Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLUTC PKT 09-20-2010City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee September 20, 2010 City Hall 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 3. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 4. OTHER 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, October 4, 2010 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN Committee Members City Staff Dini Duc%s, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Jim Ferrell, Member Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant 11 Jack Dovey, Member 253-835-2701 G.1LU7C1LUTCAgendas and Summaries 201019-20-10 LUTCAgemia.doc Action Council Topic Title/ Description Presenter or Info Date Time A. Approval of Minutes: August 2, 2010 LeMaster Action N/A 5 min. B. 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project — Project Acceptance Huynh Action Oct. 5, 2010 5 min. Consent C. Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for Fiber Optic Perez Action Oct. 5, 2010 10 min. Installation Consent D. Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code Barker Action Oct. 5, 2010 10 min. (FWRQ — Submittal Requirements for Plats and Ordinance Commercial Projects 1st Reading E. Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code Barker Action Oct. 5, 2010 5 min. (FWRQ — Clarifying Complete Application and Ordinance Review Standards and Housekeeping Amendment 1st Reading F. Shoreline Master Program Update — Revisions Shull Action Oct. 5, 2010 15 min. Consent/Reso. G. Residential Off -Street Parking Herrera Action Oct. 5, 2010 15 min. Ordinance 1st Reading H. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Clark Action Oct. 5, 2010 15 min. Ordinance 11t Reading 4. OTHER 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS: The next LUTC meeting will be held Monday, October 4, 2010 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council Chambers. 6. ADJOURN Committee Members City Staff Dini Duc%s, Chair Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Jim Ferrell, Member Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant 11 Jack Dovey, Member 253-835-2701 G.1LU7C1LUTCAgendas and Summaries 201019-20-10 LUTCAgemia.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee August 2, 2010 City Hall 5:30 PM City Council Chambers MEETING SUMMARY Committee Members in Attendance: Committee Chair Dini Duclos, Committee Member Jack Dovey and Committee Member Jim Ferrell. Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Linda Kochmar and Council Member Burbidge Staff Members in Attendance: Director of Parks, Public Works, and Emergency Management Cary Roe, Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez, Senior Traffic Engineer Jesse Hannahs, Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zukowski, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant lI Darlene LeMaster. 1. CALL TO ORDER Committee Chair Duclos called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Forward Topic Title/Description to Council A. Approval of the July 12, 2010, LUTC Minutes N/A Committee approved June 7, 2010, LUTC minutes as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 B. Nautilus NTS '10 — 4th Ave S (S Dash Point Road to S 308th St) 9/7/2010 Consent Senior Traffic Engineer Jesse Hannahs presented information on this item. There was one public comment. Bill Lee, 30661 4rh Ave S —Mr. Lee has been a Federal Way resident for 45 years. 4`h Ave S has been in need of speed humps for many years. Mr. Lee is requesting that the Committee forward this item to Council for approval. Committee Member Dovey asked if installing the speed hump on 4th Ave S will divert traffic down S 308th St, generating another NTS request on S 308th St. Committee Member Dovey suggested analyzing the entire system as residents will naturally travel along roads with no speed humps. Mr. Hannahs responded that the budge dictates how many qualifying and approved requests can be constructed and to what extent. The NTS program is set up to be citizen generated. City Traffic Engineer Perez also added that staff does not want it perceived as though the City is forcing speed humps on residents. Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 August 2, 2010 Mayor Kochmar noted the ballot return rate of 34% and asked how this percentage can be improved. Mr. Hannahs responded that 34% return rate is average for the NTS ballots and suggested using accurate information and publicizing the ballot may make more residents aware of it, thus a higher return percentage. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 C. Lake Dolloff NTS '10 — 33`d PI S/S 334`h St/381h Ave S/S 328`h St (Weyerhaeuser Way S to 9/7/2010 Military Rd. S) Consent Senior Traffic Engineer Jesse Hannahs presented information on this item. There was one public comment. Terry Thomas, 33467 33rd Pl. S — Mr. Thomas is president of the North Lake Improvement Club. Mr. Thomas complimented staff on their customer service and communication with residents throughout the NTS process. Mr. Thomas spoke in favor of speed humps and asked the Committee to forward this request to Council for approval. Committee Member Dovey asked if it made business sense to combine all NTS ballots into one bid schedule, bidding it at the end of the year and to be constructed the following year. City Traffic Engineer Perez explained that the City already has an "On -Call Services" agreement in place and has locked in on a lump sum per speed hump cost. Lump sums were bid with this contract. Council member Burbidge commented on the relative speeds along 33`d Ave S and 38`h Ave S and asked if speed humps are the least expensive solution. Mr. Hannahs responded that yes, speed humps are least expensive at approx. $3,500 per speed hump. Committee Member Dovey requested that staff complete both phases of this NTS together in 2010. Committee forwarded Option #1 as modified to install all proposed traffic calming measures at the presented locations in 2010. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 D. Residential Off -Street Parking Requirements 9/7/2010 1St Reading Associate Planner Matt Herrera presented information on this item. There was no public Ordinance comment. Committee Member Dovey asked for the history of this proposed code amendment. Mr. Herrera explained that the request for this code amendment was initiated by Code Compliance in their attempt to more clearly define "approved impervious surface" as it related to residential parking on the grass. Code Compliance is complaint driven. When a complaint is received, a code compliance officer will investigate the complaint. If out of compliance, the resident is given five days to comply until further action is warranted. Chair Duclos brought forth the example of washing your car on your lawn. Mr. Herrera clarified that this code amendment is dealing with cars that are permanently parked on grass. Parking your vehicle on grass for the purpose of washing the vehicle and then moving the vehicle to an improved impervious surface is acceptable and is not interfering with any City code. Mr. Herrera discussed the split vote amongst the Planning Commissioners and some of the concerns of the Commissioners. Mr. Herrera also wanted to clarify that ASTM standards have been adopted for right of way only. There is currently no standard for private property. QTUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\8-02-10 Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 August 2, 2010 Mayor Kochmar offered to check with Lakehaven Utility District on their aquifers and if increasing parking pads for vehicles will result in less water draining. Mr. Herrera responded that there would not be a substantial impact to drainage. It was also noted that there is no reason to exempt large lots of this requirement at this time. Committee Member Dovey asked what if the pad is hard pan dirt. Mr. Herrera said that staff will be determining what to do about dirt and make a decision. Staff wants to make the definition clear but somewhat open-ended so as new LID materials are developed, they can be an option for this use. Chair Duclos asked at what point we limit the options available. Director Roe stated that given the proposed language, concrete follows the intention of the code. Dirt does not meet the intent. Committee Member Dovey asked for the ordinance to be clear as to what options are acceptable. Council Member Burbidge also noted that with new development, there are already provisions for stormwater runoff in place. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Ferrell Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 E. 2010 Pedestrian Safety Projects — Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid 9/7/2010 Consent Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zukowski presented information on this item. There was one public comment. Jodie Zellerhoff, 32227 46`h Pl SW — Ms. Zellerhoff requests that a pedestrian crosswalk be added to the project list at SW Dash Point Road at 47`h Ave SW/SW 320`h St to help pedestrians go from the parking lot to the trail head above Dash Point State Park. City Traffic Engineer Perez stated that at present the nearest intersection (formal crosswalk) is at SW 325th Way at Hoyt Road. Based on the adopted scoring criteria, this project would score relatively low; it could be added to the master list, but may not be funded any time soon. Ms. Zukowski suggested evaluating this additional location at SW 320th ST at Hoyt to see where this project falls within the master list of pedestrian projects. As well, staff would need to determine the safest location for a crosswalk may be. Committee Member Dovey asked how funds are available for this. Deputy Director Salloum stated that the elements of this project will be bid in schedules, as is the Asphalt Overlay Program. The schedules will be awarded within the available budget. The funds for this project come from capital funds/fuel tax that Council appropriated for pedestrian improvement projects. Council Member Burbidge asked if the project list was prioritized. Ms. Zukowski stated that the projects were taken from a list based on score. Council would make the final decision on projects that have scored the same, if not all schedules can be awarded within the available funds. Committee forwarded Option #1 as modified to include authorizing staff to analyze an additional location at Hoyt Rd SW and SW 320th St vicinity. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 GALUTCTUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\8-02-10 Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 August 2,2010 F. Speed Limit Ordinance — Proposed Changes 9/7/2010 151 Reading Senior Traffic Engineer Maryanne Zukowski presented information on this item. There was no Ordinance public comment. There was brief discussion from the dais regarding sight distance around the parks and how that may influence speed limits. City Traffic Engineer Perez noted that statistically, lowering the speed limit does not necessarily modify a driver's behavior. Committee forwarded Option #1 as presented. Moved: Dovey Seconded: Ferrell Passed: Unanimously, 3-0 4. OTHER Committee Member Dovey asked staff to look at the functionality of bicycle routes within the city. Ms. Zukowski noted that bicycle routes are part of the comprehensive plan amendments and will be addresses at some point in the not too distant future. 5. FUTURE MEETING The next LUTC meeting will be held Tuesday, 9/7/10 at 5:30 PM in City Hall Council Chambers, prior to the City Council meeting. Please also note that the 8/16/10 LUTC meeting has been cancelled and that Monday, 9/6/10 is a holiday. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:55 PM. COMMITTEE APPROVAL: Dini Duclos, Chair GALUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2010\8-02-10 Minutes.doe Attest: Darlene LeMaster, Administrative Assistant II Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project — Final Acceptance POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council accept the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project constructed by Miles Resources, LLC, dba, Woodworth & Company, as complete? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: ® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution MEETING DATE: September 20, 2010 ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Jeff Hu , Street Systems Engineer DEPT: Public Works _....._.............................._...................................................................__................Y�.._................... .... _._........ ..... ........_g. �. ----_-..... ................................................. __. _. _... _ - -- ....---.._..._.__...._.......__. Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated September 20, 2010. Options Considered: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project constructed by Miles Resources, LLC dba, Woodworth & Company, in the amount of $1,461,287.61. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project constructed by Miles Resources, LLC dba, Woodworth & Company, as complete and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 5, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ALA 9/4>0 >0 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 5, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: `I move approval of final acceptance of the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project constructed by Miles Resources, LLC dba, Woodworth & Company, in the amount of $1,461,287.61 as complete. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED 1sT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2010 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager/Police Chief FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Jeff Huynh, Street Systems Engineer SUBJECT: 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project —Project Acceptance BACKGROUND: Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project contract with Miles Resources, LLC dba, Woodworth & Company, is complete. The final construction contract amount is $1,461,287.61. This is $499,265.59 below the $1,960,553.20 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on March 16, 2010. cc: Project File Central File K:\LUTC\2010\9-20-10 Asphalt Overlay project -Project Acceptance.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010ITEM #: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for Fiber Optic Installation (Traffic Busters) POLICY QUESTION: Should Council approve an agreement with WSDOT to construct a fiber-optic cable connection between City Hall and I-5 for sharing of traffic data? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: September 20, 2010 CATEGORY: ® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated September 20, 2010. Options Considered: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. 2. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement as drafted and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1 be forwarded to the October 5, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: _ --M Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommends Option 1 be forwarded to the October 5, 2010 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duclos, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Jack Dovey, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement to construct fiber optic cable for sharing of traffic data with Washington State Department of Transportation and other local agencies. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED IsT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2010 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager/ Police Chief FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, PucWorks, and Emergency Management Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with WSDOT for Fiber Optic Installation (Traffic Busters) BACKGROUND: Washington State Department of Transportation has initiated a project to share traffic condition data between the State and local agencies, called "Traffic Busters". As currently scoped, the project connects with 22 cities and counties in the region, including Federal Way. The scope of the project within Federal Way capitalizes on existing fiber optic cable installed by both the City for traffic signal interconnect and citywide WiFi and King County Metro in support of Transit Signal Priority for the RapidRide Line A Bus Rapid Transit project. The Traffic Busters project would eliminate a gap in our otherwise continuous run of 24 strands of fiber between City Hall and I-5, where it connects to WSDOT's fiber trunk on 1-5 to their Traffic Systems Management Center in Shoreline. The gap is on S 320'h Street between 8th Avenue S and SR 99. WSDOT proposes to complete this gap with 24 strands, of which 2 would be reserved for the purpose of sharing traffic data under the Traffic Busters program. The City would be free to use the remaining 22 strands however we choose. Preliminarily, these would be used for traffic signal interconnect, Safe City, and citywide Wi-Fi. WSDOT proposes to delegate the administration of construction to the City. They have estimated the construction cost at $73,000, and are proposing to compensate the City for actual costs up to $80,000. WSDOT would also provide additional hardware and software in City Hall to provide functionality, and this will be defined under a separate agreement for future consideration by City Council. cc: Project File Day File INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CITY OF FEDERAL WAY (Fiber Installation in City Conduit in City Right of Way) THIS INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made and entered into by and between the WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (WSDOT) and the CITY OF FEDERAL WAY (CITY). RECITALS WHEREAS, WSDOT has deployed the "WSDOT Statewide Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Plan", with the goal of improving transportation safety and mobility and enhance productivity through the use of advanced communication technologies into the transportation infrastructure and vehicles, encompassing a broad range of wireless and wire line communications -based information and electronics technologies, and WHEREAS, WSDOT's Northwest Region is implementing a regional project called the "Traffic Buster' system, herein the "System Network," which will allow approximately twenty local agencies in the central Puget Sound to connect to WSDOT fiber optic network and exchange traffic video, and WHEREAS, the CITY will be a participating agency in the System Network; and WHEREAS, it is of mutual benefit to both PARTIES for the CITY to connect to the System Network, the PARTIES hereby wish to establish the roles of the PARTIES for the installation, operation and maintenance of the System Network, and WHEREAS, it is to the mutual advantage of the CITY and WSDOT to enter into this Agreement, which Agreement is authorized by RCW 39.34.030 and RCW 47.28.140. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, covenants, and performances contained herein it is mutually agreed as follows: 1 PURPOSE. 1.1 It is the purpose of this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions by which the PARTIES shall install, maintain and operate the System Network and interconnect to the System Network located within each PARTIES respective rights of way at each PARTIES sole cost, except as detailed in Section 4 of this Agreement. Page 1 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 1.2 The PARTIES agree to work closely in the operation of the System Network and to notify the other PARTY when problems occur. If either PARTY requires access to the other PARTY's cabinet, vault or facility for maintenance or troubleshooting, accompanied access shall be arranged through the PARTIES per Section 8 Contract Management. 2 TERM 2.1 Initial Term The initial term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years, commencing upon October 1, 2010 regardless of the date of execution. 2.2 Extension This Agreement may be extended for one (1) additional five (5) year term by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. 3 STATEMENT OF WORK 3.1 Installation of Fiber Optic Cables The CITY or its assigned shall: 3.1.1 Provide and install a 24 strand SM fiber-optic cable from the signal controller cabinet at the NE corner of S. 320th St and SR99 to the signal controller cabinet at the SW corner of S. 320th St and 8th Ave S (see Exhibit B). 3.1.2 Provide and install conduit and junction boxes as shown in the provided plans (see Exhibit B). 3.2 WSDOT's Use of Fiber Strands. The CITY hereby authorizes WSDOT and WSDOT hereby agrees to use, in accordance with the terms and conditions herein, 2 strands of the Fiber Cable (Fiber Strands) as described in Section 3.1 for the purpose of improving transportation safety and mobility. 3.3 Maintenance and Repair of Fiber Optic Cables The City will maintain, repair and keep the Fiber Cable in a safe manner and in good order and repair. If maintenance requires access to WSDOT's signal cabinet, the CITY shall notify WSDOT at least five (5) Business Days in advance for any scheduled maintenance. For emergency repairs that require access to WSDOT's signal cabinet, the CITY will inform WSDOT as soon as possible of any emergency work performed, and will provide all relevant information such as, but not limited to, the nature of the emergency, the locations where repairs were performed, and whether continuing work is required. