in the two time periods analyzed in
this EIS are described below.
Alternative 1
As shown in Table 3-11, Alternative 1 is expected to generate a total new residential
population of 1,770 persons and total new employment population of 3,677. The new
employment population would have a greater emphasis on office, lodging, and other
employment. New office employment would consist of 998 persons, or 27 percent of all new
employees. New retail employees would remain the largest employment group, with 1,876
new employees, or 50 percent of total new employment.
Under Alternative 1, new residential and employment population would be most concentrated
in Blocks 2 and 3, where new development is focused.
Alternative 2
Impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1, except that
new residential and employment population would be more distributed throughout the project
area.
Alternative 3
Table 3-12 identifies the residential and employment population that could result from
development under Alternative 3. Compared to the action alternatives, Alternative 3 would
result in significantly less residential and employment population. Through 2009, Alternative
3 would general 378 new residents and 522 new employees, compared to 1062 new residents
and 1,986 new employees under the action alternatives during this same time period. By
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-23
City Center Planned Action
2014, Alternative 3 is expected to generate only about 25 percent of the employment
population and 36 percent of residential population expected under the action alternatives.
Over half of the new employment created under Alternative 3 would be in the retail sector.
Table 3-12. Alternative 3 Population and Employment Projections
Additional Population through 2009 2010 – 2014 Total
Residential 378 260 638
Employment
Office 179 119 298
Retail 330 220 550
Other 13 5 18
Lodging -- -- --
Total New Employment 522 344 866
Source: City of Federal Way, Jones & Stokes, 2006
Mitigation Measures
Existing development standards along the edges of the Planned Action area appear to be
adequate to allow for a compatible transition from more intensive to less intensive uses.
However, as development occurs, this transition area should be evaluated to confirm that
long-term land use compatibility impacts are not being created. If necessary, new
development standards for edge areas should be considered. Techniques could include site
and building lighting limits, requirements for landscaping, noise control and other measures.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated.
3.3 Aesthetics, Light and Glare
This section of the Draft EIS addresses the existing conditions, potential impacts, mitigating
measures and unavoidable significant adverse impacts that the proposal and alternatives may
have on the visual character, amount of light and glare and views to and from the project area.
Affected Environment
Visual Character
The project area, located just west of Interstate 5 between South 312th Street and South 324th
Street, is the City’s commercial center and is characterized by low-scale suburban
commercial buildings, large surface parking lots and wide arterial streets with relatively little
landscaping.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-24
City Center Planned Action
Buildings in the project area are predominantly one- and two stories, with flat roofs and
canopies containing tenant signage. Buildings are typically earth tone and finished with
brick, painted concrete or stucco. Please see Figure 9 for an example of typical commercial
development in the project area.
Figure 9. Representative Retail Development
Jones and Stokes, 2005.
The project area is strongly auto-oriented. Public rights-of-way are very wide, with limited
pedestrian amenities, although streets include improved sidewalks, decorative lighting and
transit stops. Street trees and buffer landscaping is provided in some areas, but is not
consistently present in the project area (See Figure 10).
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-25
City Center Planned Action
Figure 10. Typical Streetscape
Jones and Stokes, 2005.
As Figure 11 illustrates, parking areas and internal circulation lanes are a dominant visual
feature in the project area. The majority of land area not occupied by buildings is devoted to
surface parking and internal circulation. These parking areas are typically not fully utilized
and the large areas of pavement serve to physically and visually increase the distance
between the commercial uses and the adjacent public streets.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-26
City Center Planned Action
Figure 11. Representative Internal Circulation Pattern
Jones and Stokes, 2005.
In addition, because the block size in the project area is very large, private development has
incrementally divided these large blocks with small internal circulation roads. These internal
circulation routes are not well defined or marked. Pedestrian amenities, lighting or landscape
features are not provided. In general, these internal roadways are not easily distinguished
from the surrounding parking lots and contribute to the illusion of large paved areas around
the buildings. In some cases, commercial buildings are oriented toward these private access
lanes, rather than toward the public right-of-way. Figure 11 shows an example of a private
internal circulation road serving the mid-block uses in the project area.
The Commons at Federal Way is the commercial anchor in the project area. The Mall is
principally oriented toward S 320th Street, with surface parking area located between the
primary building and the street (see Figure 12). Development consists of the primary mall
facility and includes one outbuilding, located in the northeast corner of the parking area. The
property is bounded along the west side by a utility easement that generally parallels South
324th Street and contains high voltage transmission lines and utility towers.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-27
City Center Planned Action
Figure 12. The Commons at Federal Way
The Commons at Federal Way, 2005.
In general, the project area contains little vegetation. Existing landscaping generally consists
of minimal site planters or small perimeter landscape strips. The lack of greenery combined
with the large areas of pavement creates a harsh, uninviting appearance.
Light and Glare
Typical of any commercial area, the project area generates a considerable amount of ambient
light. Principal sources of light and glare include motor vehicles, parking area lighting,
interior and exterior lighting associated with commercial development, and street lighting.
Views
Views to the south to Mount Rainier are found throughout the project area. In some areas,
this view is broken up by power lines and buildings. However, property north of S 316th
Street sits on a slight rise above the rest of the project area. In this area, there is a greater
opportunity for unobstructed views of Mount Rainier, particularly in buildings that rise more
than one story above street level.
Shading Conditions
The amount of shadow in an area varies by time of year and day. Shadows are generally
longest during the winter months, when the angle of the sun is at its lowest point. Shadows
are cast by any structure that blocks sunlight, including buildings, trees and sharp changes in
topography. Currently in the project area, building heights are relatively low; there is little
significant vegetation and no significant topographic peaks or valleys. Therefore, shadows
are generally limited to the area immediately around buildings and do not impact neighboring
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-28
City Center Planned Action
properties. The existing development pattern does not shade public parks or other sensitive
uses, such as schools or residential areas.
Design Review
Article XIX of the Federal Way City Code establishes Community Design Guidelines
applicable to all zones in the City and to all development applications except Single Family
Residential. Proposals subject to community design guidelines are processed as a component
of the underlying land use process. The Director of Community Development Services has
the authority to approve, modify, or deny proposals under this process.
Site design guidelines (Section 22-1634) address general site criteria, parking (surface lots
and structured parking), pedestrian circulation and public spaces, landscaping, commercial
service and institutional facilities, lighting standards and other site elements. Pertinent site
design guidelines are summarized below:
Natural features should be incorporated into site design.
Pedestrian areas and amenities should be incorporated into site design. Pedestrian areas
should be easily seen and accessible.
Similar design elements throughout the project should be used for design continuity.
Physical features, activities and people should be in visible locations to increase safety
and decrease crime.
Incorporate measures to discourage crime, including access control and site design to
reflect ownership.
For surface parking lots, minimize vehicle-turning movements, make driveways visible
from the right-of-way, do not impede pedestrian circulation, share access points with
adjacent properties and incorporate retail pads adjacent to the right-of-way in large
surface parking areas.
Parking structures should include active uses along the street frontage, minimize the bulk
and mass of the structure; be architecturally consistent with the primary structure;
incorporate building articulation and accessory elements; minimize views into the garage
from surrounding streets.
Pedestrian connections should be clearly delineated using a variation in paved texture and
color and protected from vehicle circulation areas; connections should be provided
between adjoining properties; bicycle racks should be provided; outdoor furniture and
streetscape elements should be incorporated.
Lighting shall not spill onto adjacent properties; shall be provided in outdoor circulation
areas and shall incorporate cut-off shields; and shall not decrease the amount of
landscaping required for projects.
Guidelines for building design (Section 22-1635) address general building criteria, landscape
screening, and building articulation and scale. Additional guidelines are provided for
building and pedestrian orientation and mixed-use residential buildings. Pertinent site design
guidelines are summarized below. Please refer to Section 22-1635 for the complete text.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-29
City Center Planned Action
Emphasize natural topography.
Preserve public viewpoints through building siting or massing.
Materials and design features of fences and walls should reflect that of the primary
building.
Incorporate building façade modulation and screening options, including the use of
landscaping, canopies or arcades, and pedestrian plazas.
Meet standards for building articulation, including articulation of blank walls.
Section 22-1638(c) provides specific guidelines for the City Center Core and Frame zones.
Guidelines in this section address parking (surface and structured parking), entrance and
building facades, and the location of drive-through facilities. Guidelines include the
following:
Surface parking areas are to be located behind buildings or in a parking structure. If
along a right-of-way, surface parking and driving areas may not occupy more than 25%
(in the Core) or 40% (in the Frame) of the project’s linear frontage along principal
pedestrian right(s)-of-way.
Principal entrance facades shall front on, face, or be clearly recognizable from the right-
of-way and/or the principal pedestrian right-of-way for projects exposed to more than one
right-of-way.
Building facades shall incorporate a combination of facade treatment options consistent
with general design standards established by Section 22-1635 to the degree appropriate to
the building size, scale, design and site context and as established in Section 1638(c)(3).
Pedestrian pathways from rights-of-way and other public spaces shall be provided to
primary building entrances.
Drive-through facilities and stacking lanes shall not be located along a building façade
that faces or is clearly visible from a right-of-way, public sidewalk and pedestrian plaza.
Above-grade parking structures with a ground level facade visible from a right-of-way
shall incorporate retail, commercial or office uses along at least 50 percent of the
building’s lineal frontage, or specified landscaping or decorative building elements.
When curtain wall glass and steel systems are used to enclose a building, the glazing
panels shall be transparent on 50 percent of the ground floor facade fronting a right-of-
way or pedestrian area.
Example Development Locations
For the purpose of illustration, seven example development locations have been identified.
These examples illustrate the potential development type and scale that could occur under the
proposed action at these locations or at other similar locations in the planned action project
area. They do not represent specific development or redevelopment plans by the City or any
private party. These example development area locations are shown in Figure 13. Existing
conditions on each site are described below; a description of future example development at
each site follows in the impact discussion.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-30
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 13:
Example Development
Area Locations
City Center Planned Action
Example Development Area 1: East side of Pacific Highway South, north of S
316th Street
Development in this area includes freestanding buildings containing restaurant and retail
uses. Development is of relatively low intensity and is characterized by low-scale buildings
and paved surface parking. Development is generally oriented toward Pacific Highway
South. (See Figure 14)
Example Development Area 2: Northwest quadrant of the intersection of 20th
Avenue S/S 316th Street
This development area is currently vacant. Major retail uses surrounding this development
area include Top Foods to the west, Walmart to the north and Toys R Us to the east. The
Executel Hotel is located to the south, across S 316th Street (Figure 15).
Example Development Area 3: Southeast quadrant of the intersection of 20th
Avenue S and South 316th Street
This is the site of a closed movie theatre complex. Existing development consists of the
theatre structure and a large parking area to the south (see Figure 16).
Example Development Area 4: West of 23rd Avenue South, at approximately
S 319th Place
Development in this area includes the SeaTac Plaza, a single-story commercial complex
consisting of approximately 107,400 square feet and 234,000 square feet of surface parking.
The future Sound Transit Center is planned for the property north of the SeaTac Plaza (see
Figure 17).
Example Development Area 5: North of South 320th Street at approximately
21st Avenue South
Development in this area includes access tracts, a fast food restaurant, a bank, and an
automobile service station. Development is low-scale in character and surrounded by paved
surface parking and circulation lanes. The SeaTac Plaza, which contains a variety of retail
uses, is located immediately north of this area (Figure 18).
Example Development Area 6: Southeast corner of The Commons at Federal
Way site
This area is located in the southeast corner of The Commons at Federal Way parking lot.
Development in this area consists of paved parking area, bounded along the southern edge by
the power transmission towers and power lines. Development to the east, across 23rd Avenue
South consists of small retail strips, located above the street, behind a concrete retaining
structure (see Figure 19).
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-32
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 14:
Example Development
Area 1
Existing Development –Entrance on Street
Example Development –Mid-rise Office
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 15:
Example Development
Area 2
Existing Development
Example Development –Mid-rise Mixed Use
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 16:
Example Development
Area 3
Existing Development
Example Development –HighriseResidential/Hotel
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 17:
Example Development
Area 4
Existing Development
Example Development –Highrise Office
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 18:
Example Development
Area 5
Existing Development
Example Development –Low-rise Commercial
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 19:
Example Development
Area 6
Existing Development
Example Development –Mid-rise Mixed Use
City Center Planned Action
Example Development Area 7: The Commons at Federal Way/Pacific
Highway South and S 320th Street
The area is located in The Commons at Federal Way parking lot, immediately east of the
existing bank building. The area fronts on S 320th Street and is characterized by paved
surface parking and landscaping (see Figure 20).
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Visual Character
Under all three alternatives, the visual character of the project area would change from that of
a typical low-scale suburban commercial center to a more intensive mid-rise and high-rise
mixed- use center for Federal Way and surrounding area. Existing low-scale buildings,
excess surface parking areas, and vacant property may develop or redevelop into more
intensive uses. Building heights could increase from single story buildings to mid- and
high-rise buildings and may include structured parking. Rather than the surface parking areas
that currently predominate, parking is likely to be provided in stand-alone structures or as part
of office, retail or other structures. The magnitude of this change would be greater under
Alternatives 1 and 2 than under Alternative 3.
The overall significance or magnitude of these impacts depends on the preferences of those
viewing the change; the quality of the architectural and urban design features incorporated
into the development; and the degree to which the overall scale and form of the development
incorporates features of the local setting. For example, some individuals may perceive the
change from a relatively low-intensity suburban character to more intensive urban uses as a
negative environmental impact; to others it may be viewed as a positive and expected change
in a growing urban setting.
Light and Glare
Light generated from traffic, streetlights, parking lots and buildings would increase as a result
of redevelopment under any of the alternatives. Building materials that incorporate reflective
surfaces could also increase the potential for glare. The magnitude of this impact is likely to
be greatest under Alternatives 1 and 2, which will have the greatest activity and development
intensity.
Views
Development of high and mid-rise buildings in the project area could result in improved
views to Mount Rainier for these uses; but could also result in decreased views for the
remaining low-rise buildings located near these sites and from public right-of-ways.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-39
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS Figure 20:
Example Development
Area 7
Existing Development
Example Development –Low-rise Commercial
City Center Planned Action
Shading Conditions
Development under any of the alternatives is likely to result in taller buildings and a more
compact development pattern. Under these conditions, there is a potential for increased
shadow impacts around these buildings. Over the short-term, these impacts are likely to be
most noticeable to existing low-scale development, as taller buildings develop in adjacent
locations. Over time, as the area redevelops with more taller buildings located in closer
proximity to one another, the potential for greater shading throughout the project area could
increase.
To the extent that Alternatives 1 and 2 will have taller buildings in a more compact
development pattern, shading impacts may be greater compared to Alternative 3.
Incorporation of public plazas, open spaces, and building façade articulation through the
Community Design Guidelines could mitigate this potential impact. No impacts to public
facilities such as schools or parks are anticipated as a result of the proposal or alternatives.