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "Business Days" shall mean Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, except for holidays observed by WSDOT. Maintenance and repair work shall be performed at the cost of the CITY. Page 2 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 3.4 Additional Work Either PARTY may request additional work by submitting a written request detailing the design, deployment and cost of such work, if to WSDOT, the WSDOT Project Manager, and if to the CITY, the City Project Manager. Prior to commencement of any such option work, the scope of work shall be detailed in a written statement of work (SOW) executed by the appropriate WSDOT Signature Authority listed on Exhibit A, and any revisions thereto, and the CITY's Chief Information Office, as listed on Exhibit A, and any revisions thereto. Each SOW shall include the approval date of the agreed upon additional work. 4 CONSIDERATION The consideration for this Agreement is: 4.1 The CITY agrees: 4.1.1 To install and maintain the Fiber Cable in the Right of Way pursuant to Section 3 above, 4.1.2 To provide WSDOT use of two (2) fiber strands at the location as described in Section 3.1, and as may be modified by an approved SOW, as provided in Section 3.4 herein; 4.1.3 To invoice WSDOT, providing supporting documents for the charges billed. Invoices and or payments shall not exceed one per month and shall include at a minimum: a. WSDOT Contract Number K275; b. Statement of Work Number (if applicable); c. Description of service; d. Date service was rendered; e. Amount invoiced including all applicable discounts & taxes; f. Total Amount Due. 4.2 WSDOT agrees: 4.2.1 To provide operational access to the System Network at no cost to the CITY. 4.2.2 To reimburse the CITY for the actual direct salary and direct non salary costs for the work to include but not limited to the installation of fiber optic cables, as described in Section 3.1 above. 4.2.3 To pay in cash to the CITY a lump sum amount not to exceed eighty thousand dollars ($80,000) no later than thirty days upon receipt of a properly submitted single invoice. 4.2.4 The consideration provided by each PARTY herein is deemed to be of equivalent value. 4.2.5 Any additional work, as agreed to pursuant to Section 3.4, shall include compensation equivalent in value to the work, rights, and obligations agreed to therein. Page 3 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 5 OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS The Fiber Cable and appurtenances thereto installed by the CITY in the Right of Way pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed the personal property of and owned by the CITY. 6 OVERHEAD, INDIRECT OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Unless otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, there will be no overhead, indirect or administrative fees assessed for this Agreement by either PARTY. 7 RECORDS 7.1 The PARTIES shall each maintain books, records, documents and other evidence relating to this Agreement that sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended by either PARTY in the performance of this Agreement. These records shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by personnel of both PARTIES, other personnel duly authorized by either PARTY, the Office of State Auditor, and federal officials so authorized by law. All books, records, documents, and other material relevant to this Agreement will be retained for six (6) years after termination of this Agreement. Records involving matters in litigation related to this Agreement shall be kept for either one (1) year following the termination of litigation, including all appeals, or six (6) years from the date of expiration or termination of this Agreement, whichever is later. 7.2 Records and other documents, in any medium, furnished by one PARTY to this Agreement to the other PARTY, will remain the property of the furnishing PARTY, unless otherwise agreed. Each PARTY will utilize reasonable security procedures and protections to assure that records and documents provided by the other PARTY are not erroneously disclosed to third PARTIES. 7.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the PARTIES acknowledge that any documents and records that are prepared or created pursuant to this Agreement may be determined to be public records under the Washington Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW, and as such may be subject to public disclosure. Each PARTY recognizes that certain documents and records may contain proprietary information exempt from disclosure under Public Records Act, may constitute trade secrets as defined in RCW 19.108.010(4) and may include confidential information which is otherwise subject to protection from misappropriation or disclosure. Should any documents or records that are prepared or created pursuant to this Agreement become the subject of a request for public disclosure, the following procedures shall apply: 7.3.1 The PARTY who received the disclosure request (Recipient) shall immediately notify the other PARTY (Owner) of such request and the date by which it anticipates producing the requested records. 7.3.2 The Owner must then assert in writing to the Recipient any claim that such records contain proprietary or confidential information that it believes is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act or is subject to protection pursuant to Chapter 19.108 RCW or other State of Washington law so that Recipient may consider such assertion in responding to the requestor. Page 4 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 7.3.3 If the Owner fails to make such assertion within eight (8) days after the date the Recipient notifies the Owner of its intended response, the Recipient shall have the right to make such disclosure. 7.3.4 If the Owner makes a timely assertion that the requested records contain proprietary or confidential information or trade secrets, the Recipient will allow the Owner an additional ten (10) days for the Owner to seek judicial protection of the records pursuant to RCW 42.56.540. Such an action shall be at the Owner's expense. Should the Recipient elect to participate in any such action its own attorney's fees will be the Recipient's expense. If the Owner does not seek judicial protection of the records within ten (10) days after notifying the Recipient of its belief that the records contain proprietary or confidential information or trade secrets, then Lessee shall release the records to the requestor. 7.3.5 If prior to judicial consideration of a challenge by a requester, the Recipient in its sole discretion believes the Owner does not have a valid claim, it shall so notify the Owner no less than five (5) days prior to the date the Recipient intends to make the disclosure to allow the Owner to take such action as it deems appropriate prior to disclosure. The Recipient will not make such a disclosure while an action to enjoin disclosure is pending under RCW 42.56.540. 7.3.6 If the Recipient denies a request for public records solely for reasons other than the Owner's assertion of proprietary or confidential information contained in records, the Owner has no responsibility for payment of any attorneys' fees or fines that may be imposed on the Recipient, nor for payment of Recipient's attorneys' fees. 7.3.7 In the event either PARTY believes that any documents or records subject to transmittal to or review by the other PARTY under the terms of this Agreement contain proprietary, trade secret or other materials that are exempt or protected from disclosure pursuant to applicable Laws, the owner of the document shall identify and clearly mark such information prior to such transmittal or review. The provisions of this Section 6.3 shall apply even though a PARTY may fail to identify and clearly mark such information prior to transmittal or review. 7.4 The provisions in this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 8 TERMINATION 8.1 Termination for Convenience Either PARTY may terminate this Agreement upon ninety (90) calendar days' prior written notification to the other PARTY. If this Agreement is so terminated, the PARTIES shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination. Page 5 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 8.2 Termination for Default In the event a PARTY does not timely and properly fulfill the performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the other PARTY may issue a written notice to the defaulting PARTY to cure the default within fifteen (15) calendar days of said notice. In the event the default is not cured within that 15 -day period, or such longer period, as may be reasonably determined by the non -defaulting PARTY, if the defaulting PARTY is diligently working to cure the default, this Agreement shall terminate without further action of either party. 9 CONTRACT MANAGEMENT 9.1 Contact Information. All contact information for the management of this agreement shall be identified in Exhibit A. Exhibit A may be updated by either PARTY for their agency only and shall be submitted in writing or electronic mail to the other PARTY by the Contract Administrators. Any update to Exhibit A shall state the effective date of said update. 9.2 Contract Managers The Contract Managers for both WSDOT and City identified in Exhibit A shall be the primary contact for ALL communications and billings for the performance of this Agreement. The Contract Managers shall be responsible for the daily performance and technical oversight of this Agreement on behalf of WSDOT and CITY. 9.3 Project Managers 9.3.1 The WSDOT Project Manager identified in Exhibit A shall be lead for WSDOT on all technical and troubleshooting issues regarding the performance of this Agreement. The WSDOT Project Manager shall be responsible for facilitating with the WSDOT Project Manager any interagency technical communications and/or coordination necessary regarding the business associated with this Agreement. 9.3.2 The CITY Project Manager identified in Exhibit A shall be lead for the CITY on all technical and troubleshooting issues regarding the performance of this Agreement. The CITY Project Manager shall be responsible for facilitating with the WSDOT Project Manager any interagency technical communications and/or coordination necessary regarding the business associated with this Agreement. 10 DISPUTES 10.1 The Project Managers shall work cooperatively to resolve problems or issues arising under this Agreement in a timely manner. 10.2 In the event the Project Managers are unable to resolve a dispute, the following individuals are designated to serve as the representatives of each PARTY (Designated Representatives) and shall confer to resolve disputes that arise under this Agreement as requested by either PARTY. The Designated Representative for WSDOT is Grant Rodeheaver, Director of the Page 6 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract Office of Information Technology. Designated Representative for the CITY is Brenda Cooper, Chief Information Officer. The Designated Representatives shall use their best efforts and exercise good faith to resolve such disputes. 10.3 In the event the Designated Representatives are unable to resolve the dispute, the Assistant Secretary of Administrative Operations for WSDOT, or his/her designee, and the City Attorney for the CITY or her/his designee shall confer and exercise good faith to resolve the dispute. 10.4 In the event the Assistant Secretary of Administrative Operations for WSDOT and the City Attorney for the CITY are unable to resolve the dispute, the PARTIES may, if mutually agreed in writing, submit the matter to non-binding mediation. The PARTIES shall then seek to mutually agree upon the mediation process, who shall serve as the mediator, and the timeframe the PARTIES are willing to discuss the disputed issue(s). 10.5 Each PARTY shall bring to the mediation session, unless excused from doing so by the mediator, a representative from its side with full settlement authority. In addition, each PARTY shall bring counsel and such other persons as needed to contribute to a resolution of the dispute. The mediation process is to be considered settlement negotiations for the purpose of all state and federal rules protecting disclosures made during such conference from later discovery or use in evidence; Provided, that any settlement executed by the PARTIES shall not be considered confidential and may be disclosed. Each PARTY shall pay its own costs for mediation and share equally in the cost of the mediator. The venue for the mediation shall be in Olympia, Washington, unless the PARTIES mutually agree in writing to a different location. 10.6 If the PARTIES cannot mutually agree as to the appropriateness of mediation, the mediation process, who shall serve as mediator, or the mediation is not successful, then either PARTY may institute a legal action in the County of Thurston, State of Washington, unless other venue is mutually agreed to in writing. The PARTIES agree that they shall have no right to seek relief in a court of law until and unless each of the above procedural steps has been exhausted. 10.7 Continuity of Service. 10.7.1 WSDOT and the CITY agree that, the existence of a dispute notwithstanding, they will continue without delay to carry out all their respective responsibilities under this Agreement that are not affected by the dispute. 10.7.2 If the subject of the dispute is the amount due and payable by from one PARTY to the other, the PARTY providing the services shall continue providing services pending resolution of the dispute. 11 GOVERNANCE 11.1 This Agreement is entered into pursuant to and under the authority granted by the laws of the state of Washington and any applicable federal laws. The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed to conform to those laws. Page 7 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 11.2 in the event of an inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its terms and any applicable statute or rule, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the following order: a. Applicable state and federal statutes and rules; b. Statement of work; and c. Any other provisions of the Agreement, including materials incorporated by reference. 12 ASSIGNMENT The work to be provided under this Agreement, and any claim arising thereunder, is not assignable or delegable by either PARTY in whole or in part, without the express prior written consent of the other PARTY, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Provided that nothing herein precludes WSDOT from contracting out the Fiber Cable installation and maintenance work to third PARTIES. 13 WAIVER A failure by either PARTY to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that PARTY from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement unless stated to be such in a writing signed by an authorized representative of the PARTY and attached to the original Agreement. A failure by either PARTY to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that PARTY from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this Agreement unless stated to be such in a writing signed by an authorized representative of the PARTY and attached to the original Agreement. 14 SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of applicable law and the fundamental purpose of this agreement, and to this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable. 15 INDEPENDENT CAPACITY The employees or agents of each PARTY who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement shall continue to be employees or agents of that PARTY and shall not be considered for any purpose to be employees or agents of the other PARTY. 16 AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel authorized to bind each of the PARTIES as set forth in Exhibit A. Page 8 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 17 EXHIBITS 17.1 Exhibit List a. Exhibit A: Contacts b. Exhibit B: Plans 17.2 All exhibits, attachments, and documents referenced in this contract are hereby incorporated into this Agreement. 18 AGREEMENT EXECUTION The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the authority to bind their respective organizations to this Agreement. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 9 of 10 WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract 19 ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. No other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the PARTIES hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have executed this Agreement. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Brian Wilson City Manager/Police Chief Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Patricia A. Richardon Page 10 of 10 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bill Ford, Assistant Secretary Administrative Operations Date WSDOT Contract K275 City of Federal Way Contract COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/05/2010 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 18 and Chapter 19 regarding submittal requirements for plats and commercial projects. POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way approve amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), Chapter 18 and Chapter 19, that establishes submittal requirement checklists and submittal requirement standardization for plats and commercial projects? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) MEETING DATE: 09/20/2010 CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ® Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Deb Barker, Senior Planner DEPT: Community Development Services Attachments: (1) Draft Adoption Ordinance; (2) Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the August 25, 2010,Public Hearing; and (3) Draft Minutes of the August 25, 2010, Planning Commission Public Hearing. Options Considered. • (1) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as shown in the Draft Adoption ordinance; (2) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as modified by the LUTC; (3) Do not adopt the amendments;..o Refer the amendments back to the Planning Commissio or further proceedings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve Option #1; adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation reflected in the Draft Adoption Ordinance. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: PL4,h,rqlqlA DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on October 5, 2010. Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE (10/05/2010): I move to forward the ordinance to a second reading for enactment on the October 19, 2010 consent agenda. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE (10/19/2010): I move approval of the LUTC recommendation to approve the code amendments, which are reflected in the Adoption Ordinance. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED 1ST reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # Council Meeting Date: October 5, 2010 City Council Agenda Bill Attachment #1 Draft Adoption Ordinance: Amendments to FWRC Chapter 18 and Chapter 19 regarding submittal requirements for plats and commercial projects. (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to submittal requirements for plats and commercial projects; amending FWRC 18.30.030, FWRC 18.35.050, and FWRC 19.15.040. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 09-610, 09-594, 07-554, 98-309, 97-291, and 90-41) WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 18 and Title 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), "Zoning and Development Code," in order to conform to state and federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update zoning regulations as deemed necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and the development review process; and WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to the text of Title 18 FWRC and the text of Title 19 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt standards for submittal requirements that allow the application submittal process to be more straightforward within the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, Stakeholder groups indicated that subdivision applications require too much information too early in the process; and WHEREAS, staff found that although requested submittal items are needed in order to review applications, some discretion can be applied to those initial submittal requirements that are listed in the FWRC; and WHEREAS, standardizing submittal requirements and technical handouts for plats and commercial projects makes the submittal process less complicated for the applicant; and WHEREAS, locating necessary submittal requirements into a checklist format allows staff to request only that information that is necessary to review; and WHEREAS, use of a standardized submittal checklist allows increased flexibility as technology evolves; and Ordinance No. 10 - Page I of 9 Rev 1/10 LU WHEREAS, the director may continue to waive any submittal requirements determined to be not reasonably necessary; and WHEREAS, the Proposal is categorically exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(20); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on August 25, 2010, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered these code amendments on September 20, 2010, and recommended adoption of the text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the proposed amendments. (a) These code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and will benefit the City as a whole by clarifying what constitutes a complete application. (b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management. (c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 18 FWRC and Title 19 FWRC and will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. (d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare. (e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC and chapter 19.35 FWRC, and based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the Ordinance No. 10 - Page 2 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposed amendments: (a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: L UP4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. EDPI S The City will continue to implement a streamlined permitting process consistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the upfront costs of locating businesses in the City. EDP18 The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans, policies, and programs. HP9 Maximize efficiency in the City's development review process and ensure that unnecessary time delays and expenses are eliminated. Continue to provide streamlined permitting processes for development that is consistent with the FWCP and FWCC, and that has no adverse impacts. (b) The proposed FWRC amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because it standardizes submittal requirements to clarify what constitutes a complete application in order to increase the efficiency of the development review processes. (c) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way because clarity in the application process results in continued development within the City thus aiding the local economy. Section 3. FWRC 18.30.030 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.30.030 Content and form of application. All short subdivision applications must at the minimum provide the information contained within City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services Bulletin #010. Short Subdivision Submittal Requirements The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes They are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted A code related review will occur after a complete Ordinance No. 10 - Page 3 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU application has been submitted The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. eefnffmai+. .1 1 .,+ a upon --- _ - ` k .1 by the e; o' , Applieatiens shall be made (2) The applieatien shall inelude seven pfints ef the pfopesed sheft subdivision drawn te -50 u py the fellowin a r o iiififfma iew plat.(b) heeatieft by > ethef al ' Name,address, • Name,address, >address, (f) Sea4e of >date, less dma 15 per-eefit and five feet ifAefvals for- slepes ef 15 pefeefA ef gFeatef . site. Stieh features shall > >views,stmds ef> and J a gr-adifig o +1 r-e"ir-ements ef Chapter- i 9. i 20 FMq r Gfading and T-fee " b n v ie,.,,tMien �Clearing, � e Retention..' lan and -elassifieation-ef the ^.YQn r a hv v adjoining O� %%efship fer-adistanee of at lea mi". pefifneter- of the pr-op--",, i easements,fights ef way er- aeeess > f 7bleeks,easefnefAsf 7 '1 shall be shown ift det4ed liftes ift seale with the pfopesed sheft subdivision. (ft) Rxisfing and pr-eposed and drainage tAilities ea, undef, ef ever- the land f f . lot sizes, and difnensiefts ef-pfeposed lets-. f 1 f (r-) Building sethaek lines. i tr lets, ded-ieatiens. wetlands, >steep slepes, efitieal Ordinance No. 10 -J µ Nv va_ Page 4 of 9 Rev 1/10 Lu Section 4. FWRC 18.35.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.35.020 Content and form of application. All preliminM plat applications must at the minimum provide the information contained within City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services Bulletin #037, Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to determined if all required materials have been submitted. A code related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. by a duly ffuthor-ized agent er- agents. The owner er- F—ww" te be ineltided .--t (2) The sufvey of the pr-eposed subdivisiea and preparation of the plat shall be made by, e (i) Weposed fiame of the plat-. (ii) LeeeAiea by >township,range, (iii) Name, ss phone dd nd number- of developer, and phone number- of eaeb pr-epefty evmer-. > address, Name, plat,(vi) Seale of fer- slopes less than 15 per-eent md five f6et ifAefvals fer- slopes of 15 pefeeat er- gr-eatef (viii) Aeetifate delineation of s4eep slopes 40 per-eeftt-�� m > > i ♦ d btifkr-sff et the p ed «eniGL.-., �J lif.elet y . 11 L ] Ordinance No. 10 - Page 5 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU MOM Section 4. FWRC 18.35.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.35.020 Content and form of application. All preliminM plat applications must at the minimum provide the information contained within City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services Bulletin #037, Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to determined if all required materials have been submitted. A code related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. by a duly ffuthor-ized agent er- agents. The owner er- F—ww" te be ineltided .--t (2) The sufvey of the pr-eposed subdivisiea and preparation of the plat shall be made by, e (i) Weposed fiame of the plat-. (ii) LeeeAiea by >township,range, (iii) Name, ss phone dd nd number- of developer, and phone number- of eaeb pr-epefty evmer-. > address, Name, plat,(vi) Seale of fer- slopes less than 15 per-eent md five f6et ifAefvals fer- slopes of 15 pefeeat er- gr-eatef (viii) Aeetifate delineation of s4eep slopes 40 per-eeftt-�� m > > i ♦ d btifkr-sff et the p ed «eniGL.-., �J lif.elet y . 11 L ] Ordinance No. 10 - Page 5 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU eE) pafty. Ordinance No. 10 - Page 6 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU -YAWWW Mm low UNION _ I - men Ir I� eE) pafty. Ordinance No. 10 - Page 6 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU develepmeat (4) t lpen 1, •,+ 1 f the pr-elimiftafy plat ^ rr +;„lieee„ the applieant shall.- tender- „eyffleR4 of Section 5. FWRC 19.15.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.15.040 Development application submittal requirements. All use process I II III and N applications pfejeete + >, +1 �le+^ .1;e^+:^.,1,^^ �. „1_...:++e,l must at the minimum provide the UVl information contained within City of Federal Wgy Department of Community Development Services Bulletin #053 Development Requirements for Process I, Bulletin #054, Development Requirements for Process II or Bulletin #001 Development Requirements Handout for Process III or IV depending on the particular Use Process being applied for. The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted. A code -related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted. The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. (!) Mastef land use appheafien. i Appheatieft fees as set etA in the r J u ifiteltt-fit 1� 115 FVA pian,within the lafger- afea. (6) Gufr-eR4 letters ef water- and sewef availability (eftly fequifed for- vaeant pr-epeft�,). (8) Eight eefoplete and betmd sets ef drawings. Minimum dr -awing set shall ineWde a tepegr-aphie sunxey, site 04 , and building elevatiens. All submitted plans sheold be felded to eight and efte half by 11 iftehes-. T, R __ _ i�uu+' plan sheetsize shall 1. '1 A by 3 t1, ea F ' ' 1 M�. st i fvr J plans is available at the depaftmefA. (a) All plans must be drawn a4 an eagineefing seale with the efftife site plan te fit en ene she4 allew all ififefffleAien te be readable. All plafts exeept building elevatieft drawings must be M safne e. i sea1 r efte „eh « r+s 20 f e . > the site sufvey, site plan, pr -e1 dr-ainage,gr-ading, fight of: way plans , and building elevatieft plafts shall be pr-epafed The sufyey shall be pfepafed by -a d land �l +1 .1 • eeffiF fight of -way plans, .1 building > > '+ plan, eaa � '' i seuth, and west) must be fefer-eneed en the site plaft, Ordinance No. 10 - Page 7 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU Section 6. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 7. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 8. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. Ordinance No. 10 - Page 8 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU Wr .. ri r.9 ..V, rrpvrm WA._. 'WIT a MENIMMM96TITA'SlarMWA MI •0a Section 6. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 7. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 8. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 9. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. Ordinance No. 10 - Page 8 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. 10 - Page 9 of 9 Rev 1/10 LU City Council Agenda Bill Attachment #2: Staff Report to the Planning Commission: Amendments to FWRC Chapter 18 Subdivisions, and Chapter 19 regarding submittal requirements for plats and commercial projects. (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) a4ik Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Meeting of August 25, 2010 Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18 — Subdivisions, Chapter 19.15.040 — Development Application Submittal Requirements, Chapter 19.15.045 — Completeness of Applications, and Chapter 19.15.030 — Review Processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Federal Way File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP Report prepared by Senior Planner Deb Barker I. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT As part of the 2010 Planning Commission Work Program, City staff proposes amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) to address issues identified by the City Council and the City's Stakeholder Group. At this time, staff is proposing to clarify which projects are subject to completeness standards, and is further proposing that the submittal requirements for plats and commercial projects be standardized, to the extent possible, in order to assist developers in the application process, to ensure consistency in project completeness, and to provide data necessary for the annual Buildable Lands Reports required by King County. One housekeeping amendment is also proposed. 11. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way Stakeholder Group has conducted annual meetings to review City codes and procedures since 2006. One concern was that plat applications are too detailed and require too much information too early in the process. Staff has reviewed the requirements for various projects and found that for the most part, submittal items currently requested are needed in order to review plat applications, but some discretion can be applied to initial submittal requirements that are currently listed in the FWRC. Staff also identified the need to clarify language regarding completeness standards for Process I,11, III, and IV land use review processes. A housekeeping amendment is also proposed. M. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS To effectively communicate the submittal requirements and clarify the objectives for review, staff proposes to relocate submittal requirements from the FWRC into standardized submittal requirement checklists and/or technical handouts (see attached exhibits). Standardizing submittal requirements checklists and technical handouts will make the submittal process more straight forward for the applicant when preparing an application, and will support their ability to submit a complete application. In this time of changing technology, some typical requirements become outdated. A checklist allows customization and provides flexibility as technology evolves. In addition to the standardized submittal requirements, this code amendment clarifies that Use Process 1, li, III, and IV are subject to completeness review. The following is a summary of the proposed amendments: (a) Short Subdivisions —Chapter 18.30.030 Content and form of application FWRC 18.30.030 lists the standards for the application for a short plat. This language is also used for applications for binding site plans. FWRC 18.30.030(2) lists thirty separate items that must be depicted on a submitted short plat drawing or submitted with the formal application. The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate this section and replace it with language that refers to the checklist that is maintained by City staff. See Exhibit A — FWRC 18.30 030 Content and form of application and Exhibit B — Bulletin #101, Short Subdivision. (b) Preliminary Plat — Chapter 18.35.020 Content and form of application FWRC 18.35.020 lists the standards for a preliminary plat application. FWRC 18.35.020(2) lists over thirty separate items that must be depicted on submitted drawings or included with the formal application. The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate this section and replace it with language that refers to the checklist that is maintained by staff. See Exhibit C — FWRC 18.35.020 Content and form of application and Exhibit D - Bulletin #037, Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements. (c) Permits and Review Processes — Chapter 19.15.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements FWRC 19.15.040 lists the standards for a commercial project application which require a determination of completeness. FWRC 19.15.040 lists over thirty separate items that must be depicted on submitted drawings or provided with the application, but does not clarify which applications are subject to completeness review. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that Process I, II, III and IV projects are subject to completeness review. The amendment also eliminates the list of submittal requirements and replaces it with language that refers to checklists that are maintained by City staff. See Exhibit E — FWRC 19.15.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements, Exhibit F — Bulletin 9053, Development Requirements for Process I, Exhibit G — Bulletin 9054, Development Requirements for Process If, and Exhibit H— Bulletin 001, Development Requirements for Process III or IV. (d) Permits and Review Processes — Chapter 19.15.045 Completeness of Applications FWRC 19.15.045 identifies the timing and steps that the city must take when an application is determined to be complete. Although state regulations. dictate notice of complete application for specific procedural actions, the current code does not distinguish how different land use processes are treated with respect to completeness. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that Process I, II, III, and IV land use processes are subject to completeness standards. In addition, this amendment is intended to clarify completeness review procedures. Use Process I and Process II receive expedited completeness review at the time of application intake and the Planning Commission Staff Report K:\2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\STAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amendmentdoc Page 2 applicant is provided with a "notice of completeness" at intake. However, Process III and IV applications receive completeness review during Development Review Committee (DRC) deliberations that are scheduled within 28 days of receipt of the application. The applicant is mailed a letter of completeness following DRC review. See Exhibit I— FWRC 19.15.045 Completeness of Applications. (e) Permits and Review Processes — Chapter FWRC 19.15.030(1)(1) Review Processes for improvements and additions to developed sites A housekeeping amendment is being proposed to replace the term "sensitive" areas with the term "critical" areas and eliminate references to the term "significant tree." The term "sensitive" area was changed to "critical" area in a 2004 code amendment. The term "sensitive" area currently found in FWRC 19.15.030(lxf) was not changed as part of that 2004 code amendment; this amendment corrects that oversight. Also, the term "significant tree" was eliminated as a result of the 2009 code amendment for "Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention. " The proposed change eliminates this term from FWRC 19.15.030(1)(f) as it is no longer used in the FWRC. See Exhibit J— FWRC 19.15.030 Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The Project is procedurally exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review under WAC 197-11-800(19) (Procedural Actions). Public Notice of the August 4, 2010, public hearing was published and posted on July 17, 2010, in accordance with the City's procedural requirements. There were no public comments. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130. The City may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWRC zoning text amendments are consistent with the following goals and policies contained in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP): LUG2 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public/private partnership. LVP4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. EDP15 The City will continue to implement a streamlined permitting process consistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the upfront costs of locating businesses in the City. EDP18 The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans, policies, and programs. HP9 Maximize efficiency in the City's development review process and ensure that unnecessary time delays and expenses are eliminated. Continue to provide streamlined permitting processes for development that is consistent with the FWCP and FWCC, and that has no adverse impacts. Placming Commission StaffReport KA2009 Code Amendments\.Subnittal requiranentslStaff report\Current staff report with exluibttslSTAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amends-Ldoc Page 3 W° HP10 Encourage community input, where appropriate, into the development permit process by providing thorough and timely information to the public. HP11 Continue to assist developers with housing proposals at the earliest possible opportunity, including preapplication meetings, to produce projects that can be reviewed quickly and maximize their ability to receive permits. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWRC text amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare because it standardizes development regulations to provide clarity about what constitutes a complete application; defines completeness eligibility; and refines various related codes in order to increase the efficiency of the development review process. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. Approval of the proposed code amendment would benefit the City as a whole as it provides clarity about what constitutes a complete application, which results in continued development within the City, thus aiding the local economy and the housing market. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND ACTION Pursuant to FWRC 19.80.050(b), the City Council may review City -initiated changes to the text of the zoning code from time to time at the Council's discretion. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed changes to the zoning code and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Chapter 19.80 FWRC, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is to review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments; to determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130; and to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the above staffanalysis and decisional criteria, staff recommends that the followin g amendments to FWRC Title 18 Subdivisions, and to Chapter 19.15 FWRC Permits and Review Processes as outlined in Section III above be recommended for approval to the City Council. 1. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit A, to FWRC 18.30.030, Content and form of application. 2. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit C, to FWRC 18.35.020, Content and form of application. Planning Commission Staff Report KL009 Code AmendmentASubmittal requtrements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\STAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amendmentdoc Page 4 3. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit E, to FWRC 19.15.040, Development Application Submittal Requirements. 4. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit I, to FWRC 19.15.045, Completeness of Applications. 5. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit J, to FWRC 19.15.030, Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. EXHIBITS Exhibit A, FWRC 18.30.030 Content and form of application (Short subdivision) Exhibit B, Revised Short Subdivision Handout Exhibit C, FWRC 18.35.020 Content and form of application (Preliminary plat) Exhibit D, Revised Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements Handout Exhibit E, FWRC 19.15.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements Exhibit F, Checklist for Development Requirements for Process I, Director's Approval Exhibit G, Revised Checklist for Development Requirements for Process 11, Site Plan Review Exhibit H, Revised Checklist for Development Requirements, Process III (Project Approval) or Process IV (Hearing Examiner Approval) Exhibit I, FWRC 19.15.045 Completeness of applications Exhibit J, FWRC 19.15.030 Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites Planning Commission Staff Report K \2009 Code Ameodments\SubmitW requiremeats\Staff report\Current staff report with exhbits\,STAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amendmentdoc Page 5 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18.30, "Short Subdivisions" 18.30.030 "Content and form of application" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) This page has been intentionally left blank. Exhibit A 18.30.030 Content and form of application. All short subdivision applications must at the minimum provide the information contained within Bulletin #010, Short Subdivision Submittal Requirements. The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted. A code related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted. The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. t-he-app}iGation. dFawn to a scale of ene ine•h renree.ente• C.(1 feet OF !aFger and should_he r ar.GGFnpaRied by the following infeFmatien- (a) Drenesed Raine of the plat (b) LeGafieA by f township, I and/eF by etheF legal desewi1"'ew. - /e.