Example Development Areas
Illustrations of potential development type and scale that might occur in the project area at
each of the example development areas are shown in Figures 14 through 20.
As these or other sites develop in the short-term, existing lower scale and intensity uses may
contrast visually with the large, more intensive new development. This is particularly true for
example development areas 1 through 4 and 6. Example development areas 5 and 7 represent
lower scale retail buildings that are similar in scale and character to current development in
the project area.
For the more intensive uses, the redeveloped property and adjacent sites may not be uniform
in scale or architectural design. These contrasts will be incremental and short-term. Over the
period of the planned action designation, the contrast between the older one story structures
and the redeveloped properties will fade as the project area fully develops and reflects a more
common pattern of building design and scale.
For illustrative purposes, Figure 21 shows an aerial view of the City Center Planned Action
area if the buildings on the seven sample development areas were built.
This amount of development represents approximately one-third of the development that
would be permitted under the Planned Action designation.
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, the focus of development would be in the vicinity of S 320th Street.
Development in The Commons at Federal Way and properties immediately north of S 320th
Street would experience the greatest change in visual character. Changes would likely
include increased building height and bulk, together with increased development of
pedestrian amenities, landscaping and plazas. Although the area would likely continue to be
auto-oriented in character, increased development and activity could result in greater
pedestrian amenities.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-41
Prepared by:
Federal Way
Planned Action EIS
Figure 21:
Aerial Sketch of Example
Development
Areas
City Center Planned Action
For office and retail uses, development intensity, building height and bulk would not be
increased relative to existing development regulations, but would be increased relative to
existing development. Designation of the project area as a Planned Action Area may also
result in a greater likelihood of increased high-rise development in the future.
The proposed increase in allowable structure height for multi-unit structures to 200 feet for
development in the CC-C zone would increase the potential for buildings of greater height
than are currently permitted. The difference in the currently allowed maximum of 145 feet
for office uses to 200 feet for multi-unit structures equates to approximately 3 - 4 stories.
This may be incrementally noticeable, but is not expected to result in a significant change in
the overall appearance of the downtown area. In addition, the required design review process
and accompanying design measures, such as a slimmer building profile, use of clear glazing,
streetscape, landscape and other amenities, will help mitigate for the increased height.
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, new development intensity, building height, and bulk would increase
similar to Alternative 1, although development under Alternative 2 would be relatively more
distributed throughout the project area. Changes would likely include an overall change from
a suburban commercial center to an intensive, urban center.
The proposed increase in allowable structure height for multi-unit structures to 145 feet for
development in the CC-C zone would increase the potential for multi-unit development to
develop to a height equal to the current allowable height for office buildings. Although this
increase will allow more types of development (multi-unit in addition to office uses) to
develop to 145 feet in height, it is unlikely that this change would be noticeable.
Development would match the general intensity of development that is currently allowed for
other uses. In addition, the required design review process and accompanying design
measures, such as a slimmer building profile, use of clear glazing, streetscape, landscape and
other amenities, will help mitigate for the increased height.
Alternative 3
Under the No Action Alternative, existing land use designations and zoning in the project
area would continue and all future development would be subject to individual project
specific environmental review.
The maximum building heights for development in the CC-C zone would remain unchanged.
Overall, the potential amount, type, and scale of redevelopment in the project area are
uncertain. The area could maintain its suburban character with a mix of one-and two-story,
auto-oriented buildings. Alternatively, free standing big-box retail and other similar uses
could be proposed. Future development and emergence of City Center as an identified urban
center would occur on a long-term incremental basis.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-43
City Center Planned Action
Mitigation Measures
Continued use of the City’s Community Design Guidelines and review/approval process
to monitor and mitigate potential impacts associated with light and glare, shadows, and
aesthetic impacts resulting from new development, including structured parking.
Increased building height for multi-unit structures in the City Center Core zone would be
permitted only with review through the City’s design review and public benefits review
processes as set forth in the Community Design Guidelines.
Monitor shade conditions as development occurs and amend the City’s Community
Design Guidelines to require site-specific shadow analysis in public places as needed.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Other than change itself, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts to aesthetics, light and
glare are anticipated. The design standards, guidelines, and mitigating measures described
above, together with the City’s development regulations are adequate to mitigate the
significant adverse impacts anticipated with redevelopment.
3.4 Transportation
The purpose of this section is to describe the transportation impacts associated with
development under the proposed planned action designation in Federal Way’s City Center.
This section assesses the expected impacts on the City’s transportation systems, including
roadways and intersections, transit, bicycles and pedestrian facilities, and identifies actions
and improvements to mitigate the impacts. The transportation analysis is a summary of the
full transportation analysis report, included with this document as Appendix 2.
Affected Environment
Level of Service Analysis Approach
This section analyzes existing conditions (2004) and the short-term (2009) and longer-term
(2014) impacts of the three project alternatives. The 2009 analysis provides a detailed
description of the expected transportation impacts and proposed mitigation of the proposed
alternatives. The 2014 analysis provides a more generalized discussion of future traffic
volumes and does not include proposed mitigation.
The existing conditions analysis describes area traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic
safety, and transit service for the AM, PM and Saturday peak hours. The future conditions
analysis includes the cumulative impacts of traffic increases associated with each alternative
and general traffic growth to provide a full assessment of future traffic impacts. The future
year analysis also assumes the completion of projects within the City of Federal Way’s 2005-
2010 Transportation Improvement Plan.
The study includes 27 intersections analyzed for one or more of the three peak hour periods –
PM peak hour, AM peak hour and Saturday peak hour. The peak hours represent the worst
single peak hour observed two-hour traffic count period. Table 3-13 lists the study
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-44
City Center Planned Action
intersections within the area. The AM peak hour analyzed 10 intersections, the PM peak hour
analyzed 22 intersections and the Saturday peak hour analyzed 14 intersections. These
intersections were analyzed for existing and future conditions to describe the impact of the
proposal on the transportation system.
Table 3-13. Study Intersections
Intersection PM Peak AM Peak Saturday
Peak
S 272 St & Pacific Hwy S X X X
S 272 St & I-5 SB Ramp X X X
S 272 St & I-5 NB Ramp X X X
S 272 St & Military Rd S X X X
S 288th St & Pacific Hwy S X
S 288th St & Military Rd S X
S Dash Point Rd & Pacific Hwy S X
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S X X
S 312 St & 28 Av S X
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S X
SW 320 St & 21 Av SW X
S 320 St & 1 Av S X X X
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S X X
S 320 St & 20 Av S X
S 320 St & 23 Av S X X
S 320 St & I-5 SB Ramp X X X
S 320 St & I-5 NB Ramp X
S 320 St & Military Rd S X
S 324 St & Pacific Hwy S X X
SW 336 St & 21 Av SW X
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S X X
SW 340 St & Hoyt Rd SW X
SW Campus Dr & 1 Av S X
S 348 St & Pacific Hwy S X
SW 356 St & 21 Av SW X
S 356 St & Pacific Hwy S X
S 356 St & Enchanted Pkwy S X X X
Number of Intersections Analyzed 22 10 14
Source: Mirai Associates 2006
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-45
City Center Planned Action
The City of Federal Way follows the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology to
calculate the impact of a project on area intersections. The HCM describes the quality of
traffic operations at intersections based on a measure known as Level of Service (LOS). LOS
uses an A through F scale, with LOS A representing minimal traffic delays and LOS F
representing severe congestion and long delays. The LOS is measured using the average
control delay of the intersection and is reported for the overall intersection for signalized
intersections and all-way stops, and for the worst movement of unsignalized intersections.
Table 3-14 describes the LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 3-14. Level of Service Definitions
LOS Signalized Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh) Unsignalized Delay per Vehicle (sec/veh)
A 0-10 0-10
B >10-20 >10-15
C >20-35 >15-25
D >35-55 >25-35
E >55-80 >35-50
F >80 >50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000, Transportation Research Board)
The HCM methodology also calculates volume to capacity ratio to express the extent an
intersection is below or above its theoretic capacity. Please refer to Appendix 2 for a more
detailed discussion of LOS and the analysis used in this study.
LOS Standard
The City of Federal Way defines the minimum acceptable level of service as LOS E or better
with a volume/capacity ratio of less than 1.00 for signalized intersections. Intersections
operating below this threshold are deficient.
For unsignalized intersections other than all-way stops, the lane volume/capacity ratio for any
lane group must meet the 1.0 standard.
Existing Street Network
The City of Federal Way roadway system serves both local and regional roles, providing
access to residents and businesses as well as connections to adjacent and regional
destinations. Primary roadways and intersections within the project area and surrounding
vicinity are described below:
Interstate 5 is the primary north-south interstate freeway in western Washington and provides
regional access to the project area. I-5 has five travel lanes north of S 320 Street and four
lanes south of S 320 Street, with a posted speed limit of 60 mph. Study intersections
connecting with the I-5 ramps include the northbound and southbound ramps at S 320 Street,
the S 317 Street direct access ramps and at S 272 Street.
Pacific Highway S. (SR-99) is a five to seven lane principal arterial connecting Federal Way
with the City of Tacoma to the south and the City of Kent to the north. The posted speed
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-46
City Center Planned Action
limit is 40 mph. Study intersections along SR-99 include S 272 Street, S Dash Point Rd, S
312 Street, S 316 Street, S 320 Street, S 324 Street, S 336 Street, S 348 Street, and S 356
Street.
S 272 Street a principal arterial that connects Pacific Highway S to Interstate 5 and SR-516.
Study intersections along S 272 include Pacific Highway S, I-5 ramps, and Military Road S.
S 320 Street is a principal arterial with 5 to 7 travel lanes. The roadway connects I-5 with
SR-99 to the west and Military Road/Peasley Canyon Road to the east. Study intersections
along S 320 Street include 1 Avenue S, Pacific Highway S, 21 Avenue S, 23 Avenue S, I-5
ramps, and Military Road.
S 356th Street is a principal arterial that provides a connection between the City of Tacoma
and I-5 and SR-18. Study intersection on S 356th Street includes 21st Avenue SW, Pacific
Highway S, and Enchanted Parkway S.
Existing Traffic Operations
The City considers intersections to be operating at an acceptable LOS if operations are LOS E
or better and its v/c ratios are less than 1.0 for the sum of the critical movements of the
intersection. Table 3-15 lists the existing LOS operation for the PM, AM and Saturday peak
hour for each of the study intersections applicable to that period.
Table 3-15. 2004 Intersection Operations PM Peak, AM Peak, and Saturday Peak
PM Peak4 AM Peak4 Saturday Peak4Intersection LOS1 V/C2 LOS V/C LOS V/C
S 272 St & Pacific Hwy S F 1.29 E 1.01 E 0.97
S 272 St & I-5 southbound Ramp E 1.07 C 0.85 C 0.69
S 272 St & I-5 northbound Ramp C 0.97 E 1.13 C 0.72
S 272 St & Military Rd S F 1.26 F 1.22 D 0.76
S 288th St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.89
S 288th St & Military Rd S D 0.74
S Dash Point Rd & Pacific Hwy S C 0.47
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S E 0.92 E 0.93
S 312 St & 28 Av S C 0.673
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S F 1.16
SW 320 St & 21 Av SW E 1.00
SW 320 St & 1 Av S F 1.06 E 1.01 F 1.18
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.79 D 0.92
S 320 St & 20 Av S F 1.76
S 320 St & 23 Av S C 0.85 F 1.09
S 320 St & I-5 southbound Ramp C 0.92 C 0.74 D 0.99
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-47
City Center Planned Action
PM Peak4 AM Peak4 Saturday Peak4Intersection LOS1 V/C2 LOS V/C LOS V/C
S 320 St & I-5 northbound Ramp C 0.75
S 320 St & Military Rd S D 0.85
S 324 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.68 D 0.88
SW 336 St & 21 Av SW E 0.94
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S E 1.15 D 0.70
SW 340 St & Hoyt Rd SW C 0.85 B 0.63 B 0.62
SW Campus Dr & 1 Av S E 1.05
S 348 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.92
SW 356 St & 21 Av SW C 0.75
S 356 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.89
S 356 St & Enchanted Pkwy S D 0.78
Source: Mirai Associates, 2006
1. LOS reflects the overall operation of the intersection based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology
2. V/C is the combined volume/capacity of the critical movements of the intersection as identified as the Xc in the
HCM 2000 methodology
3. Maximum v/c ratio at all-way stop-controlled unsignalized intersection.
4. PM peak hour occurs between 4 and 6 p.m.; AM peak hour occurs between 7 and 9 a.m.; Saturday peak hour
occurs between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.
PM Peak Hour Deficiencies – Six intersections exceed the City’s deficiency threshold in
2004. These intersections either operate at LOS F and/or have a volume to capacity ratio
equal to or higher than 1.00. Three of the deficient intersections are located along S 272
Street along the border with the City of Kent. Other deficient intersection locations include
SW 320 Street & 1 Avenue S, S 336 St & Pacific Highway S, and SW Campus Drive & 1
Avenue S.
AM Peak Hour Deficiencies – Five of the study intersections exceed the City’s deficiency
threshold in 2004. These intersections either operate at LOS F and/or have a volume to
capacity ratio equal to or higher than 1.00. The areas with the deficient locations include the
S 272 Street corridor at the intersections at the I-5 northbound ramp, I-5 southbound ramp,
and Military Road S, and the S 320 Street corridor at the intersections of 1 Avenue S and 21
Avenue SW.
Saturday Peak Hour Deficiencies – Four of the Saturday study intersections exceed the
City’s deficiency threshold in 2004. These intersections either operate at LOS F and/or have
a volume to capacity ratio equal to or higher than 1.00. These intersections are concentrated
around the project area at intersections along Pacific Highway S and S 320 Street. Weekend
retail activity at these locations is likely to contribute to the high traffic at these intersections.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-48
City Center Planned Action
Parking
The existing number of parking stalls reflects the more auto-oriented development pattern of
the current land uses. Block 1 has 2,960 spaces, Block 2 has 2,760 spaces, and Block 3 has
3,240 for a total of 8,960 spaces.
Table 3-16 describes the number of spaces City Code requires for each existing land use.
Approximately 5,900 stalls are required under the current parking requirements. When
compared with the existing parking supply, there are approximately 3,000 extra parking
spaces than required by City standards.
Table 3-16. Existing Parking Requirements
Land Use
Parking Code
Requirement
Existing
Development Required Parking
Civic Uses Case by case 0 sf 0 stalls
Hotel 1 per room 230 rooms 230 stalls
Office 1 per 300 sf 344,610 sf 1,149 stalls
Other1 1 per 1,000 sf 14,400 sf 15 stalls
Residential 1.7 per unit 190 units 323 stalls
Retail 1 per 300 sf 1,268,000 sf 4,227 stalls
Total 5,944 stalls
Source: Jones and Stokes Associates, 2006.
1. Category includes such uses as wholesale, storage, light manufacturing and other similar uses.
Collision Data
Review of historical collision data provides an indication of the location and severity of
incidents at intersections and along corridors. Three years (2000-2002) of collision data were
analyzed to identify overall trends within Federal Way.