\ Name address and nhene number of deyelnner a 1 Name, address, Name, address, (0 Seale of and neFth point. l date, intepials fOF slopes less than 15 pement and five feet inteFva'S fGF (h) AeeuFate delineation of steep slopes 40 pement OF gr-eateF. (i) Leration and e)dent of signifiGant natuFal features on and immediately adjaGeRt to the site. SuGh featwes shall but are not limited f f I stands of and wateF bedies to the extent that SigAifiGaRt w�1e1�t I views, I sub E;ensistent with the FequiFeFnents of GhapteF 19.420 1 1 Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Retention (k) Gemprehensive plan and zoning Glassifir,,afien of the pFoposed shaFt. subdiV;S;GR and adjoining pr-opefties, pFepwties, netin Gammon owner -ship fGF a distance ef at least 400 feet aFeUR f widths, and names of exisfing eF PFiGF platted f easements, easements, (bb) if appliGable undeF PNRG 14.30.040 et �+ ., (GG) fee establish sr the Thq�nr�li_n„a}i^�nllull not'be-Lac'�ed unless it ics aGee�i panied by the rens �esied flee " "'t'!'�^"" (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.150.10 —16.150.30), 2-27- 90. Code 2001 § 20-83.) KA2009 Code Amendmems\SubmitW requireme u\Staff report\Current staff report with vdtibiu\Exhibas A, B, C, D\Extubit A 18.30 short plat.doc Page 2 =01 Mv r (bb) if appliGable undeF PNRG 14.30.040 et �+ ., (GG) fee establish sr the Thq�nr�li_n„a}i^�nllull not'be-Lac'�ed unless it ics aGee�i panied by the rens �esied flee " "'t'!'�^"" (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.150.10 —16.150.30), 2-27- 90. Code 2001 § 20-83.) KA2009 Code Amendmems\SubmitW requireme u\Staff report\Current staff report with vdtibiu\Exhibas A, B, C, D\Extubit A 18.30 short plat.doc Page 2 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 18.30, "Short Subdivisions" Bulletin 010 - Short Subdivision (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) 1� CITY Federala, Way DEPARTMENT OF CommuNrrY DEVELOPMEVT SERVICES 333258 h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ci!)roffederalWay.com SHORT SUBDIVISION PURPOSE A short subdivision (i.e., short plat) is the division or re -division of land into nine or fewer lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership. A short subdivision may be a conventional or cluster subdivision, cottage housing, zero -lot line townhouse development, or small lot detached development of nine or fewer lots, as well as a binding site plan. A short subdivision must be approved and recorded before newly created lots may be legally sold. HOW TO APPLY The applicant (owner or owner's appointed agent) files a complete application with the Department of Community Development Services using the Master Land Use Application form available at the department (and on our website, www.cityoffederalway.com). The applicant also provides any information or material as specified in the provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) describing the decision applied for and any additional information or material that the'director determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. Please refer to the following "Submittal Requirements" section to determine the materials that must be submitted to complete your application for a short subdivision. ?REAPPLICATION CONFERENCE Applicants are encouraged to schedule a preapplication conference to become familiar with FWRC requirements, policies, and regulations. It is also an opportunity to coordinate with City departments and obtain their comments on the proposed subdivision. Refer to the City's preapplication conference handout for information on preapplication conferences. WHO MAKES THE DECISION The director will make the decision on the short subdivision. The application is processed under the provisions of Chapter 18.30 FWRC, "Short Subdivision Plats." Your application will be evaluated on the basis of the information you provide, the criteria listed in the pertinent sections of the City's regulations, and inspection of the property. Short subdivisions shall be designed to the standards of FWRC 18.55.010 through 080, and 18.60.030 through 120. Upon determining that the short subdivision application is complete, the director (or his/her designee) shall distribute a notice of complete application. COMPLIANCE WITH SEPA Short subdivisions are usually exempt from the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). However, a SEPA checklist and corresponding fee will be required if any of the following is associated with the short subdivision: 1) the site is subject to critical area review; 2) the short subdivision requires stormwater, sewer, or water lines larger than eight inches in diameter, 3) the short subdivision occurs on K\2009 Code Amatdmatts\s,&.tw regwcnter"\& ff repm\Cun=a staff report with edubtts\Exhibas A B, C, D1Exhbk 6 - Bulletin 010 Shat S,"d isi doc Page 1 land covered by water; or 4) the short subdivision is a further subdivision of a previously exempted short subdivision. The director will determine the scope of the environmental review required by the application in order to comply with SEPA. For a detailed explanation of the City's environmental policy, refer to FWRC Title 14. CRITICAL AREAS Projects that involve work within critical areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and lakes) may require that the City contract out for expert technical assistance. Pursuant to FWRC 19.150.030, the applicant is responsible for providing any information, mapping, studies, and materials, and for paying for inspections or review by a qualified professional acceptable to the City. You will be advised at an early point in the process if your project will be subject to these types of expenses. SHORELINES Short subdivision that are within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound, Steel Lake, North Lake, or Lake Kilarney require review under the city's Shoreline Master Program Applicants should speak with department staff for further information regarding shoreline regulations prior to submitting a formal application- TRAFFIC- RELATED pplication. TRAFFIC-RELATED REQUIREMENTS All short subdivisions are subject to transportation concurrency and Traffic Impact Fee requirements. Refer to Concurrency Application Information and Traffic Impact Fee handouts for additional information. APPEALS Any decision issued by the director can be appealed. The City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner decides appeals of short subdivision decisions after a public hearing. See FWRC 18.30.140, et seq. for detailed information regarding appeals of short subdivision decisions. RECORDING The City records all approved short subdivisions with the King County Division of Records and Elections. A copy of the documents (referred to as a short plat), stamped with the recording number, is then distributed to the applicant, file, and King County Department of Assessments. All fees for such recording must be paid by the applicant before recording. Bulletin #010 —June 7, 2010 Page 2 of 5 k\Handouts\Short Subdivision SHORT SUBDIVISION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A complete application is required before the City can proceed with technical analysis and make an informed decision on your application. Following is a list of materials that must be submitted with your application. Please do not turn in your application until all items on the list that apply to your proposal have been included. Consult with the Department of Community Development Services if you have a question_ All application materials become public information. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Required Submitted Bulletin #010 —June 7, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:\i-landouts\Short Subdivision A. Completed Master Land Use Application form including signature of persons with = Q ._ ownership interest in the property_ Agent authorization is required if application is not signed by owners of all subject parcels. B. All application fees . _ z = : C. Two copies of a computation sheet (with surveyor's seal) that provides the square footage of all streets, individual lots and tracts, and total area contained within the subject parcels, y .r Yr maA. i.e. lot closure calculations. D. Two copies of a title report for the subject property, S� Pre aced within 90 days, including any easements or restrictions affecting the properties with a description, purpose, and x s . reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number, parties of interest; and any z� , << restrictions or covenants running with the property. E. A copy of the current county quarter section map for the area. (These maps can be found at "F metrokc. ov. Wf F v'RI F. Vicinity map on separate 8%i x 11 sheet G. Two copies of certificate of water availability, signed within a year of the date of application(only required for vacant property). H. One copy of certificate of sewer availability, signed within a year of the date of -'" application, unless the site is to be served by an on-site septic system. One copy of the Seattle -King County Health Department approval of the proposed subdivision is required, if the project is to be served by on-site septic sstem. I. Site photographs from each compass point (north, east, south, & west) referenced on the site plan J. Two copies of preliminary engineering drawing showing the location and size of all ditches, culverts, catchbasins, and other parts of the design for the control of surface water drainage. This is a separate sheet from the short plat map.) ' K. Two copies of a preliminary clearing and grading and tree/vegetation retention plans_ 1 Q consistent with Chapter 19.120.040 FWRC, Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention. #; L. Two copies of a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), if required per the 2009 j� King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). M. Additional information as required by the Community Development Services and/or Public Works Departments. N. Seven full size prints of the proposed short plat as specified below as well as one copy of t/2 by l 1 inch paper_ One set of reproducible mylar drawings will be required after the short plat is approved, prior to signinga and recording. Bulletin #010 —June 7, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:\i-landouts\Short Subdivision SEVEN COPIES OF FULL SIZE PLANS (ASSEMBLED IN SETS AND FOLDED TO 9" X 127j The drawing shall be 18" x 24"in size, drawn to a scale of 1"=50' or larger on the City's standard short plat title block form, and must comply with the provisions of RCW 58.09 and WAC 332-130. The drawing shall include, but is not limited to, the following information: 1. Proposed name of the short subdivision. (You may wish to check with the City to make sure the name of the short plat has not been taken yet.) 2. Location by section, township, range, and/or other legal description. 3. Name, address, and phone number of developer. 4. Name, address, and phone number of each property owner. 5. Name, address, and phone number of registered land surveyor. 6. Scale of drawing, north arrow, and date (subsequent resubmittals must have a revision date). 7. Existing topography of the land indicated by contours of two foot intervals for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot intervals for slopes of 15 percent or greater. Vertical Datum (NVGD-29 or KCAS). 8. Location and extent of significant natural features on and immediately adjacent to the site. Such features shall include but are not limited to streams, wetlands, views, stands of trees, and water bodies to the extent that significant natural features and/or their associated buffers affect the short subdivision. 9. Comprehensive plan and zoning classification of the proposed short subdivision site and adjoining properties. 10. Adjacent ownerships and the land or lot divisions of adjoining properties not in common ownership for a distance of at least 100 feet around the perimeter of the property proposed for subdivision. A separate list of names may be used for clarification purposes. It. Location, widths, and names of existing or prior streets, railroad, or utility rights-of-way or easements, access easements, parks and other public spaces, and existing permanent structures to be retained within and adjacent to the proposed short subdivision. Where the property has been previously subdivided, the original lots, blocks, streets, easements, etc., shall be shown by dotted lines. Show distance between existing structures to be retained and property lines. - (Show pavement widths, planter strips, sidewalks, utility poles, etc.) 12. Existing and conceptually proposed water, sewer, and drainage facilities on, under, or over the land showing size, grades, and locations. 13. Location and widths, and names of proposed streets, utility right-of-ways, and easements. 14. Layout, number, lot sizes, and dimensions of proposed lots. Include the square footage of each lot. 15. Parcels of land intended to be dedicated for public use, or reserved for use of owners of the property in the short subdivision. 16. A statement explaining how open space shall be provided. For a conventional short subdivision, open space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site is required to be provided. If the City determines that the location, quality, or extent of the required open space would not fulfill the intent or purpose of useful common open space, a payment of an equivalent fee -in -lieu of the required project open space shall be paid pursuant to FWRC 18.55.060(2).' 17. Total acreage of the site platted, prior to creation of any lots, tracts, or other dedications. 18. Acreage precluded from development due to the presence of critical areas, including: wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and other features (along with buffers), broken out by category, covered by critical areas regulations. 19. Acreage dedicated for public rights-of-way (for both newly created streets and expansions of existing streets), as well as private tracts, alleys, and ingress/ egress and utilities easement created for the purpose of providing access to lots within subdivisions. 20. Location and acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities, broken out by category. 21. Calculation of net plat area, which is gross plat area minus critical areas, rights-of-way, private open space, and public purpose lands.' 22. Building setback lines. 23. Typical roadway sections including streetlights and street trees (existing and proposed). 24. Vicinity map with labeled streets and north arrow. 25. Basis of bearing, statement of equipment and procedures used, indication of perimeter boundary, lot, and right-of-way lines with a notation of bearings or azimuth from the north, distances, and curve data, as well as the location and description of all monuments, both found and set. t Opal space requirements for cottage housing, zero -lot line town house development, and small lot detached development can be found in FWRC tg.55.060_ z Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/ drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #010 August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 5 tc\HandoutslShort Subdivision 26. Statement of equipment and procedures used. 27. Existina addresses, if applicable. 28. Indication of perimeter boundary, lot, and right- of-way tines with a notation of bearings or azimuth from the north, distances, and curve data. 29. Location and description of all monuments, both found and set. 30. The City's file number will be assigned upon application. Include the file number on subsequent resubmittals_ Bulletin #0 i0 —August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 5 k.�Handouts\.Short Subdivision EXHIBIT C PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18.35, "Preliminary Plat" 18.35.020 "Content and form of application" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit C 18.35.020 Content and form of application. All preliminary plat applications must at the minimum provide the information contained within Bulletin #037 Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes They are used only to determined if all required materials have been submitted. A code related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted. The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. (1) An appliesation fOF ---F---1 plat shall. I-,-- Fnade4e4he by a duly authedzed-age.-AL --.r (3):Fhe applirafien shall be aGGGMpaRied by the (i) PFOPesed name of the plat. desc-riptieR: . point.(vi) Seale of plat, date, and neFth (vi-) Fixisting tGPGgFaphy of the land inddii--ated by Gentews of two intewals f8F slopes less than 15 pement and five feel.- ;.Rtewals f()F Skq�� gement OF gFeateF immediately adjaeoent to the site. Sueh features shall inelude but aFe net4h*ted4G pr-efiminafy plat , K\2009 Code Xmendments\Submittal requirements\Staff reportlCurrent staffreport with mWbits\Exhibits A. 8, C, D\Exhibit C - 1635.020 Preliminary Pla submittal ceq.doc fUr-r-TO- - - -- - - Tvr - _ - - -z r -T=' - -T., rr_cv 7-r. m" IC _ - _ - -- MUM— IDA _Me- .. 19M`. - " - K\2009 Code Xmendments\Submittal requirements\Staff reportlCurrent staffreport with mWbits\Exhibits A. 8, C, D\Exhibit C - 1635.020 Preliminary Pla submittal ceq.doc Fnap. (f) if appliGable, a phasing plan, showing divisions of th- Pl RNRG 4 4.0 5. 010 et seq- (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 98-309, § 3,1-6-98; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.50), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 20-111.) r,A—IW9 Code Amendmems\SubmitW rcquirem ts\Staff repomCurreot stafirepwt with wdubits\Exhibits A. a. C. D\Exhibit C - 18.35.020 Preliminary Pla subrnaW rcq.dm EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18.35, "Preliminary Plat": Bulletin #037 - Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) This page has been intentionally left blank. CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OFCOMMUNMY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 333258 th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www cityoffederalway-com Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements PURPOSE A preliminary plat application allows the division or re -division of land into ten or more lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership. A preliminary plat may be a conventional or cluster subdivision, cottage housing, zero -lot line townhouse development, or small lot detached development of ten or more lots. A final plat must be approved and recorded before newly created tots may be legally sold. (Refer to Final Plats Submittal Requirements handout for information on final plats.) HOW TO APPLY The applicant (owner or owner's appointed agent) files a complete application with the Department of Community Development Services using the Master Land Use Application form available at the department (and on our website, www.cityoffederalway.com). The applicant also provides any information or material as specified in the provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) describing the decision applied for and any additional information or material that the director determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. Please refer to the following "Submittal Requirements" section to determine the materials that must be submitted to be considered a complete preliminary plat application. PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE Applicants are required to schedule a preapplication conference to become familiar with FWRC requirements, policies, and regulations. It is also an opportunity to coordinate with City departments and obtain their comments on the proposed subdivision. Refer to the City's preapplication conference handout for information on preapplication conferences. WHO MAKES THE DECISION The City Council makes the decision on the preliminary plat based on a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner, who holds the public hearing. The preliminary plat application is processed under the provisions of Chapter 18.35 FWRC, "Preliminary Plat." Your application will be evaluated on the basis of the information you provide, the criteria listed in the pertinent sections of the City's regulations, and inspection of the property. Preliminary plats shall be designed to the standards of FWRC 18.55.010 to 080, and 18.60.030 to 120. COMPLIANCE WITH SEPA Preliminary plats are subject to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). For a detailed explanation of the City's environmental policy, refer to FWRC Title 14. CRITICAL AREAS Projects that involve work within critical areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and takes) may require that the City contract out for expert technical assistance. Pursuant to FWRC 19.150.030, the applicant is responsible for providing any information, mapping, studies, and materials, and for paying for inspections or review by a qualified professional acceptable to the City. You will be advised at the earliest possible point if your project will be subject to these types of expenses. SHORELINES Subdivision that are within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound, Steel Lake, North Lake, or Lake Kilarney require review under the city's Shoreline Master Program. Applicants should speak with department staff for further information regarding shoreline regulations prior to submitting a formal application. r.A2M Code AmwWmmd\Sub=tW requw mews Suff rePWWA rt stiff report with Wdubit3Ex1&m A B, C. D\ExluU D - Bulletin 037 Prdiminiq Watdoc TRAFFIC RELATED REQUIREMENTS All preliminary plats are subject to transportation concurrency and Traffic Impact Fee requirements. Refer to the concurrency information and Traffic Impact Fee handouts for additional information. APPEALS Any decision on a preliminary plat can be appealed to King County Superior Court. See FWRC 18.35.210, for detailed information regarding appeals of preliminary plat decisions. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A complete application is required before the City can proceed with technical analysis and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on your application. All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. Please note that a complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. Please do not turn in your application until all items on the list that apply to your proposal have been included. Consult with the Department of Community Development Services if you have a question. All application materials become public information. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST � c.a Mcquucu ouv........., form including signature of persons with t !,� A. Completed Master Land Use Application is required if application is not (] ❑ ownership interest in the property. Agent authorization signed by owners of all subject parcels. ❑T; �[ B. All application fees including preliminary plat and SEPA fees. r ` C. Two copies of a current title report or plat certificate, prepared within the last 90 days, .° (including any easements or restrictions affecting the properties with a description, '�' ` and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; parties of r purpose, interest; and an restrictions or covenants runningwith the roe ) D. A copy of the current King County Assessor's quarter section map for the area identifying © AJ properties within 300 feet of the proposed subdivision. (These maps can be found at metrokc. ov.) E. One 1 I x 17 reduced copy of the preliminary plat map. ❑ TT F. Notice of availability from the purveyor(s) of sewer and water signed within a year of the ❑ date of preliminary plata lication. G. Copy of the preapplication summary letter. �k °^ H. Four copies of the project's Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The TIR must include a Level I ❑downstream analysis and must address relevance of the 8 Core and 5 Special Requirements `. of the KCS WDM. study, wetland delineation, wetland r: I. Four copies of critical areas studies, (i.e., geotechnical critical aquifer recharge and wellhead ?r ❑ �: mitigation, stream delineation, classification, r protection areas inventory, etc_) J. Four copies of a School Access Analysis. `40; K. Four copies of special studies or requirements as requested in your preapplication summa letter. Four of Trip Generation or Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by an engineer l ufl L. copies licensed in the State of Washington, as required b the Traffic Division. Page 2 of 4 k:\Handouts\Short Subdivision Bulletin #010 —August 18, 2010 Bulletin #010 — August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 4 k- Bulletin Subdivision M. Seven copies of a landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect identifying 3. existing wooded areas, meadows, rock outcroppings, proposed and required buffers, open == spaces, street trees, ornamental landscaping, other landscape features, and stands of trees and protection techniques as may be r uired er the FWRC. N_ Seven copies of a preliminary clearing and grading and treelvegetation retention plan consistent with Chapter 19.120.040 FWRC, Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention. O. Seven copies of a property survey in conformance with FWRC 18.35.020(2), stamped by a licensed land surveyor. P. Seven copies, as applicable, of a phasing plan showing divisions of the plat and a proposed timetable for construction of each division. Q. Seven copies of a proposed preliminary plat drawn to scale of l" = 100' or larger (1:50 is preferred), which includes the Preliminary Plat Drawing Requirements listed on Page 5 of this handout. R Additional information as required by the Community Development Services and/or Public Works Departments. Notice Requirements Preliminary Plat - A list of the names and addresses of all owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county assessors located within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed subdivision and any adjoining real properties owned by the owners of the land E proposed to be subdivided. If the owner of the property which is proposed to be subdivided owns adjacent property, the addresses of owners of property located within 300 feet of any ` portion of the boundaries of such adjacently located parcels must also be provided. Two sets of stamped envelopes with address labels for all owners described above. SEPA — Provide one set of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of r Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties s within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. IMPORTANT — Please do not submit metered envelopes. The Federal Way Post highly encouraged to use the you are Office may refuse such envelopes_ In addition, yg L Forever stamps. Y 3 Bulletin #010 — August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 4 k- Bulletin Subdivision PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWING REQUIREMENTS The preliminary plat drawing shall include, but is not limited to, the following information_ 1. Proposed name of subdivision. (You may wish to check with King County to make sure that the name of your plat has not yet been used.) 2. Location by section/township/range and legal description. 3. Name, address, and phone number of the developer. 4. Name, address, and phone number of each property owner. 5. Name, address, and phone number of registered land surveyor. 6. Scale of plat, date, and north arrow (subsequent resubmittals must have a revision date). 7. Existing topography of the land indicated by contours of two -foot intervals for slopes less than 15 percent and five-foot intervals for slopes of 15 percent or greater. Identify all slopes 40 percent or greater on or within 25 feet of the site. 8. Location and extent of significant natural features on and adjacent to the site. Such features include streams, wetlands, views, stands of trees, water bodies, to the extent that the significant natural feature and/or their associated buffers affect the proposed plat. 9. Comprehensive plan and zoning classifications of subject and adjoining properties. 10. Adjacent common ownerships and the land or lot divisions of adjoining properties not in common ownership for a distance of at least 100 feet around the perimeter of the property proposed for the subdivision. A separate list of names may be used for clarification purposes. 11. Location, widths, and names of existing or prior platted streets; railroad, or utility rights-of-way or easements; parks or other public spaces; and existing permanent structures to be retained within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Where the property has been previously subdivided, the original lots, blocks, street easements, etc., shall be shown in dotted lines in scale with the proposed subdivision. Show distance between existing structures to be retained and property lines. (Show pavement widths, planter strips, sidewalks, utility poles, etc.) 12. Existing and conceptually proposed water, sewer, and drainage utilities on, under, or over the land showing size, grades, and location. l3. Locations and widths of proposed streets, utility rights-of-way and easements. 14. Layout, number, and dimensions of proposed lots. Include the square footage of each lot. 15. Parcels of land intended to be dedicated for public use, or reserved for the use of owners of the property in the subdivision. 16. Building setback lines. 17. The location of all ditches, culverts, catch basins, and other parts of the design for the control of surface water drainage. 18. Typical roadway sections, existing and proposed, including streetlights and street trees. 19. A statement explaining how open space shall be provided. For conventional subdivisions, open space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site is required to be provided. If the City determines that the location, quality, or extent of the required open space would not fulfill the intent or purpose of useful common open space, a payment of an equivalent fee -in -lieu of the required project open space shall be paid pursuant to FWRC 18.55.060(2). 20. Total acreage of the site platted, prior to creation of any lots, tracts, or other dedications. 21. Acreage precluded from development due to the presence of critical areas, including. wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and other features (along with buffers), broken out by category, covered by critical areas regulations. 22. Acreage dedicated for public rights-of-way (for both newly created streets and expansions of existing streets), as well as private tracts, alleys, and ingress/egress and utilities easement created for the purpose of providing access to lots within subdivisions. 23. Location and acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities, broken out by category. 24. Net plat area, which is gross plat area minus critical areas, rights-of-way, private open space, and public purpose lands_Z 25. Vicinity map with labeled streets and north arrow showing the proposed subdivision's relation to the area. 26. List the height of all retaining walls and rockeries. 27. The City's file number will be assigned upon application. Include the file number on subsequent resubmittals. open space requirements for cottage housing, zero4ot line town house development, and small lot detached development can be found in FWRC 18.55.060. 2 Public purpose lauds mean acreage of ttacts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities. open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #010 —August 18, 20 t0 Page 4 of 4 k:\HandoutsX.Short Subdivision EXHIBIT E PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (F WRC) Chapter 19.15 "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.040 "Development application submittal requirements" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit E 19.15.040 Development application submittal requirements. All use process 1 II III and IV applications erects sdbffitted must at the minimum provide the information contained within Bulletin #053 Development Requirements for Process 1, Bulletin #054 Development Requirements for Process Il or Bulletin #001 Development Requirements Handout for Process /if or IV depending on the particular Use Process being applied for. The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted. A code -related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted. The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. The following ... ii WJANLM _ - - COS WA _■_FY- _ NMI _MORIA - - 7 -Y --S -- M. " Z vuxl-.k- L—Z= LL� PIF,V V=T- - - - - " scum code uoadmws\sob-ttat raryiremendstaff «pom\C=ent =ffrepw with c dubaAExtubas E, F G{ K [ and !\Exhibit E - revised t9-13.040-doc kladseape-plans FA affh= .. ., } r feronnorl nn }{.,e i`� nlan els r * - n s t t i the Fede FaPAfact_ (d) PaFking y. /fl�en}enhninal }tr'1� 1*1-e matte. (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-594, § 18, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97. Code 2001 § 22-33.)_ ,bits E, F G. H, I and I�E.�chibit E -revised 19.I5.040.doc tC\2009 Code Ameadments\Submittal requwemems\Saff repoRlCutrent staff report with exhibitsNExh EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 19.15) "Permits and Review Processes" Bulletin #053 - Development Requirements for Process I — Directors Approval (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) 4k CIT 10'::ttt:;P Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNiTy DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8t° Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS I Director's Approval Project Name: Project Description: Applicant/Agent.- File pplicant/Agent: File No(s): • This form is to be used by an applicant as a guide in determining what constitutes a complete application for Process I, Directors Approval. • All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. • Process I applications that contain all checked items will be determined complete at intake. The applicant or agent will be notified immediately if an application is considered complete. • A complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. How To APPLY The applicant (owner or owner's appointed agent) must file the following items: Required Submitted Q Q A. Master Land Use Application, with owner's signature ❑ 0 B. A detailed narrative description of the project, on a separate 8'/2 x 11 sheet 0 Q C. Six (folded) copies of the site plan Q ❑ D. Application fees If the project involves a new structure or changes to the exterior of an existing structure, also provide: Required Submitted 0 0 E. Six (folded) copies of existing and proposed building elevations 11 0 F. Color & materials indicators (color photos or color board and materials sample) K:\2009 Code Ameadments\Submittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G, H, I and AExhibit F - Bulletin 053 Process I Development Requirements_doc WHEN USE PROCESS I IS USED Reference to Process I is found in various places in the Federal Way devised Code (FWRC), indicating that certain development, activities, uses, or interpretations are permitted only if approved using Process I. Any Process I application that is not exempt from the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) will be reviewed using the procedural requirements of Process III. See FWRC Title 19, Chapter 55, for a detailed explanation of Process L WHO MAKES THE DECISION Under Process I, the Director of Community Development Services makes the decision based on review and analysis of decisional criteria and the official file. See FWRC 19.55.010 for decisional criteria. APPEALS Any decision issued by the director can be appealed. Appeals of Process I, Director's Decision, are decided by the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner after a public hearing. See FWRC 19.55.050 for detailed information regarding appeals of Process I decisions. v�`� r '�-,•a�c�3�.. i �&�^r �,s- �� . '; ;p � ,s+' �--- cam_ -..� $$ :.3 Pleas6-co ide As,of Review tifthe-project: will. be icl uj inftirrxrattnnr Bulletin #053 — August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 2 k \Handouts\Process I Development Requirements EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" Bulletin #054: "Development Requirements for Process II — Site Plan Review" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) CITY OF Federal Way 44k DEPARTMENT OF CommuN[rY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 a Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederaiwU.com DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS II SITE PLAN REVIEW Project Name: Project Description: Applicant/Agent: File No(s): • This form is to be used by an applicant as a guide in determining what constitutes a complete application for Process IL Site Plan Review. • All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. • Process lI applications that contain all checked items will be determined complete at intake. The applicant or agent will be notified immediately if an application is considered complete. • A complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. Process 11 Submittal Checklist Kegutrea Nuomtttea A. Completed Master Land Use Application, with owner's signature D B. Application fees { _ C. Copy of entire underlying plat or King County Assessor's parcel map D. Vicinity map on separate 8%2 x 11 sheet E. Two copies of current title report for subject property F. Two copies of current letters of water and sewer availability (only required for vacant property) G. Site photographs from each compass point (north, east, south, & west) referenced on the site plan K12009 Code Ameudmeuu\Submiaal regwremeuulStaff report\Curtem staff report with exhibiuTxtubas E~ E G, K I and AExhibit G - Pmoess n Development Reqs poor fbnnaz.dm General Plan Standards for Process 11 • Eight complete and folded sets of drawings (folded to 9 x 12 inches). • Minimum pian sheet size shall be 24 x 36 inches. • Plans must be drawn at an engineering scale that allows the entire plan to fit on one sheet. • Minimum scale is 1:20 unless otherwise authorized. • All information is to be legible. • Plans shall be prepared by a certified professional (licensed in the state of Washington) unless otherwise authorized. Note: If the development proposal has a value of $75,000 or greater, the site surveL site plan preliminM drainage grading, right-of-way plans and building elevation plans shall be prepared by a certified professional licensed in the state of Washington. The survey shall be prepared by a certified land surveyor- and the site plan drainage grading- right-of-way plans, and building elevations by a certified architect or engineer. Regardless of the value of the development, landscape plans must be prepared by a Washington State licensed landscape architect. RPrtnimd Cnhmitted Bulletin 9054 — August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 6 k/Handouts/Process It Development Requirements H. Topographic survey Q Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale } • Site area • Property lines, utilities, easements, sidewalks, street edges, existing structures, parking, and site improvements (e.g. drainage systems with pipe sizes, invert and rim elevations) • Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) • Minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes 15 percent or greater, datum shall be King County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 • Delineate slopes greater than 40 percent grade on or within 25 feet of the site • Delineate streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage courses, and other surface water features on or within 200 feet of the site per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, Chapter 30, "Critical Areas" • Identify trees defined by FWRC 19.05.200 Bulletin 9054 — August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 6 k/Handouts/Process It Development Requirements K\2009 Code gmmdmdts%'ua-thl req.i n�taff reponkCu em Gaff reportwith adubaslExhNtS E, FG. K i and AFAb "t G - Process a De etopmmt Reqs poor foraut.doc Site plan • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name and phone number of owner/agent • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Vicinity map • Site area • Total parking stall count • Total gross floor area of all proposed floors or levels • Location and dimensions of existing/proposed structures, property lines, sidewalks, easements, parking layout, street edges, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, outdoor uses, storage areas, fencing, rockeries, and retaining walls • Existing streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage courses, and other surface water features on or within 200 feet of site per FWRC Title 14, Chapter 30, "Critical Areas" • Location of stands of trees as defined by FWRC 19.05.200 • Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants • Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) • IBC construction type and occupancy classification • Location and square footage calculations of any on-site pedestrian areas (i.e., plazas, courtyards) or open space areas • Show location and calculate acreage precluded from development due to the presence of critical areas including wetlands streams steep slopes and other features (along with buffers) broken out by category covered by critical areas regulations, as applicable. • Show location and calculate acreage dedicated for public rights-of-way {for both newly created streets and expansions of existing streets) as well as private tracts, alleys, and in ess/euess and utilities easement broken out by category. • Show location and calculate acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated or set aside for retention/detention/drainage facilities open space or other on-site public facilities, broken out by ategory_ • Provide net site area which is gross area minus critical areas rights -of --way. private . .. --J- I I Preliminary drainage, grading, and right-of-way plan • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Preliminary storm drainage system in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as amended by Federal Way • Preliminary grading plan with finished contours; minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes 15 percent or greater, datum shall be King County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 • Preliminary right-of-way improvement plan, as required by the Public Works Dept • Approximate cut & fill quantities of site earthwork • Total existing and proposed impervious surface area • Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants i Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #054 — August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process It Development Requirements [C\2009 Code AmmdmarslSubmi" retltmemartsUtaffreponTmTent staff report with c&4bn\Ex1ubas E F G. K [ and AExhibit G - Process U Development Reqs poor format-doc Bulletin #054 —August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process 11 Development Requirements K. Preliminary landscape plan 0 0 Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Specific location, type, size, and number of trees to remain and to be removed • Plant schedule with the scientific name, common name, size, spacing, and quantity of each • Specific location and square footage calculations of drought tolerant landscaping (document that a minimum 25 percent is provided per FWRC 19.125.040(61) • Irrigation plan for lawn areas • Specific location, square footage calculations, and total square footage of each parking lot landscape island per FWRC 19.125.070(2)(a) • Screening of outdoor facilities such as: trash/recycling enclosures, outdoor storage, drive through facilities, stormwater facilities, and ground based mechanical equipment • Building wall area landscaping per FWRC 19.125.040 • Specific