High Collision Rate Locations
The City requires the identification of high collision locations, both for corridors and
individual intersections. High collision locations are defined as follows:
A collision rate of more than 1.0 collision per million entering vehicles at an intersection.
A collision rate of more than 10.0 collisions per million vehicle miles on a roadway
segment.
Table 3-17 identifies the study intersections that exceed the 1.0 collision per million entering
vehicles. Eighteen of the 32 intersections exceed the 1.0 collision per million entering
vehicles. The highest location is at Military Road S / S 288 Street that averaged 2.38
collisions per million entering vehicles between 2000 and 2002.
Table 3-18 identifies the roadway corridors that exceed the City’s standard of 10.0 collisions
per million vehicle miles on a roadway segment. All but one of the study corridors exceeds
the 10.0 collisions per million-vehicle mile standard.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-49
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-17. 2000-2002 Intersection Collision Rates
Intersection Total Collisions Collision Rate
Military Rd S / S 288 St 82 2.38
SR 99 / S 312 St 122 2.25
SR 99 / S 348 St 137 2.14
SR 99 / S 272 St 113 1.88
SW 336 St / 21 Av SW 87 1.73
SR 99 / S 320 St 149 1.72
SR 99 / S 316 St 75 1.63
SR 161 / SR 18 136 1.54
Hoyt Rd SW / SW 340 St 31 1.44
SR 99 / S 288 St 79 1.42
S 320 St / southbound I-5 Ramps 84 1.42
SR 99 / S 324 St 76 1.37
SR 99 / S 304 St 58 1.34
S 320 St / 20 Ave S 69 1.29
SR 99 / S Dash Point Rd 61 1.25
S 320 St / 23 Ave S 88 1.22
SR 99 / S 336 St 64 1.1
S 356 St / 21 Av SW 37 1.01
Source: City of Federal Way
Table 3-18. 2000-2002 Corridor Collision Rates
Corridor Volumes Length Collision Rate
S 348 St (SR 99 to 16 Avenue S) 332 0.21 37.09
S 288 St (SR 99 to Military Road S) 241 0.52 36.56
S 272 St (SR 99 to Military Road S) 492 1 24.3
S 312 St (SR 99 to 28 Avenue S) 229 0.75 24.16
SR 99 (S 272 Street to S 356 Street) 2496 5.24 16.57
S 320 St (SR 99 to Military Road S) 837 1.4 14.06
S 304 St (SR 99 to Military Road S) 88 0.79 11.64
Military Rd (S 272 Street to S 328 Street)407 3.83 7.2
Source: City of Federal Way
Roadway Improvements Assumptions
Within the project area and surrounding vicinity, there are a number of planned transportation
improvements to increase roadway capacity and to improve mobility. The 2009 baseline
forecasts assumes projects identified in the City of Federal Way’s 2005-2010 Transportation
Improvement Program (Table 3-19) and two state interchange improvements.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-50
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-19. 2005-2010 Transportation Improvement Program
Location Description
City Center Access Design Study, Environmental analysis
SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase 2: S
324 St - S 340 St
Add HOV lanes, left-turn lanes on 324, 2nd northbound left-
turn lane @ 336, install raised median
SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase 3: S
284 St - SR 509
Add HOV lanes, 2nd southbound left-turn lane and
rechannelized westbound approach for 2nd westbound left-turn
lane @ 288, install raised median, signal @ SR 509 @
Redondo Way S with interconnect to 11 Pl S
S 348 St: 9 Ave S - SR 99 Add HOV lanes, 2nd northbound left-turn lane on SR 99, install
raised median, underground utilities
S 320 St @ 1 Ave S
Add 2nd northbound, westbound, and southbound left-turn
lanes, westbound right-turn lanes, widen 1 Ave S to 5 lanes to
S 316 St
S 356 St: 1 Ave S - SR 99 Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, illumination
S 320 St: 8 Ave S - SR 99 Add HOV lanes, install raised median, underground utilities,
illumination
S 348 St @ 1 Ave S Add westbound, southbound right-turn lanes, 2nd eastbound,
westbound left-turn lanes
S 336 St @ 1 Way S Add westbound right-turn lane, signal modifications, extend
southbound left-turn lane
10 Ave SW / SW 344 St: SW
Campus Dr - 21 Ave SW Extend 3-lane collectors, sidewalks, street lights
1 Ave S: S 320 St - S 330 St Install raised median, improve access at 328th
S 320 St @ 20 Ave S Add 2nd left-turn lanes eastbound, westbound
21 Ave SW / SW 357 St: SW 356
St - 22nd Ave SW Extend 2-lane collector, signal modifications
SR 99 HOV Lanes Phase 4: SR
509 – S 312 St Add HOV lanes, install raised median
SR 18 @ SR 161
Add eastbound, westbound right-turn lanes, 3rd westbound
left-turn lane, 2nd northbound right-turn lane, add 3rd lane on
SR 161 southbound to S 352nd St
S 336 St @ 9 Ave S Signal modifications
SW 312 St: 1 Ave S – SR 509 Widen to 3 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, street lights
S 320 St @ I-5 Add 2nd left-turn lane, 3rd right-turn lane on southbound off-
ramp, widen S 320 St under crossing to 7 lanes.
S 356 St: SR 99 - SR 161 Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, illumination
S 304 St @ 28 Ave S Add northbound right-turn lane, signal
S 352nd St: SR 99 - SR 161 Extend 3 lane principal collector and signal at SR-99
SW 320 St @ 21 Ave SW Interconnect to 26 Ave SW with the addition of a 2nd
westbound left-turn lane
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-51
City Center Planned Action
Location Description
S 320 St: 1 Ave S - 8 Ave S Add HOV lanes, install raised median Design phase
Military Rd S: S Star Lake Rd - S
288 St Widen to 5 lanes, sidewalks, street lights
SW 320 St @ 47 Ave SW Install traffic signal
S 312 St @ 28 Ave S Add southbound right-turn lane
21 Ave S from S 318 St to S 320
St Extends 2-lane grid street with on-street parking
SW 336 Wy / SW 340 St: 26 Pl
SW - Hoyt Rd Widen to 5 lanes
Westway Neighborhood Add Crime Prevention Street Lights through out the
Neighborhood of Westway
S 314 St: 20 Ave S - 23rd Ave S Install sidewalks, ADA ramps, curbs & gutter, pedestrian
improvements
1 Ave S: S 292nd St - S 312 St Shoulder improvements
Source: Mirai Associates 2006
Transit Services
Federal Way is served by a number of transit providers including King County Metro, Pierce
County Transit, and Sound Transit. In the vicinity of the project area, there is frequent transit
service with 23 routes serving the area during weekday hours with service as frequent four
times per hour. Midday and Weekend service levels are lower.
The hub of transit service is the Federal Way Transit Center and Garage located between S
316 Street and S 317 Street, west of 23 Avenue S. The transit center includes a HOV direct
access ramp for bus and carpool access between the HOV lanes on I-5 at S 317 Street. The
new ramp allows buses and carpools to avoid the congested S 320 Street/ I-5 interchange.
The Transit Center serves the freeway-oriented bus routes King County Metro Routes 177,
194, and 197; and Sound Transit Routes 565, 574 and 577. Other transit routes at the Transit
Center include King County Metro Routes 174, 181, 182, 183,187, 545,574, 577, 901, 903
and Pierce Transit Routes 402, 500 and 501.
The other major transit facility within the project area vicinity is the Federal Way/S 320th St
Park and Ride facility at 23rd Ave S & S 323rd Street. Routes 173, 174, 177, 194 and 196
serve the park and ride facility. Other area park and ride facilities include the South Federal
Way Park & Ride located on S 348th Street and the Twin Lakes Park and Ride lot located on
SW 344th Street.
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks in the project area generally occur along both sides of the street system connecting
retail areas with adjacent neighborhoods and parks. Major impediments to pedestrians
include crossing of major roadways of substantial width and vehicle traffic, such as S 320
Street at Pacific Highway S. Additionally, existing large blocks with limited connections
within the project area are deterrents to heavy pedestrian usage.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-52
City Center Planned Action
The proposed street network in the project area would divide the area’s large blocks with a
new grid network that would increase pedestrian access and convenience within the project
area and to surrounding areas. The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision,
Chapter 3) includes roadway design standards specific to the City Center project area to
provide higher quality pedestrian facilities. These standards will require roadways to be
constructed with 8-12 foot wide sidewalks, street lighting, and to provide street trees and
other amenities such as benches and furniture. The plan also identifies potential pedestrian
over crossing locations on S 320 Street and Pacific Highway S that would allow improved
pedestrian access within the City Center Sub-area.
Bicycle Facilities
Existing bicycle facilities within and adjacent to the project area vary from striped shoulder
areas to marked bicycle lanes.
The planned bicycle network within the project area would develop bicycle lanes along S 316
Street, 20 Avenue S, S 324 Street and Gateway Boulevard connecting to the existing and
future park and ride lot facilities, area parks, and the Bonneville Power Administration utility
corridor trail. This level of development is assumed within the Comprehensive Plan for all
three alternatives considered.
Impacts
This section documents the impact of the alternatives on the surrounding roadway network
and at study intersections. It describes the number of trips associated with the development of
the alternatives and trip distribution within and around the project area, and assesses the
impact of the project alternatives on intersection operations, traffic safety, pedestrian and
bicycle systems, and transit operations.
2009 Trip Generation
Trip generation rates for the PM peak hour trip were developed in conjunction with a travel
demand forecasting model. A travel demand forecasting model is a computer model
developed to project traffic volumes and patterns based upon land use and the characteristics
of the transportation system. The roadway network under study, as well as the land use that
generates traffic on that network, is coded into the model. The model projects traffic on the
roadway system based on observed traffic data and statistical data that associates typical
travelers’ tendencies with land use. A model of existing conditions is first created, and
calibrated according to observed existing traffic volumes and patterns. Once a calibrated
model is completed, it can be used to project the traffic volumes and patterns of future land
use and transportation network scenarios. The traffic demand model for this study was
created using EMME/2 software. Please refer to Appendix 2 for additional discussion of
model methodology.
Table 3-20 summarizes growth in trip generation (2004-2009) for the proposal. The
estimates for the 2009 No Action (Alternative 3) represents around a 10% growth in peak
trips compared with 2004 conditions. Growth in the PM peak hour between 2004 and 2009 is
approximately 40%, compared with 7% for the No Action Alternative. The AM peak hour
trips for 2009 Alternatives 1 and 2 represent a 60% increase compared with 2004 conditions,
while the Saturday trips are around 40-45% higher.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-53
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-20. Summary of Peak Hour Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center (2004–
2009)
Time Period 2004
2009
Alternative 1
increase from
2004
2009
Alternative 2
increase from
2004
2009 Alternative 3
(No Action)
increase from
2004
AM peak hour 2,078 1,220 1,220 233
Saturday peak hour 6,713 2,816 2,816 613
PM peak hour 6,363 2,727 2,522 442
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition (2004) for AM and Saturday Peak
hour. The PM peak hour trips are based on the EMME/2 model origins and destinations from project area TAZs.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for additional description of methodology.
2014 Forecasts
The 2014 forecasts are intended to provide an initial look at the traffic operations and impacts
of each of the alternatives. This analysis describes the forecasting methodology, describes
the expected roadway volumes for Alternatives 1-3 and identifies locations where traffic
growth may impact City’s intersections. Because this is a longer range forecast, only
roadway volumes are reported. In addition, specific mitigation measures are not included.
The City has proposed to conduct a 2009 analysis of building construction and traffic growth
to verify the status of project area development and to update the traffic forecasts for 2014.
2014 Forecast Methodology
Forecasts of the PM peak hour were completed using the EMME/2 transportation model,
described above (2009 Trip Generation) and in Appendix 2. The model compares the 2009
and 2014 land uses to estimate future traffic levels and to assign the volumes to the roadway
network. The model was used to identify the 2009-2014 growth in background traffic and the
2009-2014 growth in trips.
The AM and Saturday peak hour forecasts use the 2004-2009 traffic growth factors to
estimate an expected 2014 background traffic. General background growth for the AM and
Saturday peak hour is assumed at 1.5% per year. Trip generation for each alternative was
assigned and added to the 2009 base volumes and 2009-2014 background growth traffic to
provide an estimate of 2014 volumes.
Roadway Improvement Assumptions
Only one roadway improvement project based on the CIP was added to the baseline model
for 2014. This project would construct a roadway connection between S 312th Street at 14th
Avenue S and S 320th Street at 11th Place S.
Trip Generation
Table 3-21 summarizes the growth in trip generation from 2009 to 2014. The 2014 forecasts
include two options for a “Civic Center” resulting in a range of values for the trip generation.
The first civic center option would develop a convention center facility that would be
primarily be used for special events, expositions, and activities. The second civic center
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-54
City Center Planned Action
option would be a daily-use facility, which would feature daily activities and programs. The
second option would be expected to have higher daily and peak hour trip generation.
The estimates of growth for the 2009-2014 No Action (Alternative 3) represents 70-90% of
the growth expected from 2004-2009 as shown in Table 3-20. Alternatives 1 and 2 have the
same trip generation. The range of trip generation reflects the two options for the Civic
Center land use. The PM and Saturday peak hour trip growth is slightly lower than the
growth during the 2004- 2009 time period. The AM trips represent 77% of the previous five-
year growth.
Table 3-21. Summary of Trip Generation for Federal Way City Center (2010–2014)
Time Period
2014 Alternative 1
increase from
2009 Alt 1*
2014 Alternative 2
increase from
2009 Alt 2*
2014 Alternative 3
increase from
2009 Alt 3
AM peak hour 919-
1,073
919-
1,073 214
Saturday peak hour 2,537-
2,552
2,537-
2,552 437
PM peak hour 2,360 –
2,370
2,360 –
2,370 419
Source: ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition
* Range of trip generation reflects two options for the Civic Center land use.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution and assignment were assumed to remain similar to 2009. The PM peak hour
distribution was calculated using the EMME/2 model. The AM and Saturday trip distribution
used the 2009 distribution of trips to assign the 2014 traffic growth on the network.
Alternative 1
This section describes the traffic impacts associated with Alternative 1. The section describes
the trip generation, distribution and assignment, the 2009 turning volumes, transportation
impacts and recommended mitigation.
Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
Alternative 1 accounts for the highest concentration of development within the City Center.
Under this alternative, development would be concentrated along S 320 Street. PM peak hour
trip distribution and assignment were completed using the Federal Way EMME/2 model.
AM and Saturday distribution and assignment follow existing area traffic patterns. Figures
15 to 17 in Appendix 2 show the trip distribution for the 2009 under Alternative 1 for the PM,
AM and Saturday peak hours.
Traffic Volumes
Figures 18 to 20 in Appendix 2 show the 2009 turning movement volumes for each study
intersection for Alternative 1 for the PM, AM, and Saturday peak hours.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-55
City Center Planned Action
2009 Alternative 1 Traffic Operations
Table 3-22 lists the LOS operation for the PM, AM and Saturday peak hour for Alternative 1.
Table 3-22. 2009 Alternative 1 Intersection Operations
PM Peak4 AM Peak4 Saturday Peak4
Intersection LOS1 V/C2 LOS V/C LOS V/C
S 272 St & Pacific Hwy S F 1.09* D 0.71 D 0.79
S 272 St & I-5 southbound Ramp F 1.00* C 0.73 C 0.62
S 272 St & I-5 northbound Ramp C 0.92 E 1.09* B 0.67
S 272 St & Military Rd S F 1.22* F 1.10* D 0.63
S 288th St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.81
S 288th St & Military Rd S C 0.78
S Dash Point Rd & Pacific Hwy S C 0.52
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S E 1.05* D 0.99
S 312 St & 28 Av S B 0.653
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S E 1.055
SW 320 St & 21 Av SW D 0.78
S 320 St & 1 Av S D 0.82 D 0.81 D 0.98
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.91 F 1.005
S 320 St & 20 Av S F 1.35
S 320 St & 23 Av S D 0.76 F 1.045
S 320 St & I-5 southbound Ramp C 0.78 C 0.72 C 0.92
S 320 St & I-5 northbound Ramp B 0.72
S 320 St & Military Rd S D 0.96
S 324 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.87 D 0.87
SW 336 St & 21 Av SW E 0.99
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S D 1.045 C 0.69
SW 340 St & Hoyt Rd SW C 0.63 B 0.53 B 0.53
SW Campus Dr & 1 Av S E 0.97
S 348 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.80
SW 356 St & 21 Av SW C 0.84
S 356 St & Pacific Hwy S C 0.84
S 356 St & Enchanted Pkwy S D 0.83
Source: Mirai Associates, 2006.
1. LOS reflects the overall operation of the intersection based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology
2. V/C is the combined volume/capacity of the critical movements of the intersection as identified as the Xc in the
HCM 2000 methodology.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-56
City Center Planned Action
3. Maximum v/c ratio at all-way stop-controlled unsignalized intersection.
4. PM peak hour occurs between 4 and 6 p.m.; AM peak hour occurs between 7 and 9 a.m.; Saturday peak hour
occurs between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.
5. Results from HCM2000 Signals (version 4.1f)
PM Peak Hour Deficiencies – Five intersections exceed the City’s deficiency threshold in
2009 for Alternative 1. Deficient intersections are focused along S 272 Street and Pacific
Highway S, where growth in regional traffic is expected to affect intersection operations
during the PM peak hour.
AM Peak Hour Deficiencies – Two of the study intersections exceed the City’s deficiency
threshold in 2009 for Alternative 1. The deficient intersections are located at I-5 northbound
Ramp and Military Road S along S 272 Street.
Saturday Peak Hour Deficiencies – Four of the Saturday study intersections exceed the
City’s deficiency threshold in 2009 for Alternative 1. These intersections are focused around
the project area, at S 316 Street and S 320 Street on Pacific Highway S, and at the
intersections at 20 Avenue S and 23rd Avenue S on S 320 Street. Weekend retail activity at
these locations is likely to contribute to the high traffic at these intersections.
Parking Requirements
Table 3-23 describes the increase in parking requirement for the Alternative 1 above existing
levels. These increases assume full development by the year 2014. The parking requirements
estimate the number of spaces required for the proposed mix of uses assumed for Alternative
1 and is identical for Alternatives 1 and 2. Compared with Alternative 3, 4,001 additional
spaces would be required under the City’s parking code. These spaces may be provided on
the site or as part of parking structures assumed as part of future development. The actual
parking requirement for an individual development may be reduced through shared parking
arrangements or transportation demand management programs. This reduction could vary
from 10% to 20%.
Table 3-23. Alternative 1 Parking Requirement
Land Use
Parking Code
Requirement
Proposed
Development1 Required
Parking2 Increase over
Alternative 3
Civic Uses Case by case 1000,000 sf Unknown Unknown
Hotel 1 per room 600 rooms 600 stalls 600 stalls
Office 1 per 300 sf 350,000 sf 1,167 stalls 819 stalls
Other3 1 per 1000 sf 0 sf 0 stalls 0 stalls
Residential 1.7 per unit 750 units 1,275 stalls 816 stalls
Retail 1 per 300 sf 750,000 sf 2,500 stalls 1,766 stalls
Total 5,542 stalls 4,001 stalls
Source: Jones and Stokes Associates, 2005.
1. Assumes 2014 full build-out of planned action development envelope; please see Chapter 2.
2. These parking demands may be 10% to 20% less based on shared parking.
3. Category includes such uses as wholesale, storage, light manufacturing and other similar uses.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-57
City Center Planned Action
Traffic Safety Impact
As the amount of traffic increases within the area, the probability of traffic collisions would
be expected to increase. The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies that
congestion is a primary factor in collision rates. Alternative 1 would increase the number of
trips at high collision locations, the number of trips associated with this alternative make up
only a small proportion of the entering trips. In addition, roadway improvements designed to
reduce congestion may lower congestion-associated collisions.
Transit Service Impact
Alternative 1 would provide a high level of urban development and amenities in immediate
proximity to the Federal Way Transit Center. Under the alternative, a large proportion of
development would be concentrated along S 320 Street, near the transit center, providing a
high number of potential transit users who may be able to walk to the Transit Center.
Expected residents in the project area would likely include transit users and may result in
increased ridership demand at the transit center.
Pedestrian Accessibility
The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of roadway and pedestrian
improvements to occur as part of development in the project area. The Alternative 1 concept
of a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use center would encourage use of these facilities, as
residents would be able to easily access retail and service locations within a short walking
distance.
Bicycle Mobility Impact
Chapter 7 of the 2002 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies bicycle facilities
planned for the City Center area. These bicycle facilities would connect major destinations
and would increase the mobility of bicyclists within the project area. New development
under the planned action would increase the demand for bicycle facilities in the project area.
Impacts associated with development permitted through the Planned Action Ordinance would
be addressed as described in the Additional Mitigation section on page 3-73.
2014 Alternative 1 Traffic Volumes
Figures 30 to 32 in Appendix 2 show the expected 2014 traffic volumes on selected roadways
for the Alternative 1 for the PM, AM and Saturday peak hours. Because the land uses are
concentrated along the S 320 Street corridor, the project trips generated for Alternative 1
would impact primarily intersections along this corridor.
AM Peak Hour
During the AM peak hour, Alternative 1 volumes would be on roadways near and within the
project area. During the AM peak hour, nearly 1,100 trips to area roadways would be added,
concentrated on roads near the project area, especially on S 320 Street. Intersections that
would see the greatest impact from the alternative would be:
S 320 St & I-5 southbound - 320 Ramp (510 additional trips)
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-58
City Center Planned Action
S 320 St & 1 Av S (380 additional trips)
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S (370 additional trips)
S 272 St & Pacific Highway S (340 additional trips)
PM Peak Hour
During the PM peak hour, the primary impact of Alternative 1 would be on roadways near
and within the project area. During the PM peak hour, the alternative would add nearly 2,400
trips to area roadways, concentrated on S 320 Street and Pacific Highway S. The following
intersections would be impacted by the alternative:
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S (1260 additional trips)
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S (910 additional trips)
S 348th St & Pacific Hwy S (870 additional trips)
S 324 St & Pacific Hwy S (780 additional trips)
S 320 St & Military Rd S (750 additional trips)
S 320 St & 23 Av S (740 additional trips)
Saturday Peak Hour
Alternative 1 would add 2,500 trips to area roadways, mainly within and adjacent to the
project area. The following intersections would see the greatest impact from the alternative
during the Saturday peak hour:
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S (1370 additional trips)
S 320 St & 20 Av S (1220 additional trips)
S 320 St & 23 Av S (980 additional trips)
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S (910 additional trips)
S 320 St & I-5 southbound - 320 Ramp (870 additional trips)
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S (850 additional trips)
Alternative 2
This section describes the traffic impacts associated with Alternative 2. The section describes
the trip generation, distribution and assignment, the 2009 turning volumes, transportation
impacts and recommended mitigation.
Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment
Alternative 2 accounts for the same level of development within the City Center as
Alternative 1, but spreads this development throughout the project area. The trip distribution
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-59
City Center Planned Action
and assignment were completed using the City’s EMME/2 model. AM and Saturday
distribution and assignment follow existing area traffic patterns.
Traffic Volumes
Figures 24 to 26 in Appendix 2 show the 2009 turning movement volumes for each study
intersection for Alternative 2 for the PM, AM and Saturday peak hours. Traffic volumes for
the PM peak hour are based on the model results. AM and Saturday volumes were estimated
based upon an annual growth rate.
2009 Alternative 2 Traffic Operations
Table 3-24 lists the LOS operation for the PM, AM and Saturday peak hour for Alternative 2.
These intersection operations are based on existing signal timing and phasing as provided by
the City of Federal Way.
Table 3-24. 2009 Alternative 2 Intersection Operations
PM Peak4 AM Peak4 Saturday Peak4
Intersection LOS1 V/C2 LOS V/C LOS V/C
S 272 St & Pacific Hwy S F 1.095 D 0.71 D 0.75
S 272 St & I-5 southbound
Ramp F 1.035 C 0.73 C 0.62
S 272 St & I-5 northbound
Ramp C 0.85 E 1.095 B 0.67
S 272 St & Military Rd S F 1.275 F 1.105 D 0.63
S 288th St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.81
S 288th St & Military Rd S C 0.77
S Dash Point Rd & Pacific Hwy
S C 0.52
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S E 1.055 D 0.98
S 312 St & 28 Av S B 0.653
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S E 1.065
SW 320 St & 21 Av SW D 0.78
S 320 St & 1 Av S D 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.97
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.91 F 1.015
S 320 St & 20 Av S E 1.475
S 320 St & 23 Av S D 0.76 F 1.055
S 320 St & I-5 southbound
Ramp C 0.78 C 0.71 C 0.94
S 320 St & I-5 northbound
Ramp B 0.76
S 320 St & Military Rd S D 0.96
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-60
City Center Planned Action
PM Peak4 AM Peak4 Saturday Peak4
Intersection LOS1 V/C2 LOS V/C LOS V/C
S 324 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.86 D 0.87
SW 336 St & 21 Av SW E 0.99
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S D 1.055 C 0.69
SW 340 St & Hoyt Rd SW C 0.63 B 0.53 C 0.57
SW Campus Dr & 1 Av S E 0.96
S 348 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.80
SW 356 St & 21 Av SW C 0.84
S 356 St & Pacific Hwy S C 0.83
S 356 St & Enchanted Pkwy S D 0.82
Source: Mirai Associates, 2006
1. LOS reflects the overall operation of the intersection based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology
2. V/C is the combined volume/capacity of the critical movements of the intersection as identified as the Xc in the
HCM 2000 methodology.
3. Maximum v/c ratio at all-way stop-controlled unsignalized intersection.
4. PM peak hour occurs between 4 and 6 p.m.; AM peak hour occurs between 7 and 9 a.m.; Saturday peak hour
occurs between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.
5. Results from HCM2000 Signals (version 4.1f)
PM Peak Hour Deficiencies – Five intersections exceed the City’s deficiency threshold in
2009 for Alternative 2. Deficient intersections are focused along S 272 Street and Pacific
Highway S, where growth in regional traffic is expected to affect intersection operations
during the PM peak hour.
AM Peak Hour Deficiencies – Two of the study intersections exceed the City’s deficiency
threshold in 2009 for Alternative 2. The deficient intersections are located at I-5 northbound
Ramp and Military Road S along S 272 Street.
Saturday Peak Hour Deficiencies – Four of the Saturday study intersections exceed the
City’s deficiency threshold in 2009 for Alternative 2. These intersections are focused around
the project area, at S 316 Street and S 320 Street on Pacific Highway S, and at the
intersections at 20 Avenue S and 23rd Avenue S on S 320 Street. Weekend retail activity at
these locations is likely to contribute to the high traffic at these intersections.
Parking Requirement
The parking requirement for Alternative 2 is identical to that shown for Alternative 1. Please
refer to Table 3-23 for a summary of the total parking requirement for Alternative 2.
Traffic Safety Impact
As the amount of traffic increases increase within the area, the probability of traffic collisions
would be expected to increase. The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies that
congestion is a primary factor in collision rates. Alternative 2 would increase the number of
trips at high collision locations, the number of trips associated with this alternative make up
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-61
City Center Planned Action
only a small proportion of the entering trips. Improvements associated with traffic
improvement would reduce congestion and the congestion-associated collisions.
Transit Service Impact
Alternative 2 would provide a high level of urban development and amenities in area near the
new Federal Way Transit Center. Under the alternative, development would occur
throughout the project area, providing a high number of potential transit users who may walk
to the Transit Center. Expected residents of the project area would likely include transit
users.
Pedestrian Accessibility
The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of roadway and pedestrian
improvements to occur as part of future development. Alternative 2 concept of a pedestrian-
oriented, mixed-use center would encourage use of these facilities, as residents would be able
to easily access retail and service locations within a short walking distance.
Bicycle Mobility Impact
Chapter 7 of the 2002 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies bicycle facilities
planned for the City Center area. These bicycle facilities would connect major destinations
and would increase the mobility of bicyclists within the project area. New development under
the planned action would increase the demand for bicycle facilities in the project area.
Impacts associated with development permitted through the Planned Action Ordinance would
be addressed as described in the Additional Mitigation section on page 3-73.
2014 Alternative 2 Traffic Volumes
Figures 33 to 35 in Appendix 2 show the expected 2014 traffic volumes on selected roadways
for the Alternative 2 for the PM, AM and Saturday peak hours. The project trips generated
for Alternative 2 are assumed identical to Alternative 1, but assume that development is
spread throughout the project area.
AM Peak Hour
During the AM peak hour, Alternative 2 volumes would be on roadways near and within the
project area. During the AM peak hour, the alternative would add nearly 1,100 trips to area
roadways, concentrated on roads near the project area. Intersections that would see the
greatest impact from the alternative would be:
S 320 St & I-5 southbound - 320 Ramp (520 additional trips)
S 320 St & 1 Av S (380 additional trips)
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S (370 additional trips)
S 272 St & Pacific Highway S (340 additional trips)
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-62
City Center Planned Action
PM Peak Hour
During the PM peak hour, the primary impact of Alternative 2 would be on roadways near
and within the project area. During the PM peak hour, the alternative would add nearly 2,400
trips to area roadways, concentrated on roads near the project area. The following
intersections would see the greatest impact from the alternative:
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S (1180 additional trips)
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S (880 additional trips)
S 348th St & Pacific Hwy S (860 additional trips)
S 324 St & Pacific Hwy S (740 additional trips)
S 320 St & Military Rd S (700 additional trips)
S 320 St & 23 Av S (670 additional trips)
Saturday Peak Hour
Alternative 2 would add 2,500 trips to area roadways, mainly within and adjacent to the
project area. The following intersections would see the greatest impact from the alternative
during the Saturday peak hour:
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S (1370 additional trips)
S 320 St & 20 Av S (1160 additional trips)
S 320 St & 23 Av S (1010 additional trips)
S 320 St & I-5 southbound - 320 Ramp (910 additional trips)
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S (890 additional trips)
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S (880 additional trips)
No Action (Alternative 3)
The No Action alternative represents the expected growth in the project area without the
proposal. This alternative would follow existing development patterns. Roadway and transit
improvements listed in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are assumed to occur
under this alternative.