location of street trees in the right-of-way • Identify erimeter landscape type as I, 11, or 111 Building elevations Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) � Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • Bar scale Statement of architectural design intent, finish materials, and colors Front, rear, and side (labeled as north, south, east, and west) building elevations of proposed structures Exterior wall openings -p. • Exterior materials and colors board • Garbage/recycling facility screen details • Roof -top and ground based mechanical equipment screen details • Building height calculation M. Clearing and ading plan Q ' Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s)- Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer-North arrow and bar scale. • Identification of existing slope depicting: areas with 0% to 15% slope,• areas with 15% to 40% slope: and areas of 40% or greater slope. . • Proposed grades. • Location of all existing and/or proposed structures driveways right-of-way improvements, utilities, and easements on the subject prop=. • Designation of all wetlands, streams, and other critical areas that are on or within 300 feet of any area proposed to be disturbed by the proposed clearing and/or grading action. • Areas proposed for clearing and the proposed use for such areas • AM proposed grade changes that adversely affect or endanger trees on the property and/or adjacent properties, and specifications to maintain them. • A minimum of two cross sections of the site drawn to scale depicting the existing and proposed grade and any proposed rockeries and/or retaining walls. The director may also require a three dimensional topographic model of existing and proposed topographic conditions. • Location and description of proposed erosion control devices and structures. • When required, a geotechnical report, prepared by a geotechnical engineer, that contains sufficient information to determine the potential impacts of the proposed = clearing and grading, as well as proposed measures to reduce or eliminate these intacts. Bulletin #054 —August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process 11 Development Requirements K\2W9 Code Ammd.a"Submittal,,q. n staff mpordcu rmt staff tepott %%k adabks\Eidnbas E, F G, K (and MxW-bit G - Process a Dmdomm Rap p— formacdoc Bulletin #054 — August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 6 k--/Handouts/Process It Development Requirements N TreeNegetation Retention Plan Q, Q Project name plan date and/or revision date(s). • Name phone number, and license stamp of preoarer who shall be a certified arborist or a certified lands%M architect. • North arrow and bar scale. • Statement outlining the pMoses of any proposed tree removal (eff.. buiidins construction street or roadway driveway, recreation area patio or parking tot), together with apmposed timetable for when this work will occur. • A tree survey that identifies the location approximate size species, and number of trees on this site and also identifies the general location of trees within 50 feet of the site Tree survey samples may only be used at the discretion of the director. • A diction of the spatial limits for tree/vegetation retention areas and details of tree/vegetation protection measures. • A depiction of any new vegetated areas to be established. rt • The manner in which the cleared areas on the property will be reclaimed with vegetation specification or any required mitigation plantings, and a timetable for replanting. Approved tree/vegetation retention plan shall be incorporated into the clearing and _ radin drawiM for final construction documentation. Bulletin #054 — August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 6 k--/Handouts/Process It Development Requirements K.\2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staff repott\Current staff report with exhibits�Exhibits E, F G. H, I and J\Exhibit G- Process It Development Reqs poor format.doc Special studies and additional information for Process 11. Re aired Submitted Q r tca�c PIVV Level One Downstream storm drainage analysis as described in the KCSWDM as amended by Federal Way Preliminary technical information report addressing relevance of the 8 Core and 5 Special Requirements of the KCSWDM Q 'p ❑. Trip generation analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington 131 Concurrency application prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington Traffic impact analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington Q Parking study as required by the Traffic Division Q Noise study Lighting plan Geotechnical study Wetland delineation report Q Q Wetland mitigation plan Q = ❑ Stream delineation and classification report Critical aquifer recharge & wellhead protection areas information inventory Q O, Q Other information relating to design and siting of proposed development (including site cross sections) Q Q Specific information to determine compliance with city goals, policies, and regulations Please cbn-s derthis,as a Notice of Completeness. Bulletin #054 — August 18, 2010 Page 6 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process 11 Development Requirements EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" Bulletin #001 - Development Requirements: Process III (Project Approval) or Process I`! (Hearing Examiner Approval) (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF CO,MMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8a' Avenue South PO Box 97 t 8 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffederalway.com DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ❑ PROCESS III (PROJECT APPROVAL) ❑ PROCESS IV (HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL) Name: File No(s): • This form is to be used by an applicant as a guide in determining what constitutes a complete application. • All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. • Applicant will be notified of a complete application within 28 days. • A complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. • Additional fees may be required for consultant review of critical areas. General Plan Standards • Eight complete and folded sets of drawings (folded to 9 x 12 inches). • Minimum plan sheet size shall be 24 x 36 inches. • Plans must be drawn at an engineering scale that allows the entire plan to fit on one sheet. • Minimum scale is 1 to 20 unless otherwise authorized. • All information is to be legible. • Plans shall be prepared by a certified professional (licensed in the state of Washington) unless otherwise authorized. • If the development proposal has a value of $75,000 or greater, the site survey, site plan preliminary drainage, grading, right -of wayplans and buildia� elevation�lans shall be prepared by a certified professional licensed m the state of Washingtton The survey shall be prepared by a certified land surveyor• and the site plan drainage grading nght-of way_ plans and building elevations by a certified architect or engineer. Pte¢ardless of the value of the development, landscape plans must be prepared by a Washington State licensed landscape architect. aupmiaea ❑. ❑ -' A. Completed Master Land Use application, with owner's signature ❑,`.. ❑ B. Application fees including SEPA fees as applicable. I w< ❑ C. Copy of entire underlying plat or King County Assessor's parcel map .,; ❑ D. Vicinity map on separate 8'/ x 11 sheet Q E. Two copies of current title report for subject property F. Two copies of current letters of water and sewer availability (only required for vacant G. Eight copies of site photographs from each compass point (north, east, south, & west) referenced on the site plan H. Concurrency application Bulletin #00t —August 18, 2010 Page l of 5 L/Handouts/Development Requirements x:\2009 Code Ammdmmts\.& b=ttal regW=000\St ff report\c=wt stiff report -uh ahibi T_xtubits E. F G. K t and A&IuNt H - Devdopmcm Requ mints poor f0rma=9 do J. Site Plan • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name and phone number of owner/agent • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Vicinity map • Site area 1. Topographic Survey E ': . • Total gross floor area of all proposed floors or levels Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) „ Location and dimensions of existing/and or proposed structures, property Lines, sidewalks, • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer easements, parking layout, street edges, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, outdoor • North arrow and bar scale • • Site area ' features on or within 200 feet of site per FWRC Chapter 14 30, "Critical Areas" _ Y Property lines, utilities, easements, sidewalks, street edges, existing structures, parking, and Location of stands of trees as defined by FWRC 19.05.200 site improvements (i.e. drainage systems with pipe sizes, invert and rim elevations, etc) sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) • Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) Minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes International Building Code (IBC) construction type and occupancy classification • 15 percent or greater, datum shall be King County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 • Delineate slopes greater than 40 percent grade on or within 25 feet of the site �� Indicate any proposed phasing with proposed timelines for full completion. • Delineate streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage courses, and other surface water features on or within 200 feet of the site per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter v < buffers) broken out by category, covered by critical areas regulations. 14.30, "Critical Areas" =X :K - Show location and calculate acreage dedicated for public ri ts-of--way (for both newly • ldentifv trees as defined by FWRC 19.05.200 J. Site Plan • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name and phone number of owner/agent • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Vicinity map • Site area F Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities Bulletin #001 —August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 5 U14andoutslDevelopment Requirements K:\2009 Code AmeidmenulSubn*W requv*nents\Stafl report\Cutran staff report with extubiu%xhibits E, F G. K [ and /\Exhibit H - Developmwt Requirements poor foanantag.doc Total parking stall count `� '� • Total gross floor area of all proposed floors or levels Location and dimensions of existing/and or proposed structures, property Lines, sidewalks, easements, parking layout, street edges, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, outdoor uses, storage areas, fencing, rockeries, and retaining walls • Existing streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage coarses, and other surface water features on or within 200 feet of site per FWRC Chapter 14 30, "Critical Areas" _ Y • Location of stands of trees as defined by FWRC 19.05.200 Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants • Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) • International Building Code (IBC) construction type and occupancy classification • Location and square footage calculations of any on-site pedestrian areas (i.e., plazas, courtyards) or open space areas • Indicate any proposed phasing with proposed timelines for full completion. Show location and calculate acreage precluded from development due to the presence of critical areas including, wetlands streams stM slopes and other features (along with buffers) broken out by category, covered by critical areas regulations. r " • Show location and calculate acreage dedicated for public ri ts-of--way (for both newly created streets and expansions of existing streets) as well as private tracts alleys, and inss/egress and utilities easement broken out by category. r =r Show location and calculate acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated or set aside for retention/detention/drainage facilities openspace or other on-site public facilities, broken out by category. Provide net site area, which is gross area minus critical areas rights-of-way. private open I 4 3 ti �r „� r� �3;rx ,- space, and public purpose lands.' F Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities Bulletin #001 —August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 5 U14andoutslDevelopment Requirements K:\2009 Code AmeidmenulSubn*W requv*nents\Stafl report\Cutran staff report with extubiu%xhibits E, F G. K [ and /\Exhibit H - Developmwt Requirements poor foanantag.doc Reauired Submitted Bulletin #001— August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:/HandoutstDevelopment Requirements K'UM Code AmadnwaskSubnaW requwar= s\Staff report\Correa staff report with eidnMAExh6im F, F G. K l and AEdubit H - De dop wm Repurene is poor formataog.do K. Preliminary Drainage, Grading, and Right of --Way Plan 0 Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) =0 Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale Y Preliminary storm drainage system in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water r Design Manua! (KCSWDM), as amended by Federal Way i Preliminary grading plan with finished contours; minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes 15 percent or greater; datum shall be King P - fz4 County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 ` s: • Preliminary right-of-way improvement plan, as required by the Public Works Dept Approximate cut & fill quantities of site earthwork Ly . = Total existing and proposed impervious surface area • Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, s_ tYf. sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants L. Preliminary Landscape Plan ?;= • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) f Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer North bar t `z-AtLR arrow and scale Specific location, type, size, and number of trees to remain and to be removed Plant schedule with the scientific name, common name, size, spacing, and quantity of each Specific location andsquare footage calculations of drought tolerant landscaping (document r " l q that a minimum 25 percent is provided per FWRC 19.125.040[61) • Irrigation plan for lawn areas - �� • Specific location, square footage calculations, and total square footage of each parking lot K landscape island per FWRC 19.125.070(2Xa) zh F _ • Screening of outdoor facilities such as: trash/recycling enclosures, outdoor storage, drive s through facilities, stormwater facilities, and ground based mechanical equipment Building wall area Iandscaping per FWRC 19.125.040 3 Specific location of street trees in the right-of-way - - s v Identify perimeter landscape type as I, II, or III M. Building Elevations/Design Intent �_ ;- ❑ • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) }� Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • Bar scale • Statement of architectural design intent, finish materials, and colors • Front, rear, and side (labeled as north, south, east, and west) building elevations of proposed structures Exterior wall openings • Exterior materials and colors board Garbage/recycling facility screen details ` • Roof -top and ground based mechanical equipment screen details h. • Building height calculation • Narrative summary of how project complies with applicable design guidelines (FWRC Chapter 19.115, "Community Design Guidelines") . N. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist • Eight copies of the completed, signed, and dated SEPA checklist Bulletin #001— August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:/HandoutstDevelopment Requirements K'UM Code AmadnwaskSubnaW requwar= s\Staff report\Correa staff report with eidnMAExh6im F, F G. K l and AEdubit H - De dop wm Repurene is poor formataog.do Required Submitted Bulletin #001 — August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 5 k:/ fandouts/Development Requirements (,XM9 Code Amendmm¢s%Subrmttal requwemeaMStaff report\Cunvm staff rVm with a&bitAFxb its E. F G. K l and AExhtbit H - Developmem Requirements poor fotmamrw, ac O. Clearing and =ding plan ` - Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s). • Name, phone number, and license stamp ofpreparer. • North arrow and bar scale. • Identification of existing slope depicting: areas with 0% to 15% slope, areas with 15% to 40% slope-, and areas of 40% or greater slope. '; w4 Proposed grades. Location of all existing and/or proposed structures, driveways, right-of-way improvements tutilities, and easements on the subject property. Designation of all wetlands, streams, and other critical areas that are on or within 300 feet of any area proposed to be disturbed by the proposed clearing and/or grading action. • Areas proposed for clearing and the proposed use for such areas. j Any proposed grade chants that adversely affect or endanger trees on the property and/or - adjacent properties, and specifications to maintain them. 1 A minimum of two cross sections of the site, drawn to scale, depicting the existing and proposed grade and any proposed rockeries and/or retaining walls. The director may also require a three dimensional topographic model of existing and proposed topomphic ' conditions. a • Location and description of proposed erosion control devices and structures. f f When required a geotechnical report, prepared by a geotechnical engineer, that contains sufficient information to determine the potential impacts of the proposed clearing and =ding, as well as proposed measures to reduce or eliminate these ifflpgcts. ` F" �M P. Tree/Vegetation Retention Plan Project name, plan date. and/or revision date(s). Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer, who shalt be a certified arborist or a r x certified landscape architect. _. , _,-� • North arrow and bar scale. �' • Statement outlining the purposes of any proposed tree removal (e.g., building construction, street or roadway, driveway. recreation area, patio or parking lot) together with apro on sed k timetable for when this work will occur. X A tree survey that identifies the location, approximate size, species, and number of trees on this site and also identifies the general location of trees within 50 feet of the site. Tree survey samples may only be used at the discretion of the director. • A depiction of the spatial limits for tree/vegetation retention areas and details of tree/vegetation protection measures. A depiction of any new vegetated areas to be established. The manner in which the cleared areas on the property will be reclaimed with vegetation specification or any_Muired mitigation plantings and a timetable for replanting_ • Approved tree/vegetation retention plan shalt be incorporated into the clearing and grading drawings for final construction documentation. Bulletin #001 — August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 5 k:/ fandouts/Development Requirements (,XM9 Code Amendmm¢s%Subrmttal requwemeaMStaff report\Cunvm staff rVm with a&bitAFxb its E. F G. K l and AExhtbit H - Developmem Requirements poor fotmamrw, ac Special Studies and Additional Information PleacP provide FOUR conies of the following: twgulluu, - ouutratuvu— -- -- -- — Level One Downstream storm drainage analysis as described in the KCSWDM, as 0 1 - amended by Federal Way ' Preliminary technical information report addressing relevance of the 8 Core and 5 Special fl Requirements of the KCSWDM 0 O Trip generation analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington El' Traffic impact analysis an engineer licensed in State of Washington © D Parking study as required by the Traffic Division. C1 D Noise study Ci ❑ Lighting plan 0- 0 Geotechnical study ' C1 0 > Wetland delineation report El 0 Wetland mitigation plan .;0: Stream delineation and classification report D ` � 0 Critical aquifer recharge & wellhead protection areas information/inventory Other information relating to design and siting of proposed development (including site El cross sections) `D0 Specific information to determine compliance with city goals, policies, and regulations Notice Requirements Process III — For applications that are located within, or are, 300 feet from properties ❑ zoned SE, RS, or RM, provide one set of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes , (with City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. Process IV— Provide two sets of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with l3 City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. SEPA — Provide one set of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of 1 Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. IMPORTANT — Please do not submit metered envelopes. The Federal Way Post Office may refuse such envelopes. In addition, you are highly encouraged to use the Forever stamps. Bulletin #001 —August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements K\2009 Code Arnendments\Submirtal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with a hibits\Exhibits E, FG, H, [ and J\Exhibit H - development Requirements poor formatting.doc EXHIBIT I PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.045 "Completeness of applications" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit I 19.15.045 Completeness of applications. (1) Use Process I and Use Process l/. At the time of intake of a complete use process I or use process II application a notice of completeness as referenced in FWRC 19 15 040 shall be provided to the applicant This notice shall indicate the date the application is deemed complete If the city determines that the use process I or use process II application is incomplete the City shall notify the applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete use process I or use process II application. the app"Gation as Gemplete, with rP-ierenr--;- te- MARC 19. 