Traffic Growth
Forecasts of the PM peak hour were completed using the EMME/2 transportation model. The
model uses the 2009 and 2004 land uses to estimate future traffic levels and to assign the
volumes to the roadway network. Use of the model allows traffic to be redistributed,
responding to new capacity from roadway improvements or drivers seeking new routes in
order to avoid intersections with high delays. For the No Action alternative (Alternative 3),
the trip generation and distribution were based on the expected development in the planning
area without the land use and zoning changes assumed in the action alternatives.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-63
City Center Planned Action
Traffic Volumes
Figures 12-14 in Appendix 2 show the 2009 traffic volumes for the PM peak, AM peak and
Saturday peak at each of the study intersections. The growth in traffic for the No Action
alternative assumes the scheduled roadway improvements from the 2005-2010 TIP.
2009 No Action Traffic Operations
Table 3-25 lists the LOS operation for the PM, AM and Saturday peak hour for each of the
study intersections analyzed for that period. These intersection operation results assume the
completion of the 2005-2010 Transportation Improvement Program, and existing signal
timing and phasing as provided by the City of Federal Way.
Table 3-25. 2009 Traffic Operations No Action (Alternative 3)
PM Peak4 AM Peak4 Saturday Peak4
Intersection LOS1 V/C2 LOS V/C LOS V/C
S 272 St & Pacific Hwy S F 1.105 C 0.71 D 0.77
S 272 St & I-5 southbound Ramp F 1.025 C 0.73 C 0.62
S 272 St & I-5 northbound Ramp C 0.92 E 1.085 B 0.67
S 272 St & Military Rd S F 1.245 F 1.095 D 0.63
S 288th St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.82
S 288th St & Military Rd S C 0.78
S Dash Point Rd & Pacific Hwy S C 0.50
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S E 1.055 D 0.86
S 312 St & 28 Av S – unsignalized B 0.643
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.89
SW 320 St & 21 Av SW D 0.76
S 320 St & 1 Av S D 0.81 C 0.77 D 0.85
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.92 D 0.92
S 320 St & 20 Av S E 1.145
S 320 St & 23 Av S D 0.77 F 0.955
S 320 St & I-5 southbound Ramp C 0.78 C 0.68 C 0.84
S 320 St & I-5 northbound Ramp B 0.68
S 320 St & Military Rd S D 0.96
S 324 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.86 D 0.77
SW 336 St & 21 Av SW E 0.99
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S D 1.035 C 0.68
SW 340 St & Hoyt Rd SW C 0.63 B 0.52 B 0.55
SW Campus Dr & 1 Av S E 0.96
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-64
City Center Planned Action
PM Peak4 AM Peak4 Saturday Peak4
Intersection LOS1 V/C2 LOS V/C LOS V/C
S 348 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.87
SW 356 St & 21 Av SW C 0.85
S 356 St & Pacific Hwy S C 0.87
S 356 St & Enchanted Pkwy S D 0.82
Source: Mirai Associates, 2006
1. LOS reflects the overall operation of the intersection based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 methodology
2. V/C is the combined volume/capacity of the critical movements of the intersection as identified as the Xc in the
HCM 2000 methodology.
3. Maximum v/c ratio at all-way stop-controlled unsignalized intersection.
4. PM peak hour occurs between 4 and 6 p.m.; AM peak hour occurs between 7 and 9 a.m.; Saturday peak hour
occurs between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m.
5. Results from HCM2000 Signals (version 4.1f)
PM peak hour Deficiencies – Five intersections exceed the City’s deficiency threshold in
2009. Deficient intersections are focused along Pacific Highway S and along S 272 Street,
where growth in regional traffic is expected to affect intersection operations during the PM
peak hour.
AM peak hour Deficiencies – Two of the study intersections exceed the City’s deficiency
threshold in 2009. The areas with the deficient locations are along S 272 Street at the I-5
northbound ramp and Military Road S intersections.
Saturday peak hour Deficiencies – Two of the Saturday study intersections exceed the City’s
deficiency threshold in 2009 under the No Action Alternative. These intersections are
located in the heart of the project area at the intersections of S 320 Street & 20 Avenue S and
S 320 Street & 23 Avenue S. Weekend retail activity at these locations is likely to contribute
to the high traffic levels observed at these intersections.
Parking Requirement
Table 3-26 describes the increase in parking requirements for the No Action alternative above
existing levels. These increases assume full development by the year 2014. The parking
demand represents the requirements for proposed development under Alternative 3 and does
not include existing land uses. The number of spaces represents the City’s Parking Code
requirement and may be reduced through shared parking arrangements or transportation
demand management programs. This reduction could vary from 10% to 20%.
Table 3-26. Parking Requirement for Alternative 3
Land Use
Parking Code
Requirement
Proposed
Development Required Parking1
Civic Uses Case by case 0 sf 0 Stalls
Hotel 1 per room 0 rooms 0 stalls
Office 1 per 300 sf 96,486 sf 348 stalls
Other2 1 per 1,000 sf 0 sf 0 stalls
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-65
City Center Planned Action
Land Use
Parking Code
Requirement
Proposed
Development Required Parking1
Residential 1.7 per unit 186 units 459 stalls
Retail 1 per 300 sf 182,506 sf 734 stalls
Total 1,541 stalls
Source: Jones and Stokes Associates 2005.
1. These parking demands may be 10% to 20% less based on shared parking.
2. Category includes such uses as wholesale, storage, light manufacturing and other similar uses.
Traffic Safety Impact
As the amount of traffic increases increase within the area, the probability of traffic collisions
would be expected to increase. The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies that
congestion is a primary factor in collision rates. While the No Action alternative would
increase the number of trips at high collision locations, the numbers of trips associated with
this alternative make up only a small proportion of the entering trips.
Transit Service Impact
The No Action alternative would support increased transit services and accessibility
described in the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. These actions would increase
transit service levels and envisions increasing jobs and housing opportunities within the
project area to take create a transit-oriented community.
Pedestrian Accessibility
The City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies a number of roadway and pedestrian
improvements to occur as part of the development in the project area. Improvements include
sidewalks and pedestrian corridors, addition of the grid street system, pedestrian crossings
(potentially elevated) of major roadways and inclusion of pedestrian elements such as street
furniture, covered transit stops, and pedestrian-scale lighting.
Bicycle Mobility Impact
Chapter 7 of the 2002 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan identifies bicycle facilities
planned for the City Center area. These bicycle facilities would connect major destinations
and would increase the mobility of bicyclists within the project area. New development
under the No Action Alternative would increase demand for bicycle facilities in the project
area. Because development levels are expected to be less compared to Alternatives 1 or 2,
impacts on bicycle facilities demand would be correspondingly less. Under the No Action
Alternative, impacts associated with individual development proposals in this area would
continue to be individual reviewed through the SEPA review process and decisions about the
need for bicycle facilities would be made on a case-by-case basis.
2014 No Action Traffic Volumes
Figures 27 to 29 in Appendix 2 show the expected 2014 traffic volumes on selected roadways
for the No Action Alternative (Alternative 3) for the PM, AM and Saturday peak hours. The
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-66
City Center Planned Action
volumes indicate higher traffic levels on area streets and roadways that may result in
increased congestion at major intersections.
The majority of traffic growth would be from 2009-2014 background growth associated with
regional traffic and future development not associated with the City Center proposal. The No
Action alternative adds only low levels of traffic to area roadways. Based on the trip
generation, approximately 420 new PM peak hour trips would be added to area roadways.
Impacts from the project area are generally low, with the added 2009-2014 traffic growth
accounting for less than 5% of traffic volumes at intersections.
Mitigation
Mitigation for the proposal identifies the actions necessary to meet the City’s LOS threshold
for study intersections. The mitigation in this section is divided into PM Peak, AM Peak, and
Saturday peak hours to isolate the impacts of each of these intersection locations. The specific
level of mitigation necessary for any particular future development project will be determined
during the City's project review and based on an analysis of site access. However, only
mitigation measures included in this EIS and incorporated into the City Council-approved
Planned Action Ordinance will be required to address off-site impacts. The specific dollar
amount of any required mitigation contribution will be on the basis of proportional impacts at
rates to be determined by City Council.
Mitigation Cost Assumptions
The City of Federal Way provided the following cost assumptions (Table 3-27) for use in
estimating the costs of improvements. Additional costs assumptions based on previous
experience were added for optimization of signal timing and installation of a permitted plus
overlap phase for right turn movements.
Table 3-27. Mitigation Cost Assumptions
Improvement 2009 $
Construction
1. Widening in City Center or on state highways $89/SF
2. Widening in other commercial zones $76/SF
3. Widening elsewhere $63/SF
5. Shoulder widening $13/SF
6. Lighting $66/LF
7. Signal Pole Relocation $69,000/EA
8. Retaining Wall $127/SF
9. New Signal $228,000/EA
10. Mobilization 8.0% of construction
Right of Way
1. Right of way $44/SF
2. Parcel purchase Market Value
3. Parking stalls loss $5,000/EA
Project Development
1. Permitting 5% of construction
2. Contingency 30% of construction
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-67
City Center Planned Action
Improvement 2009 $
3. Design 25% of construction
4. Construction Engineering 15% of construction
5. Stormwater 20% of construction
Cost estimates developed in consultation with the City of Federal Way Department of Public
Works. 2004 to 2009 assumed 3% annual growth factor for the cost for construction and
materials.
Mitigation Improvements
Mitigation improvements for this study were based on projects identified by the City through
their capital improvement planning process and other area planning projects.
Sources of mitigation improvements for the intersections include:
2009-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
2030 City Center Access Study (2005) – Traffic Systems Management (TSM) Projects
Other mitigation improvements were based on the results of the LOS analysis. These
improvements include: signal optimization and addition of turn lanes. All mitigation
improvements were identified for feasibility and reviewed by City staff.
In some cases, mitigation actions may not be feasible, reasonable, or desirable. In these
cases, mitigation may require changes in current policies or result in undesired consequences,
such as long vehicle delays or pedestrians access issues. While there may be actions that
could bring an intersection to the City’s LOS threshold, investigation of these mitigation
actions fall outside the scope of this analysis and would require policy changes by the City or
State to implement. Examples of these types of mitigation include:
The cycle length to extend beyond a 120 second cycle
Relocation or removal of businesses
Triple turn lanes at major intersections
Additional through lanes on a major thoroughfare
Conversion of HOV lanes to be used for general purpose travel on Saturdays
Limits on turning movements at an intersection (no left turn)
Development of parallel travel routes
Changes to physical topography
PM Peak Hour
For the PM peak hour, improvements would be needed to meet the City’s LOS standard for
the No Action alternative. Optimization of signal timing is assumed to occur as part of future
City signal coordination activities. No further improvements are required during the PM
peak hour for Alternative 1 and 2. Table 3-28 indicates the PM peak hour improvements
identified for the three alternatives.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-68
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-28. PM Peak Hour 2009 Mitigation
Intersection Improvement 2009 Cost
($ x1000)
PM Alternative 3 – No Action
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S Add 2nd northbound left turn lane (CIP 01-05) $ 2,0801
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S Optimize signal timing 0
Alternative 3 Total $ 2,080
PM Alternative 1 – Additional Mitigation
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S No Additional Improvements Required 0
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S No Additional Improvements Required 0
Alternative 1 Additional Mitigation $ 0
PM Alternative 2 – Additional Mitigation
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy S No Additional Improvements Required 0
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S No Additional Improvements Required 0
Alternative 2 Additional Mitigation $ 0
Source: Mirai Associates, 2006
1.City of Federal Way estimate factored to 2009.
The final mitigation improvements for the planned action would be reviewed and adopted by
City Council. As identified in this study, Alternatives 1 and 2 would require no additional
mitigation over actions needed for the No Action alternative. The No Action mitigation
would be approximately $2.1 million. Planned action development may be required to fund a
proportional share of the No Action Alternative improvements.
AM Peak Hour
Assuming completion of the PM peak mitigation indicated in Table 3-28, no additional
mitigation is required for the AM peak hour.
Saturday Peak Hour
Table 3-29 lists the Saturday peak hour mitigation improvements. As identified in this study,
the Saturday peak hour analysis assumes the completion of the PM peak hour improvements
indicated in Table 3-28.
A substantial amount of the Saturday mitigation would be required for the No Action
alternative. Two options are provided for construction of the northbound right turn lane at S.
320th Street and 20th Avenue S intersection. The first option relocates a proposed sidewalk to
the west of a future but permitted building, eliminating the need for a full building take. The
second option purchases the building and constructs the sidewalk within the roadway right-
of-way. The difference between the two options is estimated at $2.6 million. The range of
costs for the No Action alternative would be approximately $2.5 million to $5.2 million.
Alternatives 1 and 2 would require $3.2 million of additional improvements amounting to a
total (including Alternative 3) of approximately $5.7-$8.4 million.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-69
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-29. Saturday Peak Hour 2009 Mitigation
Intersection Improvement 2009 Cost ($x1000)
Saturday Alternative 3 Mitigation
Northbound right turn lane (TSM 2) Option 1 521
Northbound right turn lane (TSM 2) Option 2 3,170
S 320 St & 20 Av S
Southbound right turn lane 1,029
S 320 St & 23 Av S Second northbound right turn lane. (TSM 3) 1,003
Alternative 3 Total $ 2,553-5,202
Saturday Alternative 1 Additional Mitigation
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S Eastbound right turn lane (TSM 12) $ 717
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S Northbound right turn lane 729
S 320 St & 20 Av S No Additional Improvements Required 0
S 320 St & 23 Av S Westbound right turn lane 1,737
Alternative 1 Additional Mitigation $ 3,183
Saturday Alternative 2 Additional Mitigation
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy S Eastbound right turn lane (TSM 12) $ 717
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy S Northbound right turn lane 729
S 320 St & 20 Av S No Additional Improvements Required 0
S 320 St & 23 Av S Westbound right turn lane 1,737
Alternative 2 Additional Mitigation $ 3,183
Source: Mirai Associates, 2006
Timing of Implementation
Mitigation improvements for the area will depend on the location and rate of development
within the project area. In addition, the timing of projects will depend also on the whether
Saturday projects will be mitigated to the PM Peak hour thresholds. PM peak hour
improvements are the highest priority, because Saturday and AM peak hour analyses assumed
the completion of the PM peak hour projects.
All projects that are identified as mitigation will be needed by 2010 to meet the City’s
transportation threshold for the expected level of development. Additional study of the
intersections of S 320 Street & Pacific Highway S and S 320 Street & 23 Avenue S may be
required to identify appropriate solutions to address these intersections under Saturday peak
hour conditions. Table 3-30 shows projected intersection operations by peak hour with the
recommended mitigation.
Table 3-30. Intersection Operations by Peak Hour with Mitigation
Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2
PM Peak Mitigated Mitigated Mitigated
Intersection LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c
S 272 St & Pacific Hwy
S1 F 1.102 F 1.092 F 1.092
S 272 St & I-5
southbound Ramp1 F 1.022* F 1.002 F 1.002
S 272 St & Military Rd S4 F 1.242 F 1.222 F 1.222
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-70
City Center Planned Action
Alternative 3 Alternative 1 Alternative 2
PM Peak Mitigated Mitigated Mitigated
Intersection LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c
S 312 St & Pacific Hwy
S D 0.95 D 0.95 D 0.95
S 336 St & Pacific Hwy S D 0.92 D 0.93 D 0.93
AM Peak
S. 272 St & I-5 northbound
Ramp (WSDOT) E 1.082 E 1.092 E 1.092
S. 272 St & Military Rd S4 F 1.092 F 1.102 F 1.102
Saturday Peak
S 316 St & Pacific Hwy
S na3 na3 D 0.92 C 0.92
S 320 St & Pacific Hwy
S na3 na3 E 0.96 E 0.942
S 320 St & 20 Av S D 0.95 D 0.99 D 0.99
S 320 St & 23 Av S E 0.92* E 0.92 E 0.93
Source: Mirai Associates, 2006
1. The City of Kent exempts intersections along Highways of Statewide Significance from their LOS threshold.
2. Results based on HCM2000 Signals software (version 4.2f), refer to Appendix 2 for additional information.
3. Meets City of Federal Way thresholds without mitigation.
4. King County requires mitigation of intersections that receive 30 trips in an hour or 20% of the proposed new trips
and exceeds LOS F. Less than 2% of project trips access the King County intersection of Military road/272nd
Street.
Additional Mitigation
The mitigation identified in this analysis is focused on the roadway improvements necessary
to meet the expected travel demand on area roadways associated with the proposed
development in the project area. Development will also need to meet the requirements of
applicable codes at the time of application. Such requirements might include the dedication
of right-of-way, installing curbs gutters and sidewalks, drainage improvements, and other
requirements of the City. Additional mitigation may be required for individual development
applications within the project area in order to reduce area traffic impacts or improve on-site
circulation and to meet City and State requirements for Commute Trip Reduction and
Transportation Demand Management. Actions to be considered include:
On-site improvements – Driveway and circulation actions to minimize impact on area
roadways. Actions may include management of access points, traffic control measures,
construction of internal roadways, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and connections to
adjacent developments.
Non Motorized mode improvements – Mitigation may be required per site specific and land
use development proposals to address pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements to
support the plans, policies, and goals as noted within the City of Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan City Center Element (2002, Chapter 7) and Transportation Element (2003, Chapter 3).
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-71
City Center Planned Action
Grid Roadway Development – Part of the City Center Plan is to develop a number of internal
roadways (see Figure 11 in Appendix 2) to create smaller blocks that will improve the grid
network and improve the access for pedestrians and vehicles. Right-of-way dedication and
street improvements shall be a component of the development submittal phase of a proposed
project within the project area. Roadways within the project area must meet specific “City
Center” design standards as specified in the Transportation Element (Chapter 3) of the City of
Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision, Figure III-3)
Right-of-way Dedication – Right of way dedication and frontage improvements may be
required in conjunction with proposed developments. Roadways within the project area must
meet specific “City Center” design standards as specified in the Transportation Element
(Chapter 3) of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision, Figure III-3).
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – TDM actions can be used to reduce the
impact of the project and as a mitigation action. These actions may include provision of
transit passes to tenants and employees, ridesharing programs, priority carpool parking, and
guaranteed ride home programs. TDM actions are designed to primarily address commute
trips and may not be applicable as mitigation for all developments.
Table III-13 (page 60) of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision,
Chapter 3, Transportation Element) stratifies various TDM alternatives by their functional
grouping and potential effectiveness, implementation difficulties, and expected cost
effectiveness. These strategies include: Telecommuting, Parking Pricing and Subsidy
Removal, Compressed Work Week, Employer-Based Management, and Parking Supply
Strategies.
Based upon the above, the following are a list of recommended mitigation measures that can
be considered in conjunction with individual development projects within the project area:
1. Encourage voluntary expansion of the CTR Program to employers of less than 100
employees. The encouragement by employers may be as diverse as subsidized bus passes,
car pool space priority, bike racks, shower facilities, van pools, car pool information
access, telecommuting, variable work hours, etc.
2. Encourage the formation and expansion of area-wide ride-sharing programs. Such
programs operate with little direct cost to the City and are highly cost-effective.
3. Support the enhancement of Park and Ride facilities and transit centers to supplement the
regional system, either directly through physical development or enhancements or
indirectly through development conditions where employer vans are required to shuttle
employees to Park and Ride facilities or transit centers.
4. Facilitate enhancements to the HOV System. This may include the dedication of property
for HOV lanes, construction of arterial HOV lanes within existing City ROW, and
priority treatments for buses at traffic signals. At the very least, where feasible,
opportunities to support enhanced access to the State system of HOV lanes should be
considered.
5. Achieve densities and mix of uses to support public transportation, decrease trip
generation and parking impacts.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-72
City Center Planned Action
6. Encourage facilities (shelters, loading spaces, etc.) to accommodate City Center shuttle
service in association with development projects, together with enhanced pedestrian and
bicycle access and security.
7. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to bus routes and transit centers. This can be a
requirement of subdivision, development, and redevelopment. The City may need to
acquire easements and construct trail connections. Development incentives could be
granted for providing such amenities that are pedestrian, bike and transit friendly. While
bicycle, pedestrian and transit services and facilities may be desirable for other reasons;
they should not be looked on as highly cost-effective strategies to the exclusion of those
actions listed above.
Neighborhood Traffic Control – Development within the project area may be required to
include actions to reduce the impact of cut through traffic on residential areas. Examples of
neighborhood traffic control actions include: turn restrictions, speed controls, traffic
enforcement, and parking restrictions.
The following mitigation recommended shall support the following City of Federal Way
Comprehensive Plan (2003 revision) Transportation Element (Chapter 3):
Minimize through traffic on residential streets by maximizing through travel opportunities on
arterial and collector streets.
Employ traffic calming measures in neighborhoods (where feasible) where traffic volumes
and speeds on local streets consistently exceed reasonable levels.
Improve safety on residential streets by:
a. Reducing street widths while maintaining on-street parking.
b. Increasing separation between sidewalks and streets.
c. Reducing design speeds to discourage speeding.
d. Limiting the length of straight streets to discourage speeding.
e. Discouraging the use of four-legged intersections.
Keep through traffic to state routes and arterials. Discourage the use of local or neighborhood
streets for through movements (unless part of an overall process of creating a street grid).
Parking – Mitigation actions that reduce the parking requirements within the project area
should be encouraged. Examples include shared parking, employee parking programs,
parking time restrictions, paid parking programs. Shared parking strategies focus on looking
at opportunities where adjacent uses have parking demand profiles that can support the
sharing of a smaller amount of parking spaces. For example, an office building with an 8 AM
to 5 PM demand could share its parking with evening dominated uses such as restaurants, or a
cinema. A parking demand study, which shows the hourly parking demand profiles for
adjacent uses and the potential for joint parking opportunities within a mixed-use
development, can be used to reduce the number of parking spaces.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-73
City Center Planned Action
In addition, contained in the above TDM mitigation are strategies that overlap with parking
mitigation plans for development. A development may propose a plan and management
system to the City for approval upon submittal of the development permit. Those items may
contain the following in support of the City of Federal Way and state Commute Trip
Reduction (CTR) requirements:
Alternative Mode Support Measures
Public education and promotion may increase the effectiveness of these other strategies up to
3%.
Area-wide Ride matching Services – May result in a 0.1 – 3.6% reduction in vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and an up to 2.5% VMT reduction in transit services. Reductions in parking
required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates.
Vanpool Service – May result in an up to 8.3% commute VMT reduction, as well as a
reduction in transit and vanpool fares up to 2.5%. Reductions in parking required may be
calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates.
Non-Motorized Modes plan and implementation – 0-2% regional VMT reduction -
calculations shall be based parking requirement mitigation as a result of lower trip generation
calculations.
HOV Facilities – May result in an up to 1.5% VMT reduction and 0.2% vehicle trip
reduction. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-
generation rates.
On site development Park and Ride – May result in up to 0-0.5% VMT reduction.
Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation
rates.
Employer-Based TDM Measures
Parking mitigation -- Monetary incentives may result in an up to 8-18% trip reduction at site.
Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation
rates.
Alternative Work Schedules – May result in as much as a 1% regional VMT reduction.
Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation
rates.
Commute Support Programs – May result in up to 0.1-2.0% regional VMT reduction.
Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation
rates.
Parking Management – May result in up to a 20 to 30% reduction in SOV trips to/from the
site. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-
generation rates.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-74
City Center Planned Action
Telecommuting – Up to 10% commute VMT reduction. Reductions in parking required may
be calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates.
Other Strategies
Parking Tax – May result in up to a 1 to 5% reduction in regional VMT and trip generation,
but requires City Council and/or legislative action. Reductions in parking required may be
calculated on the basis of these lower trip-generation rates.
Development Parking Impact Mitigation – Requires Council approval to allow for payment
of parking-mitigation funds towards long-term investments in structured parking solutions in
lieu of full parking requirement. Reductions in parking required may be calculated on the
basis of these lower trip-generation rates.
Mixed Land Use/Jobs Housing Balance – May result in VMT reductions up to 10%.
Parking stall credit is given based on overlapping shared usage of mixed facility, per City
Code provisions.
Transit-Oriented and Pedestrian Friendly Design – Site and building design that encourages
transit usage and/or walking may reduce overall parking requirement. Requires design
review and staff approval.
Employment Center Density – Achievement of sufficient density within the City Center to
constitute a regional employment center may reduce SOV work trips to individual
development projects by up to 50%. Parking stall reductions may also apply to developments.
Other Parking Management Plans – May mitigate 1 to 5% region-wide VMT, provided
enforcement issues are addressed in the mitigation plan.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
Although numerous measures will mitigate transportation-related impacts, increases in traffic
congestion at some nodes and/or along some corridors will result in remaining significant,
unavoidable, adverse impacts on the area’s transportation system. Development of the
Federal Way City Center would generate additional traffic volumes on the area’s roadways.
However, the increased intersection capacity and associated traffic improvements would
mitigate undesired impacts. The proposed mixed-use land use pattern, on-site improvements
and public and private TDM actions, along with high levels of existing and future transit
service may further reduce vehicle trips thereby further mitigating impacts.
3.5 Public Services
This section of the Draft EIS describes existing conditions, potential impacts, mitigating
measures and unavoidable adverse impacts that the proposal and alternatives may have on
public services. The public services analyzed in this chapter include police, fire, emergency
medical service (EMS), parks and recreation, energy (electricity, natural gas) and
telecommunications.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-75
City Center Planned Action
Affected Environment
Police
In March 2006, Federal Way Department of Public Safety had 155 full-time employees
consisting of 119 sworn officers and 36 civilian positions. Police coverage for each 24-hour
period is divided into three shifts. The City of Federal Way is divided into seven patrol
districts. The W4 and W6 patrol districts serve the City Center project area. Minimum
staffing levels are seven officers and one supervisor per shift, although many shifts have eight
or nine officers assigned to a shift. (Michelle Landon, 2006). Two officers are assigned to
Block 3 (The Commons at Federal Way) in the project area, each working approximately 32
hours a week in the mall and 8 hours in the surrounding areas as patrol officers.
In 2004, there were a total of 78,534 calls for service citywide, with 6,259 calls originating
from the City Center project area, or approximately 8 percent of total calls. Call data for
2005 showed a total of 79,956 calls for service citywide, with 6,365 calls originating from the
City Center, also approximately 8 percent of total calls.
The goal for the Federal Way Police Department is to respond to Emergency and Priority 1
calls in 3-5 minutes, Priority 2 calls in 7-10 minutes, Priority 3 calls in 15-17 minutes, and
Priority 4 calls in 28-30 minutes1. Data shows that throughout Federal Way response time
goals are being achieved or exceeded for all calls except Priority 4 calls: Emergency calls
(1.11min.), Priority calls 1 (3.88 min.), Priority 2 calls (13.17 min.), and Priority 3 calls
(18.84min.) Priority 4 calls (37.43 min.) were only slightly above the response goal of 28-30
minutes. Response times in the City Center project area are comparable or less than those in
the City as a whole, mainly because of the central location of the project area.
Part 1 Crimes are reported to both the FBI and State of Washington. These crimes include
murder/manslaughter, rape, robbery, felony assaults, burglaries, auto theft, felony theft, and
arson. In 2005, larceny was the most prevalent crime Citywide and within the City Center,
followed by auto theft, burglary, robbery and felony assault.
Calls for Service (CFS) data is compiled according to reporting districts (RDs). The RDs do
not correspond exactly to Block boundaries in the project area. However, Block 1 is
primarily served by RD 76, Block 2 by RD 74, and Block 3 by RD 48. These are RDs are
used to represent block data in the following analysis.
1
Type of call Definition
Priority E
Emergency
Highest priority-confirmed hazard that could result in extensive loss of life and/or property. It represents the greatest danger for
officers responding to an immediate danger. (e.g. bank robbery in progress, shooting, car jacking with weapon)
Priority 1 Represents a potential hazard that could result in the loss of life and/or property. Officers responding may be at risk or seriously
jeopardized. (e.g., Bank holdup alarm, assault with weapon, bomb or explosive devise found, robbery or assault in progress)
Priority 2 Represents minimal hazard with considerably less potential for loss of life and/or property. Minimal risk to responding officers.(e.g.
injury accident, auto theft or burglary in progress)
Priority 3 Represents low hazard, non-life threatening situation with minimal risk of property loss. (e.g. non-injury vehicle accident, verbal
dispute, drug activity, signal malfunction, suspicious person, or vehicle.)
Priority 4 Represents cold calls.(e.g. abandoned vehicle, animal complaint, firework complaints, illegal dumping, lost/found property, traffic
complaints)
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-76
City Center Planned Action
The top 5 categories of calls for Reporting District (RD) 48 (The Commons at Federal Way-
Block 3) in 2005 include shoplifting, theft, 911 hang-up, false alarms, and fraud. Between
2001-2005 shoplifting calls have increased, while theft has decreased.
The top 5 categories of calls for RD 74 (Block 2) in 2005 include theft, shoplifting, 911 hang-
up, false alarms, and accidents. The nature of calls has remained consistent since 2001, with
theft decreasing each year. The top 5 categories of calls for RD 76 (Block 1) in 2005 include
shoplifting, theft, 911 hang-up, hit & run, and accidents. The top 5 categories of calls for RD
76 have remained fairly consistent, with a substantial increase in calls for shoplifting, and
traffic related disturbances. Table 3-31 shows the breakdown of the major call types of calls
for service for each of these reporting districts.
Table 3-31. Calls for Service in City Center Project Area
2001 2001 2003 2004 2005
Crime
Type
City
Center City
City
Center City
City
Center City
City
Center City
City
Center City
Homicide 0 4 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 8
Rape 4 43 1 49 3 50 1 50 2 55
Robbery 19 128 14 124 23 125 23 121 23 153
Felony
Assault
9 158 7 141 37 120 40 109 36 101
Burglary 26 521 36 677 37 672 30 759 32 793
Auto Theft 128 1179 85 206 78 3145 68 1118 126 1573
Larceny 743 3516 738 3347 743 1204 421 3257 753 3786
Arson 2 17 0 29 1 14 1 23 0 24
Total 931 5566 881 4577 923 5332 584 5437 972 6493
Crime % 16.73% 19.25% 17.31% 10.74% 14.97%
Source: Federal Way Department of Public Safety, 2006
Table 3-32 compares the citywide data for the three main reporting districts in the project
area. As shown, 3.5 percent of collisions, 5.1 percent of traffic stops, and 2.5 percent of DUI
arrests occurred within the City Center project area.
Table 3-32. Traffic Enforcement Activity 2005
Citywide RD76 RD74 RD48
Type of Activity # of calls # of calls % # of calls % # of calls %
Collisions 2,256 25 1.1 18 0.8 35 1.6
Traffic Stops 13,205 35 0.2 96 0.7 555 4.2
DUI Arrests 359 1 0.3 3 0.8 5 1.4
Source: Federal Way Department of Public Safety, 2006.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-77
City Center Planned Action
Fire and EMS
The Federal Way Fire Department services include fire suppression, fire prevention (building
inspection and public information), emergency medical, and communications center
operation for 911 emergency calls. Services are provided from seven stations located
throughout the Department's 34 square miles of service area. In March 2006, there were 136
personnel, with 104 employees working fire suppression, 14 support staff, and 18 volunteers.
Two stations primarily serve the City Center area. Station 62 is located at 31617 1st Avenue
S. and Station 64 is located at 3203 S. 360th.
Station 62 has 3 shifts of 8 personnel for a total of 24 staff. Major equipment at Station 62
includes a 2002 KME Pumper, 2003 Road Rescue Aid Car, 2003 Suburban Command
Vehicle, 1991 Pierce 105' Aerial Ladder Truck.
Station 64 has 3 shifts with either 7 per shift for a total of 21 personnel. Major equipment at
Station 64 includes a 1992 Utilimaster Step van (Major Incident Response Command Unit),
1995 Pierce Telesqurt Fire Engine, and 2003 Road Rescue Aid Car.
Table 3-33 shows the number of fire and EMS calls for service at Stations 62 and 64 in 2005.
During this period, the department as a whole received 11,816 calls for fire protection and
emergency medical service. As shown in Table 3-34, Station 62 responded to 112 fire calls
and 2,518 EMS calls. Station 64 responded to 96 fire calls and 1,428 EMS calls. This data
includes all calls to these stations, including calls within and around the project area (Grant
Gaspard, Federal Way Fire Department, 2006).
Table 3-33. Stations 62 and 64 Fire and EMS Calls for Service 2005
Fire Calls for Service
Station # of Incidents Average Response Time
Station 62 112 5.27 minutes
Station 64 96 5.57 minutes
EMS Calls for Service
Station # of Incidents Average Response Time
Station 62 2,518 5.16 minutes
Station 64 1,428 5.24 minutes
Source: Federal Way Fire Department 2005.
Notes: Average response time is decimal value, not time value.
The Fire Department has established a service standard that seeks to respond to all emergency
calls in less than 7 minutes. As shown in Table 3-33, the Fire Department achieved this
standard.
Emergency medical response calls for service make up approximately 75 percent of total calls
received, with fire calls comprising 4 percent of calls throughout the department. Service
area wide, between 2004-2005, fire calls increased by 2.7percent, and emergency medical
services increased by 4.6 percent. As established by the Department’s equipment and
personnel standards, each emergency medical response should include a minimum of one
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-78
City Center Planned Action
response vehicle and two fully equipped and fully trained crew members. Equipment and
personnel standards for each fire response include a minimum of two fire-fighting vehicles
and six fully equipped and fully trained crewmembers.
Parks and Recreation
When the City of Federal Way incorporated in 1990, there were approximately eight acres of
parkland available per 1,000 population. Since that time, the City has purchased additional
property and developed new facilities. As of 2005, the City provided 11.79 acres of parkland
per 1,000 population, compared to an adopted level of service of 10.9 acres of parkland per
1,000 population. Inventoried parkland as of 2004 is 981.71 acres, with 577.91 acres
developed for recreational use areas and 403.80 acres undeveloped.
Parks near the City Center project area include Steel Lake and Celebration Park. Steel Lake
Park is located just to the northeast of the project area and is divided by S. 312th Street. The
park consists of both active and passive uses north and south of S. 312th Street. South of S.
312th Street, Steel Lake facilities include an athletic complex comprised of 2 softball fields, 1
soccer field, and a skate park, totaling 53 acres. On the north side of S. 312th Street there are
five reservable picnic sites, a boat ramp to Steel Lake, and one small softball field, soccer
field, outdoor basketball court, and volleyball court. There is also a large children’s play area
and a concessions, and restroom facilities. Steel Lake Park is very popular throughout
Federal Way, especially during the summer months for swimming in the lake.
Celebration Park is located just southwest of the City Center project area, at 11th Place South
and S. 324th Street. Celebration Park is an 83-acre site with a mixture of active and passive
uses. The passive area consists of nature trails and wetlands while the active area consists of
4 lighted softball fields and 4 lighted soccer fields. There is also a children’s play area.
The City includes acquisition of parks as an on-going project category in the Parks Six-Year
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The City has also taken administrative actions to take
advantage of other available public recreation facilities in the area, such as schools. Some
school facilities, such as Truman High School, located just east of the project area, are
available nights and weekends for use by public residents.
The Federal Way Parks CIP does not identify any planned projects within the City Center
project area. A community center and pool at Celebration Park is planned. The Parks,
Recreation, and Cultural Services department has expressed interest in creating open space
and pedestrian friendly designs in the City Center area (Federal Way, 2006).
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Police
During construction phases of future development, construction activity in the City Center
project area may affect the response times of emergency vehicles. Currently, the Federal
Way Police Department staffs 1 officer per 700 citizens (1.4 officers per 1,000 population).
To maintain the current level of service, future development will result in an incremental
increase in calls for emergency service. Under Alternative 3 (No Action) approximately 638
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-79
City Center Planned Action
additional residents and 866 employees can be expected in the area by 2014. Based on the
residential population alone, this will result in an increased need of approximately one officer
by 2014 to maintain the current LOS. If employment population is also considered,
Alternative 3 would result in a need for a total of 2 officers by 2014.
Under Alternative 1 and 2 development assumptions, an additional 1,770 residents and 3,677
employees can be expected in the project area by 2014. Based on the additional residential
population alone, this will result in an increased need of approximately 2.5 officers by 2014
to maintain the current LOS. If employment population is also considered, a total of
approximately 8 police offers would be required. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 result in the
greatest need for additional officers between 2004-2014.
Alternatives 1 and 2 will generate the greatest demand for police services and will also
generate the greatest amount of development and supports tax base to provide revenues to
support increased police staffing. Assuming that some of these additional revenues are
provided for police protection, the Federal Way Police Department concludes that it will have
adequate existing and planned capacity to meet the increased demand under any of the
alternatives (Brian J Wilson, Federal Way Department of Public Safety, 2003). With
coordination and planning, no significant impacts are expected to result from the proposal or
alternatives.
Fire
During construction phases of future development, construction activity in the City Center
project area may affect the response times of emergency vehicles.
Over the long term, future development will result in an incremental increase in calls for
emergency service and future traffic growth may impact the response time of emergency
vehicles. The magnitude of the increment would depend on the type and rate of the
development and related transportation system improvements. The Federal Way Fire
Department reports that it has adequate existing and planned capacity to meet the increase
under any of the alternatives and does not anticipate any significant impacts to result from the
proposal or alternatives.
Parks and Recreation
Development of either of the action alternatives will result in an additional 1,770 new
residents and 3,677 new employees in the City Center project area. The additional residents
will result in an increased demand for 19.3 acres of new parkland, according to the City's
2002 level of service goal of 10.9 acres per 1,000 population. Under Alternative 3, the 638
new residents would result in an increased demand for approximately 7 acres of parkland.
Although the City does not have a park and open space standard for employees, it is likely
that new employees in the area will use parks during the lunch hour and before and after work
hours. In the future, the City may wish to consider identification of open space standard on
level of service standard for employees.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-80
City Center Planned Action
Mitigation Measures
Impacts to public services from development under the planned action designation would not
be significant. However, measures can be taken to prevent or further minimize
environmental consequences to public services and utilities.
Recommended mitigating measures include:
Coordinate with Federal Way Police and Fire Departments during final design,
construction, and operation of future development under proposed action to ensure that
reliable emergency access is maintained.
Coordinate with the Federal Way Parks and Recreation Department to identify
opportunities for increased recreational open space for general public use throughout the
project area, and within new development proposals.
Reduce public safety impacts thru adherence to CPTED design standards.
Provide emergency service providers with advanced notice of construction schedules and
any planned street closures or blockages.
Avoid or minimize street closures or blockages during construction to avoid impact to
emergency response times.
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to public services are anticipated.
3.6 Utilities
Affected Environment
Water
The Lakehaven Utility District provides domestic water for the entire City, including the City
Center project area. The primary sources of domestic water are four aquifer systems that
underlie the City. The water system includes 400 miles of mainline, 22 wells and 12 storage
tanks with an approximate storage capacity of 31 million gallons. The average daily pumping
rate is approximately 11 million gallons per day (MGD).
The November 1998 Lakehaven Comprehensive Water System Update (CWSU) sets forth
projected facility needs and standards. It is based on growth projections developed by the
local governments served by the District. In the case of Federal Way, the CWSU is based on
growth projections contained in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The CWSU meets or
exceeds Federal Way Fire Department's fire flow requirements for new development. Water
service is extended to new development through one of 4 methods: connection to existing
mains, utility local improvement districts (ULID), developer extension agreement, or
temporary water service agreement.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-81
City Center Planned Action
Table 3-34 shows estimated usage demands per land use activity type. In the Federal Way
area, the average annual per residential equivalent consumption rate is 214 gallons per day.
During peak usage, approximately 225 gallons of water per residential equivalent per day are
consumed. Three residential equivalents per 1,000 square feet are assumed to be a rough
estimate for restaurant consumption rate. For example, a 5,000 square foot restaurant could
be expected to use an equivalent peak of 3,375 gallons of water per day. Retail and office use
average 0.2 and 0.3 residential equivalents per 1,000 square feet respectively. Water
consumption throughout Federal Way has decreased on average 1 percent per year over the
past few years while growth has increased approximately .6 to .8 percent per year, resulting
in a slight decrease in water use each year.
Table 3-34. Water and Sewer Service Demand Estimates
Type of Use
Estimated Usage Units
(Residential Equivalent)
Equivalent Peak Water
Demand (per day)
Equivalent Sewer
Discharge (per day)
Residential 1 residential equivalent (2.45
persons)
225 gallons per day (gpd) 220
Restaurant 3 per 1,000sf 675 gpd per 1,000sf 660 per 1,000sf
Retail 0.2 per 1,000sf 45 gpd per 1,000sf 44 per 1,000sf
Office 0.3 per 1,000sf 68 gpd per 1,000sf 66 per 1,000sf
Source: Lakehaven Utility District 2003, 2006
Water pressure is not a limitation in the City Center project area. For example, 10,000
gallons per minute of flow is possible at the intersection of 320th and SR 99. This amount of
pressure is ample for a typical urban commercial center. The pressure boundary is located
within the City Center along 320th. The pressure boundary allows large water consumption
in one area (i.e., north of 320th) not to affect water pressure to other areas (i.e., south of
320th).
A portion of the District's water supply and storage program includes ASR (Aquifer Storage
and Recovery). This program includes: direct recharge of reclaimed groundwater, natural
recharge of potable aquifers, discharge of reclaimed water to wetlands, commercial reuse, and
landscape irrigation of reclaimed water. The ASR storage pond is currently undergoing
review and will have a 50 MGD capacity. This storage facility is expected to be fully
functional by 2024.
Lakehaven has identified goals and objectives to: maintain their water systems and water
quality to the highest level of service and at the least level required by applicable regulations,
participate in conservation efforts to maximize existing water supply resources, and develop
new water resources and install new water distribution systems as necessary to serve the
existing and future population within the District.
Sewer
The Lakehaven Utility District also provides sewer service to the City of Federal Way,
including the City Center project area. The sanitary sewer system is comprised of three
major components: the trunk collection system, the pump station system, and the wastewater
treatment plants. The trunk system collects wastewater from drainage basins and conveys it
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-82
City Center Planned Action
to the treatment plant primarily by gravity flow. In areas where use of gravity flow is not
possible, pump stations and force mains are used to pump the sewage to a location where
gravity flow can be used.
The District's Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan was updated in 1999. The sewer
system includes 350 miles of mainline, 27 pump stations and two secondary wastewater
treatment plants. The system is divided into 7 primary basins and 40 smaller sub-basins. The
wastewater generated within the City Center area is within one of the largest basins known as
Lakota. Wastewater from the City Center area flows directly to the Lakota Plant, designed
for an average flow of 10 million gallons per day (MGD). Currently flows are averaging 4.2
MGD and no expansions are expected until 2017 (Lakehaven Utility District, 2006).
Demand for sanitary sewer service is based on future population and employment forecasts.
Population forecasts are presented by drainage basin and are based on the adopted land use
plans of the various jurisdictions within which the District operates. In the case of Federal
Way, forecasts are based on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In the Federal Way area,
approximately 220 gallons per residential equivalent per day of sewer flow are discharged
into the system. As shown in Table 3-35, restaurant use estimates assume 660 gallons per
day of discharge for each 1,000 square feet and office and retail uses assumes a discharge rate
of 66 and 44 gallons per 1,000 square feet per day, respectively. Water saving devices and
customer conservation has resulted in a reduction of treated effluent by approximately 1
percent per year (Lakehaven Utility District, 2003).
The District develops a capital improvement projects (CIP) summary as a part of the annual
District budget process. The CIP lists individual capital projects for the succeeding 10-year
time frame and prioritizes projects according to the system needs. No CIP projects are
planned within the City Center area. Two new pump stations will be added at 1st Ave and
the BPA right-of-way, and 44th and the BPA right-of-way (east of Military Road). Both of
these stations are expected to be up and running by 2005.
Electricity
There are four115 kV (kilovolt) transmission lines owned by Puget Sound Energy (PSE) that
bring electrical power into the City of Federal Way. There is also a double circuit 500 kV
transmission line and a double circuit 230 kV transmission line that crosses through the city
owned by Bonneville Power Administration.
Six distribution substations transform the incoming 115 kV power to 12 kV. The distribution
substation located within the City Center is known as Belmor Substation. It has two
transformers, referred to as Belmor 1 and Belmor 2.
The load on all the substations varies, continuously meeting the demand of the customers.
Main factors affecting load fluctuations are time of day and weather conditions, with
temperature being a major factor. Residential peak loads are highly dependent upon natural
gas usage, size of home, and weather conditions. Commercial loads are highly business
specific, and can range from approximately 1 VA (volt ampere) per square foot for general
warehousing to 15 VA per square foot for refrigerated warehousing.
PSE predicts that the load for the greater Federal Way area will grow by 103.9 MVA between
1990 and 2020. Additional transmission lines and substations will be necessary to increase
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-83
City Center Planned Action
service reliability and/or capacity in the Federal Way area to meet the projected load growth
over the next 30 years. PSE forecasts that these improvements, along with others elsewhere
in the area, will produce a system that will be operating at 72.5 percent of capacity by the
year 2020.
To add additional transmission capacity to serve the projected growth in the area, an
expansion of Christopher Substation (in Auburn) is planned. From Christopher, additional
115 kV lines are planned within existing PSE right-of-way and on franchise right-of-way
west to 51st Ave S and to Marine View Substation. A future transmission line is also planned
along Military Road S, south of South 320th street.
To add additional distribution capacity to serve the projected growth in the area, three new
distribution substations are planned: Steel Lake, Twin Lakes, and Enchanted. Marine View
Substation will be expanded to accommodate the new 115 kV lines (as discussed above) and
a second transformer can also be added to Marine View, Lakota, Kitts Corner, and West
Campus Substations.
Natural Gas
PSE provides natural gas to the City Center area through a network of interconnecting supply
and distribution mains. The closest high-pressure facilities from the City Center area are
located on Military Rd & 32 Avenue S. The current system is capable of supplying
approximately 50,000 customers in the Federal Way area. Based on growth projections from
1997, PSE estimates that there will be approximately 22,500 customers in the Federal Way
area by 2009.
Natural gas is not an essential service and therefore PSE is not mandated to serve all areas.
Extension of service is based on requests and the results of a market analysis to determine if
revenues from an extension will offset the cost of construction. The City Center area has not
been previously studied/analyzed for future development. PSE would rely on land use and
population data from various sources, including the City of Federal Way.
According to PSE's Rate Department, the average house (using natural gas for heating,
cooking and hot water) consumes about 100,000 cubic feet of gas per year.
Commercial/industrial varies widely depending on the specific use and no typical use applies.
Upgrades to the natural gas system are made to maintain reliable gas service to customers.
Reliable natural gas service is dependent on both adequate system capacity and operating
pressures throughout the distribution system. As customers are added to the existing
distribution system and gas consumption increases, gas pressure within the distribution
system decreases. From time to time system improvements must be made to ensure adequate
pressures are maintained. Typical improvements and expansions to the distribution system
include interconnection of portions of the supply and distribution mains to provide gas from
multiple directions, addition of more parallel mains, and replacement of existing mains where
larger sizes (and higher capacity) are needed.
PSE employs a modeling tool that uses existing customer load information to model the gas
system. Using temperature as the variable, PSE can model the gas system under high load
conditions. This modeling system is then compared against actual gauge readings for
establishing accuracy of the model. Using this modeling system as its base, PSE gas planners
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-84
City Center Planned Action
then plan for system upgrades based on a number of inputs, such as proposed population
growth, specific requests for gas service, notification of land use action by jurisdictions,
physical condition of the system, and municipal roadway improvements or new construction.
At this time, no improvements are planned to existing facilities. Long Range plans for the
years 2008-2009 call for installation of a 16" STW High Pressure supply main from Auburn
Valley to the Star Lake area, and the route is still in the planning stage.
Telecommunications
Federal Way area telecommunications service providers include Qwest, which operates both
land-based and cellular telephone systems, AT&T Wireless, AirTouch, GTE, Sprint, Nextel,
VoiceStream, and Metricom which provide wireless telephone and data services, and
Comcast which provides cable TV service.
Telephone System
Qwest delivers telecommunication services to the Federal Way planning area as regulated by
WUTC. A local exchange area is served by a Central Office (CO), which contains various
kinds of switching equipment. From a CO, there are typically four main cable routes
extending relatively north, south, east, and west. From each main cable route there are branch
distribution routes. These facilities may be aerial or buried, copper or fiber. Extending from
the branch distribution routes are local lines that can be used for voice or data transmission by
subscribers.
Qwest is required by law to provide adequate telecommunications services on demand.
Accordingly, Qwest will provide facilities to accommodate whatever growth pattern occurs
within the City Center. According to Qwest representatives, additional capacity is easily
added to the system.
Wireless Networks
The Federal Way area is currently served with wireless service by Qwest, AT&T Wireless,
AirTouch, GTE, Sprint, Nextel, Metricom, and VoiceStream. All of these technologies use a
line-of-sight radio signal transmitted and received by antennas.
The FCC regulates the cellular telephone industry by controlling where carriers can operate
and what frequencies can be utilized in their operation. This ensures that their operation does
not interfere with AM/FM radio and cable television transmissions. If interference does
occur, the cellular tower operator is required by the FCC to eliminate any noise or
interference that impacts local citizens. For example, if a television set or radio experiences
interference from the tower, the operator must either correct the problem or disable the
cellular site. The City has regulations to address the siting of wireless facilities.
Wireless companies expand services in response to growth. For this reason, companies
closely analyze market demand to determine expansions into new service areas.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-85
City Center Planned Action
Cable Television
Comcast Cable (formerly AT&T) serves the City Center project area. Comcast attempts to
provide service to all residents within its franchise areas. Factors considered in extending
service are overall technical integrity, economical feasibility, and franchise requirements.
Cable television installations are made to new subscribers at published rates, provided they
are less than 150 feet from a distribution or feeder line. Connections requiring longer runs
are charged on a time and materials basis.
Comcast works closely with utility companies and local jurisdictions to stay informed on
proposed developments so that cable can be a part of a development’s plans. Each year,
engineers assigned to the Federal Way area assess the need for system expansion based on
telephone inquiries, permitting data from the City and County, and technological advances in
distribution equipment.
Impacts
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Water and Sanitary Sewer Service
Table 3-35 shows the approximate demand and discharge rates for residential, office, and
retail or restaurant use under the proposed action. Alternatives 1 and 2 have the same
development rates, with a total of 226,300 gallons per day in water demands assuming no
restaurants and 383,800 assuming restaurant development. These alternatives would generate
approximately 222,500 gallons per day in sewer discharge with no restaurants and 376,500
gallons per day with restaurant development. Assuming no restaurant development,
Alternative 3 would result in a water demand increase of 77,763 gallons per day and 75,985
gallons per day in sewer discharge. With restaurant development, Alternative 3 would result
in a water demand increase of 123,565 gallons per day and 120,769 in sewer discharge.
Although an estimate for demand associated with lodging or civic uses was not available, it is
not expected to cause the overall demand for service to rise to a level of significance. This is
because the estimated demand is very small relative to available water supply and sanitary
sewer treatment capacity. According to Lakehaven, approximately 10 MGD of additional
water flow is available and an additional 5.8 MGD of discharge can be processed at the
Lakota Plant that serves the project area (Stan French, Lakehaven Utility District, 2006). As
shown in Table 3-35, the highest estimated increase in demand for water service by 2014 is
approximately 383,800 gpd and highest estimate demand for sanitary sewer discharge
treatment is 376,600 gpd.
The Lakehaven Utility District states that it has available capacity to provide domestic water
and sanitary sewer service to the City Center project area under any of the alternatives. No
significant impacts to water or sewer systems are expected to occur as a result of
development of the City Center project area under any of the alternatives. The Lakehaven
Utility District confirmed the availability to supply additional water according to demand,
and the ability to treat additional sewage through 2017.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-86
City Center Planned Action
Ongoing maintenance of conveyance and distribution lines will be necessary. No conflicts
with proposed plans, policies, or regulations are expected. No additional capacity would be
required.
Table 3-35. Water and Sewer Demand Estimates by Alternative
Alternative Residential Office Retail Retail/Restaurant1 TOTAL
Water Demand
Gallons per day (gpd)
Alternatives 1 and 2
Through 2009 101,250 gpd 14,280 gpd 20,250 gpd 114,750 gpd 135,780 –
230,280 gpd
2010 – 2014 67,500 gpd 9,520 gpd 13,500 gpd 76,500 gpd 90,520 –
153,520 gpd
TOTAL 168,750 gpd 23,800 gpd 33,750 gpd 191,250 gpd 226,300 –
383,800 gpd
Alternative 3
Through2009 36,000 gpd 4,261 gpd 5,947 gpd 33,415 gpd 46,208 –
73,676 gpd
2010 – 2014 24,750 gpd 2,841 gpd 3,964 gpd 22,298 gpd 31,555 –
49,889 gpd
TOTAL 60,750 gpd 7,102 gpd 9,911 gpd 55,714 gpd 77,763 –
123,565 gpd
Sanitary Sewer Discharge
Gallons per day (gpd)
Alternatives 1 and 2
Through 2009 99,000 gpd 13,860 gpd 19,800 gpd 112,200 gpd 132,660 –
225,060 gpd
2010 – 2014 67,500 gpd 9,240 gpd 13,200 gpd 74,800 gpd 89,940 –
151,540 gpd
TOTAL 166,500 gpd 23,100 gpd 33,000 gpd 187,000 gpd 222,600 –
376,600 gpd
Alternative 3
Through 2009 35,200 gpd 4,136 gpd 5,815 gpd 32,673 gpd 45,151 –
72,009 gpd
2010 – 2014 24,200 gpd 2,758 gpd 3,876 gpd 21,802 gpd 30,834 –
48,760 gpd
TOTAL 59,400 gpd 6,894 gpd 9,691 gpd 54,475 gpd 75,985 –
120,769 gpd
Source: Lakehaven Utility District, Jones & Stokes, 2006
1. Assumes approximately 1/3 of the total retail development will be restaurant use
Energy
Electricity
During construction phases of the proposal and alternatives, construction activity could result
in disruption of service, the need to relocate service lines, and other construction related
impacts. These impacts will occur over a short time period and are not anticipated to result in
significant impacts to the area.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-87
City Center Planned Action
Over the long term, development of the proposal and alternatives will increase demand for
energy. As noted previously, residential demand varies greatly depending on home size,
weather conditions, use of natural gas and other factors. Future residential demand is likely
to increase significantly as residential development increases from the current 154 units to the
planned 750 units.
Commercial demand for electricity also varies widely. Depending on the actual uses, future
development of commercial and civic uses under the proposal could result in an increased
demand of 1,200,00VA to 18,000,000 VA with full development under the planned action
Natural Gas
Under the action alternatives, future residential development could increase by 750 new units,
which can easily be accommodated by PSE, which has capacity in the existing system to
supply approximately 50, 000 customers in the Federal Way area, compared to the 22,500
customers anticipated by PSE by 2009. The 750 new units could result in demand for
75,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas if all new homes used natural gas for heating, cooking
and hot water. Commercial use varies widely, but could be expected to increase significantly
if all new development under the proposal were to occur.
As noted previously, Puget Sound Energy has planned for growth and reports adequate
capacity to serve this increased demand. Significant impacts are not anticipated.
Telecommunication
Over the long term, the increased residential and employment population will increase the use
of and demand for telecommunication products. Service providers have adequate capacity
and do not anticipate significant impacts in the provision of service.
Mitigation Measures
Water and Sanitary Sewer Service
Ensure that all new development complies with local, state and federal standards for
energy conservation.
Encourage drought-tolerant landscaping (xeriscaping) for new development.
Encourage new commercial, civic and residential development to incorporate appropriate
water conservation measures, such as recycling, into their operations.
Utilities
Plan with service providers to minimize impacts of utility relocations (equipment
procurement times, relocate in advance of construction, etc.)
Inform utility customers of any planned temporary service disruptions.
Coordinate with all utility companies on the design of the new services and hookups for
the proposed action.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-88
City Center Planned Action
Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated.
Draft Planned Action EIS 3-89
City Center Planned Action
Chapter 4
References
4.1 Printed References
Federal Way Fire Department, 2004. 2003 Annual Report.
Federal Way, City of. 1993. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Comprehensive Plan: Cityshape
from Vision to Plan.
———. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement Comprehensive Plan and Development
Regulations.
———. March 18, 2002. Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Inventory.
———. 2006. Comprehensive Plan. http://www.ci.federal-way.wa.us/
———. 2006. Chapter 22 City Code.
http://search.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll/fdwymc?f=templates&fn=fdwypage.htm$vid=municodes:Fede
ralWay
———. 2003. Zoning and Wetland Atlas. http://www.ci.federal-way.wa.us/gis/zoning/zindx.htm.
King County. September 2002. King County Buildable Lands Evaluation Report 2002.
http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/buildland/bldlnd02.htm
King County, 2006. GIS Center Parcel Viewer.
http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/mapportal/PViewer_main.htm
KJS Associates, Inc. (KJS). 1995. Guidebook for Conformity. KJS Associates, Inc.
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). 2003. Air Quality Conformity Analysis: 2003 Air Quality
Amendment to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. August 2003.
Sound Transit. September 2001. NEPA Environmental Assessment for the Federal Way Transit
Center/Parking Structure, and HOV Direct Access Ramp Project.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. User’s guide to CAL3QHC version 2.0: a modeling
methodology for predicting pollutant concentrations near roadway intersections. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Technical Support Division, Research Triangle Park, NC. November. EPA
454/R-92-006.
Draft Planned Action EIS 4-1
City Center Planned Action
4.2 Personal Communications
Ausburn, Mary. Puget Sound Energy. Personal communication with Jamie Burrell of Jones & Stokes,
Oct 1, 2003.
French, Stan. Lakehaven Utility District, General Manager. Personal communication with Evan Nelson
of Jones & Stokes, 2006.
Gaspard, Grant. South King County Fire and Rescue. Personal communication with Evan Nelson of
Jones & Stokes, 2006.
Landon, Michelle, Crime Analyst, Federal Way Department of Public Safety. Personal Communications
with Evan Nelson of Jones & Stokes, 2006
McGourty, Kelly. 2005. Puget Sound Regional Council. MOBILE6.2 CO emission factors e-mailed to
Jim Wilder of Jones & Stokes .
Sanders, Betty. City of Federal Way Parks and Recreation. Personal communication with Evan Nelson
of Jones & Stokes, 2006.
Wilson, Brian, Deputy Chief. Federal Way Police Department. Personal communication with Jamie
Burrell of Jones & Stokes, Oct 7, 2003. Letter transmittal Nov. 4, 2003.
Draft Planned Action EIS 4-2