16.040. PFiGF to the 28 day deadline, a letteF Of ass shall be issued indiGating the date the appliGatien Gity shall notify the appliGant of what needs to be submitted f0F a Gemplete appliGatien. In the notice of application, if required, this WFitten determination' the city shall also identify, to the extent known to the city, the other agencies of local, state, or federal government that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed development activity. (2) Use Process 111 or Use Process IV. Within 28 calendar days of receiving an application for use process III or use process IV the city shall determine whether the application is complete as referenced in FWRC 19.15.040. If found to be complete, prior to the 28 -day deadline a letter of completeness shall be issued indicating the date the use process III or use process IV application is deemed complete. If the city determines the application to be incomplete prior to the 28 -day deadline, the city shall notify the applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete use process III or use process IV application In this written determination, the city shall also identify, to the extent known to the city, the other agencies of local, state, or federal government that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed development activity. If the use process III or use process IV an application was found incomplete and an applicant submits additional information, the city shall notify the applicant in writing within 14 days, the date the application is deemed complete or whether further additional information is necessary. (3) Additional information. A determination of completeness shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the letter of completeness or subsequently, if new information is required or if there are substantial changes in the proposed action. (4) Vesting. A proposed use process I, II, III, or IV application shall vest to and be considered under the zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for use process I, II, III, or IV has been submitted to the city. In the event that the application is deemed incomplete, the use process I, II, III, or IV application shall vest to those codes in effect on the date that all requested supplemental or specific information is submitted. A complete application shall be defined as set forth in FWRC 19.15.040 and based on requirements in related handouts. Vested rights shall not be waivable pursuant to the vested rights doctrine. (Ord. No. 09-625, § 3, 9-15-09; Ord. No. 09-594, § 19, 1-6-09. Code 2001 § 22- 33.5.) K:\2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G, R I and J\Exhibit I version 2 revised 19.15.045.doc EXHIBIT J PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (F WRC) Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.030 "Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit J 19.15.030 Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. Improvements and/or additions to existing developed sites shall be subject to land use review processes as follows - (1) Process L Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are exempt from SEPA shall be processed using process I, provided the improvements and/or additions do not exceed any of the following thresholds. - (a) There is no change of use. (b) There is no reduction in the amount of required landscaping, buffering, open space, or public areas. (c) There is no material change or reduction in the amount of required parking. (d) There is no material change in the location of utilities, easements, or pedestrian connections. (e) There is no material change to the approved architectural design. (f) There are no additional adverse impacts to sensitive critical areas. 9f cignifinant trees — (2) Process IL Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are exempt from SEPA and exceed the thresholds in subsection (1) of this section shall be processed using process II. (3) Improvements not exempt from SEPA. Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are not exempt from SEPA shall be processed under process Ill, unless process IV is indicated by the applicable use zone chart in which case process IV shall be used. (Ord. No. 07-573, § 10, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 00-375, § 9, 10-3-00. Code 2001 § 22- 32.2.) KA2009 Code Amendments\Subminal requirements\Stafrreport\Current staffreport with a Nbits\Exhibits E, F G. K [ and AExhibit 1 - revised 19.15.030.doc City Council Agenda Bill Attachment #3: Draft Minutes of the August 25, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing Amendments to FVWRC Chapter 18 Subdivisions, and Chapter 19 regarding submittal requirements for plats and commercial projects. (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) This page has been intentionally left blank. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010 City Hall 7.00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tim O'Neil and Tom Medhurst. Staff present: Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Deb Barker, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Darlene LeMaster. Council Member Jeanne Burbidge was also present. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL All commissioners present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 21, 2010, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Director of Community Development Services will address the commission during the `Additional Business' section of the agenda. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING —Shoreline Ma Ster Program Update Chair Pfeifer explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Senior Planner Janet Shull stated that the intent of tonight's meeting was to consider revisions to the draft Shoreline Master Plan (§MP),She introduced the City's consultant, Teresa Vanderburg with ESA Adolfson and David Pader with the Dep tment of Ecology. She also stated that there was a sign up sheet at the back that serves two purposes. The first was to sign in if you would like to testify and secondly, to sign up if you would like to be on an e-mail notification list. Ms. Shull gave a brief overview of the SMP, which serves to regulate development along shorelines of the state and establishes a comprehensive vision of how the shoreline area will be used and developed over time. She also stated that local jurisdictions are required to prepare a local SMP to carry out the requirements of the Shoreline Master Act (SMA). The SMP also includes goals and policies that are part of the City's comprehensive plan and regulations that are part of the city code. The SMP includes information about existing conditions and analysis about the potential cumulative impacts of future development and opportunities for restoration. Ms. Shull then showed a map of the City's shorelines explaining that there were two categories — marine shorelines and shorelines associated with lakes. There are two lakes, Steel Lake and North Lake within the City GAPlanning Commission\201OWeeting Summary 08-25-10.dm Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 25, 2010 and a number of additional lakes within the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The City is required to plan for the lakes within the PAA, however, the regulations will only apply when the area is annexed into the City. Ms Shull then summarized the SMP process to date. She explained that work on the SMP began in early 2006. At that time a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) were formed to provide input on the update. The City held a public open house in June 2006 and set up a website with information on the SMP update. In 2007, the Planning Commission held three public meetings after which they forwarded their recommendation to the City Council, who approved the draft SMP update in June 2007. In July 2007, the draft SMP update was submitted to the DOE for review and comments were received from DOE in January 2009. City staff and their consultant ESA Adolfson have been working with DOE,,Oftfevisions based on DOE's comments for the past year. Because the draft SMP update has been changed since the Planning Commission and Council last saw it, staff decided to bring it back to both Planning Co�ssion and City Council. The City mailed notice to all shoreline property owners within tkle City and PAA,4bout the public comment process and the availability of draft documents. The City also mailed notice to forrner,CAC and TAC members. This City's website was also updated and links to the revised draft SMP were provided. Hard copies of the revised documents were placed in libraries and were mace, available at City Hall. A' pommy was also made available in the City Council Conference Room and council rdembers wefe made aware of itso ailability. Ms Shull then went over highlights to the revisions. She `e tried that Section 2 — Inventory and Characterization and Section 4 — Shoreline Environment had not beenupdated as DOE had no comments on these sections. Section 2 is very bulky so it was not included in the Planning Commission's blue binder, but is on the website, however the Shoreline Environmet�fb,esiiations, which i a.gle page map, was included. Ms Shull explained that Section One - Introduction "was revia�c t present a better linkage between our local SMP and the Statewide SMA. Four, new policies were added to Sectio Three -- Goals and Policies. Ms Shull stated that we modified existing polcies to add emphasis on the SMA goal of "no net loss" of ecological function of the city's shorelines, the Purpose and Responsibility section was expanded and a section summarizing Public Participation was added. Ms Shull stated that in Section Fire--ShoreliixeRegulations, numerous revisions were made for clarity. For example, city staff addec4 Development Standards Table; integrated critical areas regulations instead of having them be appendices; added reuiremertt fora 50 -foot setback from top of marine bluffs; and added a staff proposed change to allow piers, an docks on the. Marine Shoreline. In Section Six --,Restoration Plan, City staff added and updated information on regional programs that help with shoreline restoration; added information on restoration opportunities for freshwater lakes; and added two tables that summarize and prioritize restoration opportunities. In Section 7, staff added'dertnitions that are required to make the City's SMP consistent with the SMA. Ms Shull also stated that in Appendix A -- Cumulative Impacts Analysis, staff added a table that summarizes land development activity in the past five years within the shoreline area and added a section that analyzes the potential cumulative impact of allowing docks and piers on the marine shoreline. Ms Shull mentioned that staff had scheduled a study session with the planning commission and interested citizens for August 4, 2010, however it was changed to an informational meeting when only one Planning Commissioner, Commissioner Carlson, attended. There were eleven citizens, the City's Consultant and the DOE staff in addition to staff in attendance. During the meeting, there was discussion on proposed setbacks from marine bluff and proposed standards for bulkheads. There was also one written comment, Exhibit 2, a request from the Kutschas to modify the stringline provisions for lakes only. Ms Shull stated that since the stringline setback provisions had already been approved by Council, staff is not recommending any changes. GAPlanning Commission\20I Meeting Summary 08-25-1Uric Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 25, 2010 Ms Shull then went over some modifications proposed by staff. These included clarifying that the 50 -foot minimum marine bluff setback is from the "top" of the marine bluff. It also included modifying Section 15.05.050(1)(a)(i-iii) to make it clear that hard shore armoring (bulkheads/riprap) is subject to proof of imminent damage and a shoreline conditional use permit in the Urban Conservancy Environment and that no conditional use permit is required for soft shore armoring regardless of zone. Ms Shull ended her presentation by stating that staff recommends approval of the proposed revisions to the draft SMP Update with staff modifications as depicted in Exhibit 1 to the August 25, 2010 staff report. The public hearing was opened for public testimony. Norm Kutscha, 33021 3e Ave S, Federal Way — Submitted a document dated August 25, 2010 and also read from the document requesting that the Planning Commission take another look at the shoreline setback regulations for lakes in order to make them more equitable fortng homes in relationship to new homes. Peter Townsend; 29508 12`h Ave SW, Federal Way — He fah "that1 t is importiIu'A to know what staff considers the problem areas under the SMA for the past five years and what should done to solve the problems. The public hearing was opened to questions from the commissioners* Commissioner Bronson asked what changes are being made because o POE requirements and what changes are being made by the City, such as setbacks, that We. could change later. Ms. Shull replied that most of the changes in the binder are required changes, except for pier"s/d6cks„ and setbacks. "SYS txcsted that the Kutscha's request would not be opposed by DOE. However, staff didn't feel "as their place to make changes to what the City had already approved. David Pater with Department of teolofrom the Bellevue office introduced himself and noted that he has worked with the city to reWve issues and believed that they have resolved them. The state recognizes the unique distinction of each jurisdiction, and there is some flexibility. The shoreline stabilization section is the most rigid. The state uses a checklist to make sure each jurisdiction has met requirements, and that there is room for modifications to setbacks, piers and -A�eeks. He, further added that there was a lot of back and forth negotiations between. i4e City and DOE. Commissioner O'Neil wondered ghat the changes meant for the taxpayer and how might the use of waterfront property be changed. Ms. Shull rioted that the�goal was to make as few changes as possible, and that the changes appear reasonably,,;_ Teresa Vanderburg with ESA/Adolfson noted that there is a new focus on conserving and preserving vegetation within the setback zone and also to avoid impacts to resources in the water. There are also provisions for dimensions of docks and driers, She clarified that the changes are only for new development and not existing development. There is a provision for tear -down houses or expanding existing uses. Commissioner Medhurst asked if variances were available. Ms. Shull replied that yes, shoreline variances are subject to hearing examiners recommendation that is forwarded to the State, which has the ultimate approval. Commissioner O'Neil asked whether the DOE had the final say just for variances. Ms. Shull answered that DOE would have the final say only for variances and conditional use permits. However, these decisions are appealable to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Commissioner Carlson was concerned about the length of time it took for the DOE's response to proposed changes to the City's shoreline code. Ms. Shull noted that the state experienced staff shortages, and that once their comments were available, the amendment was prioritized and brought to commissioners as complete as GAPIanning Commission\20 I Meeting Summary 08-25-IO.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 1�, Lulu possible. Commissioner Carlson also had questions about the value of the cumulative impacts analysis as the analysis is quantitative but the conclusions are qualitative. David Pader, with DOE responded, that the cumulative impacts analysis is adequate Chair Pfeifer asked if there were any more questions from the commissioners, and seeing none called for the motion. Commissioner Bronson moved to recommend adoption of the code amendment as prepared by staff. Commissioner Medhurst seconded the motion. Discussion — Commissioner Elder urged Commissioners to consider item #4 of, lh&Xutscha's request regarding setbacks. Commissioner Carlson disagreed with Commissioner Elder ngt�ng that the Kutscha's request, if approved, might penalize property owners who have not yet exercised their dyelopment rights. Commissioner Carlson also acknowledged that critical areas need greater setbacks The motion carried, 6-1 (Elder dissenting). The public hearing was closed. PUBLIC HEARING — Amendments Related to Submittal Requiiitnts for Plats and Commercial Projects Chair Pfeifer explained the guidelines for the Public, Hearing. Senior Planner Deb Barker delivered the staff report. Propos amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) include: • Short Subdivisions — Chapter 18.36.030 Content andform of application; • Preliminary Plat —Chapter 18.35.6k -Content andkrm of application; • Permits and Review �?rpcess — Chapter 19.15.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements; 111, • Permits and Rive Processes : `Chapter X91 5. X45 ..Completeness of Applications; and • Permits and Review 'rgeesses Chapter 19.15.030(1)()9 Review Processes for improvements and additions to developed situ The public hearing was opened for public testimony. There was no public e amment. The public testimony was `dosed The public hearing was opened to questions from the commissioners: Commissioner O'Neil said he agreed with the checklist concept and feels that it is much easier for the public to use. He inquired whether this information was available on-line. Ms. Barker replied that submittal requirements checklists are available on the City's website and staff can assist the applicant to locate the requirements and the checklists. Commissioner O'Neil asked if the applications are tracked on-line. Ms. Barker noted that the current permit tracking system is not set up to track these applications on-line. Commissioner Medhurst wanted to understand if the requirements have changed, or if some have been eliminated. He feels that the checklist is more confusing and could be arbitrarily applied. He prefers code as written. Ms. Barker said that the code does not give any discretion to waive submittal items that may not be GAPlanning Commission\2010Nt ting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 25, 2010 necessary, while the checklist provides flexibility. Chairman Pfeifer noted that there is lots of support from Master Builders for the checklist and bulletin concept. Commissioner Medhurst asked for clarification as to which codes were eliminated. Chairman Pfeiffer stated that none of the codes were eliminated and the code is still there. The checklists provide a place to go to find out what their specific application requires. Ms Barker pointed out that the code states that the director may waive any requirements that are determined to not be reasonably necessary. Commissioner Medhurst replied that language addressed his concerns and he is satisfied. Commissioner Carlson is also in support of the checklist format. However, he is still concerned that submittal requirements can be modified at the stroke of a pen. He believes that any types of changes to the submittal process should go through the public process, especially the planning commission. He supports the amendments only if substantive changes to application submittal requirements go through public process. Ms. Barker stated that substantive changes to the code do come from code amendments that have already gone through a public process. She noted that recent changes to the clearing and grading codes contained very substantive changes to performance standards, and those changes to code went through a very public process. Substantive code changes are not administratively made, but are approved through the code arridmeirC pocess. Commissioner Carlson stated that allayed some but not all of his concerns. Commissioner Bronson agreed that the checklist is a wonderful idea. He asked why prates can't be submitted electronically. Ms. Barker replied the City's permittingssem is only equipped to rece,eletrical permits electronically. Commissioner Bronson asked why applica��ts could',hot be submitted '04`a thumb drive. Planning Manager Conlen agreed that these types of projects dQ*e a.tat of paper and the tity would love to reduce paper. However, the City does not have the technology to "review applications on a computer screen, to mark it up or make comments. If applications are submitted electronically, the City has added copying costs that should be borne by the applicant. Commissioner Bronson is amazed that City does not have enough equipment to review the plans electronically. Planning Manager (men said that it v _be great if we did but currently we do not have that technology. Commissioner Long thanked staff for; bringing this topic to the Coi M,issioners. He feels that this concept will be a big benefit to developers.' He ;inquired if plans were required for Process I and II before they were determined to be complete s. Barker e6lilfirmed that plans were required and gave examples of typical process I and II applications. Commissioner Long inquired about the differences between existing code and proposed changes to the completeness section of the code. Planning Manager Conlen stated that there is no change to current practices. The intent is to cjtr fy the cue so it s/clear what the practice is. There is no change from current practice q process J and II cc leteness review, which is done at counter; and there is no change for process III and IV completeness review, which take a more lengthy review process and includes a follow-up letter. Commissioner-Q'Neill said that he understands that the proposed amendment clarifies when an applicant becomes vested. Ma~ Barker confirmed that as the current code is vague, it is important to clarify that a complete application is a vested application.., Commissioner Long observed that currently the City's Traffic Division determines if a submitted traffic study is acceptable, and therefore if`'an application is complete. With the proposed language, an application would be considered complete even if the submitted traffic study was later found to be unacceptable. Ms. Barker noted that was an on-going topic of concern by staff since reports are not always professionally prepared. Commissioner Long recommends that the checklists be changed to add that traffic impact analysis shall be stamped by a professional engineer. This was clarified so that the report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer in State of Washington. Chairman Pfeifer thanked staff for putting the amendment together. He believes that the code amendment makes sense and will save developers time in the long run. Commissioner Long moved to recommend adoption of the code amendment as prepared by staff. G:\Planning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doe Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. July 25, 2010 There was general discussion and agreement that Commissioner Long's recommended changes to the checklist do not need to be reflected in the motion. The motion carried, 7-0. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins addressed the Commission with the following items: Administrative Assistant Piety will be on medical leave for an undeterrr med period of time. During her absence, Tamara Fix will be the person to communicate with regarding lamfiYg:Commission. Ms. Fix will be assembling the Planning Commission agenda packet and corresponding with all Planning Commissioners and Stakeholders. Darlene LeMaster will be staffing all Planning C6mniission meet' and drafting meeting minutes October 20, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing 11 be on Urban Chickens. Z7,6'1'�Ltings e notopics for either the Sept. 1 or the Sept. 15, 2010 Planning Comiriis i meeting ,therefore, will be cancelled. Staff would like to propose a study session for -the full Planning Commission on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. to talk about the urban chicken topic. All Commissioners said they would be able to attend the special study session. 2011-2012 Budget — Director Fewins explained tci 4h& tommissioners howl to access all of the 2011-2012 City Budget documents from the City's website. Director Fewins also highlighted the proposed budget cuts to impact the Department of Community Development'Services should Counpil approved the proposed budget. AUDIENCE COMMENT G:\Planning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/05/2010ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19 relating to clarifying the complete application and review standards of the zoning and development code, and a housekeeping amendment that maintains consistent critical areas language. POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way approve an amendment to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), Chapter 19, that clarifies which land use applications are subject to completeness standards as well as a housekeeping amendment to maintain consistent use of critical areas language? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) MEETING DATE: 09/20/2010 CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ® Ordinance ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution STAFF REPORT BY: Deb Barker, Senior Planner ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other DEPT: Community Development Services Attachments: (1) Draft Adoption Ordinance; (2) Staff Report to the Planning Commission for the August 25, 2010,Public Hearing; and (3) Draft Minutes of the August 25, 2010, Planning Commission Public Hearing. Options Considered. (1) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as shown in the Draft Adoption ordinance; (2) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as modified by the LUTC; (3) Do not adopt the amendments; or (4) Refer the amendments back to the Planning Commission for furtherPrroceedings. _ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve Option # 1; adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation reflected in the Draft Adoption Ordinance. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: -wCi) MI to DIRECTOR APPROVAL: CW41:- Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on October 5, 2010. Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE (10/05/2010): I move to forward the ordinance to a second reading for enactment on the October 19, 2010 consent agenda. 2" READING OF ORDINANCE (10/19/2010): I move approval of the LUTC recommendation to approve the code amendments, which are reflected in the Adoption Ordinance. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED IST reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # City Council Meeting Date: October 5, 2010 City Council Agenda Bill Attachment #1: Draft Adoption Ordinance Amendments to FVWRC Chapter 19 relating to clarifying the complete application and review standards of the zoning and development codes, and a housekeeping amendment that maintains consistent critical areas language. (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to clarifying the complete application and review standards of the zoning and development code; amending FWRC 19.15.045 and FWRC 19.15.030. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 09-625, 09-594, 07-573 and 00-375) WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), "Zoning and Development Code," in order to conform to state and federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update zoning regulations as deemed necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and the development review process; and WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to development regulations, and the text of Title 19 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt language that clarifies which applications are subject to completeness review standards within the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, the amendment reflects that Process I, II, III, and IV land use processes are subject to completeness standards; and WHEREAS, the amendment documents that completeness review for Process I and Process II applications is conducted `over the counter' and is expedited so that an applicant can receive a "notice of completeness" at intake; and WHEREAS, completeness review for Process III and W applications occurs during Development Review Committee (DRC) deliberations which are scheduled within 28 days of application submittal; and WHEREAS, in order to maintain consistent definitions and terms throughout the FWRC, a "housekeeping" amendment to replace the term "sensitive" areas with the term "critical" areas and eliminate reference to the term "significant trees" in FWRC 19.15.030(1)(f) is proposed; and WHEREAS, the Proposal is categorically exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(20); and Ordinance No. 10- Page I of 5 Rev 1110 LU WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on August 25, 2010, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered these code amendments on September 20, 2010, and recommended adoption of the text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the proposed amendments. (a) These code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and will benefit the City as a whole by clarifying what projects are subject to completeness review and removing inconsistent language. (b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management. (c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 19 FWRC and will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. (d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare. (e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC and chapter 19.35 FWRC, and based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposed amendments: (a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Ordinance No. 10- Page 2 of 5 Rev 1/10 LU LUP4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. EDP15 The City will continue to implement a streamlined permitting process consistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the upfront costs of locating businesses in the City. HP9 Maximize efficiency in the City's development review process and ensure that unnecessary time delays and expenses are eliminated. Continue to provide streamlined permitting processes for development that is consistent with the FWCP and FWCC, and that has no adverse impacts. (b) The proposed FWRC amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because it clarifies that projects are subject to complete application standards, provides certainty to an applicant, and increases the efficiency of the development review processes. (c) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of ,Federal Way because clarity in the application process results in continued development within the City thus aiding the local economy. Section 3. FWRC 19.15.045 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.15.045 Completeness of applications. (1) Use Process I and Use Process IT At the time of intake of a complete use process I or use process II application a notice of completeness as referenced in FWRC 19.15.040 shall be provided to the gpplicant This notice shall indicate the date the application is deemed complete. If the city determines that the use process I or use process II application is incomplete the City shall notify the applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete use process I or use process II application. Within 28 --'--- aT days ec e_.,_„- pplieeA e., the eity shall dcicrnxrne whether- the appheatien is eemple4e, with fe€afeaee t6Fmq c 19.15.040. Pr-ief to t e 28 day deadline, a lefter- ef eempleteness shall be issued indiee4ing the date the appheatien is deemed > > if the eity detefmiaes the applieatien to be ineemplete, the eity shall fiefify the appheant ef what needs te be submitted for- a eemplete appheation. In the notice of application, if required, this . r-it.e~ aeteanina ieN, the city shall also identify, to the extent known to the city, the other agencies of local, state, or federal government that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed development activity. (2) Use Process III or Use Process IV. Within 28 calendar days of receiving an application for use process III or use process IV the city shall determine whether the application is complete as referenced in FWRC 19.15.040. If found to be complete, prior to the 28 -day deadline a letter of completeness shall be issued indicating the date the use process III or use process IV application is deemed complete. If the city determines the application to be Ordinance No. 10- Page 3 of 5 Rev 1/10 LU incomplete, prior to the 28 -day deadline the city shall notify the applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete use process III or use process IV application In this written determination, the city shall also identify, to the extent known to the city, the other agencies of local, state, or federal government that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed development activity. If the use process III or use process IV an application was found incomplete and an applicant submits additional information, the city shall notify the applicant in writing within 14 days, the date the application is deemed complete or whether further additional information is necessary. (3) Additional information. A determination of completeness shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the letter of completeness or subsequently, if new information is required or if there are substantial changes in the proposed action. (4) Vesting. A proposed use process I, II, III, or IV application shall vest to and be considered under the zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for use process I, II, III, or IV has been submitted to the city. In the event that the application is deemed incomplete, the use process 1, II, III, or IV application shall vest to those codes in effect on the date that all requested supplemental or specific information is submitted. A complete application shall be defined as set forth in FWRC 19.15.040 and based on requirements in related handouts. Vested rights shall not be waivable pursuant to the vested rights doctrine. Section 4. FWRC 19.15.030 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.15.030 Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. Improvements and/or additions to existing developed sites shall be subject to land use review processes as follows: (1) Process I. Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are exempt from SEPA shall be processed using process I, provided the improvements and/or additions do not exceed any of the following thresholds: (a) There is no change of use. (b) There is no reduction in the amount of required landscaping, buffering, open space, or public areas. (c) There is no material change or reduction in the amount of required parking. (d) There is no material change in the location of utilities, easements, or pedestrian connections. (e) There is no material change to the approved architectural design. (f) There are no additional adverse impacts to sensitive critical areas. e . (2) Process H. Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are exempt from SEPA and exceed the thresholds in subsection (1) of this section shall be processed using process II. (3) Improvements not exempt from SEPA. Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are not exempt from SEPA shall be processed under process III, unless process IV is indicated by the applicable use zone chart in which case process IV shall be used. Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the Ordinance No. 10- Page 4 of 5 Rev 1/10 LU invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 6. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 7. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 8. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. 10- Page 5 of 5 Rev 1/10 LU City Council Agenda Bill Attachment #2: Staff Report to the Planning Commission Amendments to FWRC Chapter 19 relating to clarifying the complete application and review standards of the zoning and development codes, and a housekeeping amendment that maintains consistent critical areas language. (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) 40k CITY Federalo, Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Commission Meeting of August 25, 2010 Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18 — Subdivisions, Chapter 19.15.040 — Development Application Submittal Requirements, Chapter 19.15.045 — Completeness of Applications, and Chapter 19.15.030 — Review Processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PLATS AND COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Federal Way File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP Report prepared by Senior Planner Deb Barker I. PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT As part of the 2010 Planning Commission Work Program, City staff proposes amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) to address issues identified by the City Council and the City's Stakeholder Group. At this time, staff is proposing to clarify which projects are subject to completeness standards, and is further proposing that the submittal requirements for plats and commercial projects be standardized, to the extent possible, in order to assist developers in the application process, to ensure consistency in project completeness, and to provide data necessary for the annual Buildable Lands Reports required by King County. One housekeeping amendment is also proposed. II. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way Stakeholder Group has conducted annual meetings to review City codes and procedures since 2006. One concern was that plat applications are too detailed and require too much information too early in the process. Staff has reviewed the requirements for various projects and found that for the most part, submittal items currently requested are needed in order to review plat applications, but some discretion can be applied to initial submittal requirements that are currently listed in the FWRC. Staff also identified the need to clarify language regarding completeness standards for Process I, H, III, and IV land use review processes. A housekeeping amendment is also proposed. III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS To effectively communicate the submittal requirements and clarify the objectives for review, staff proposes to relocate submittal requirements from the FWRC into standardized submittal requirement checklists and/or technical handouts (see attached exhibits). Standardizing submittal requirements checklists and technical handouts will make the submittal process more straight forward for the applicant when preparing an application, and will support their ability to submit a complete application. In this time of changing technology, some typical requirements become outdated. A checklist allows customization and provides flexibility as technology evolves. In addition to the standardized submittal requirements, this code amendment clarifies that Use Process I, II, III, and IV are subject to completeness review. The following is a summary of the proposed amendments: (a) Short Subdivisions —Chapter 18.30.030 Content and form of application FWRC 18.30.030 lists the standards for the application for short plat. This language is also used for applications for binding site plans. FWRC 18.30.030(2) lists thirty separate items that must be depicted on a submitted short plat drawing or submitted with the formal application. The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate this section and replace it with language that refers to the checklist that is maintained by City staff. See Exhibit — FWRC 18.30.030 Content and form of application and Exhibit B —Bulletin #101, Short Subdivision. (b) PreliminaryPlat — Chapter 18.35.020 Content and form of application FWRC 18.35.020 lists the standards for a preliminary plat application. FWRC 18.35.020(2) lists over thirty separate items that must be depicted on submitted drawings or included with the formal application. The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate this section and replace it with language that refers to the checklist that is maintained by staff. See Exhibit C — FWRC 18.35.020 Content and form of application and Exhibit D Bulletin #037, Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements. (c) Permits and Review Processes — Chapter 19.15.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements FWRC 19.15.040 lists the standards for a commercial project application which require a determination of completeness. FWRC 19.15.040 lists over thirty separate items that must be depicted on submitted drawings or provided with the application, but does not clarify which applications are subject to completeness review. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that Process I, II, III and IV projects are subject to completeness review. The amendment also eliminates the list of submittal requirements and replaces it with language that refers to checklists that are maintained by City staff. See Exhibit E — FWRC 19.1 5.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements, Exhibit F — Bulletin #053, Development Requirements for Process I, Exhibit G — Bulletin #054, Development Requirements for Process Il, and Exhibit H— Bulletin #001, Development Requirements for Process III or IV. (d) Permits and Review Processes —Chapter 19.15.045 Completeness of Applications FWRC 19.15.045 identifies the timing and steps that the city must take when an application is determined to be complete. Although state regulations. dictate notice of complete application for specific procedural actions, the current code does not distinguish how different land use processes are treated with respect to completeness. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that Process I, II, III, and IV land use processes are subject to completeness standards. In addition, this amendment is intended to clarify completeness review procedures. Use Process I and Process II receive expedited completeness review at the time of application intake and the Planning Commission Staff Report K:\2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\STAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amendment.doc Page 2 applicant is provided with a "notice of completeness" at intake. However, Process III and IV applications receive completeness review during Development Review Committee (DRC) deliberations that are scheduled within 28 days of receipt of the application. The applicant is mailed a letter of completeness following DRC review. See Exhibit I — FWRC 19.15.045 Completeness of Applications. (e) Permits and Review Processes —Chapter FWRC 19.15.030(1)0 Review Processes for improvements and additions to developed sites A housekeeping amendment is being proposed to replace the term "sensitive" areas with the term "critical" areas and eliminate references to the term "significant tree." The term "sensitive" area was changed to "critical" area in a 2004 code amendment. The term "sensitive" area currently found in FWRC 19.15.030(1)(f) was not changed as part of that 2004 code amendment; this amendment corrects that oversight. Also, the term "significant tree" was eliminated as a result of the 2009 code amendment for "Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention. " The proposed change eliminates this term from FWRC 19.15.030(1)(f) as it is no longer used in the FWRC. See Exhibit J— FWRC 19.15.030 Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The Project is procedurally exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review under WAC 197-11-800(19) (Procedural Actions). Public Notice of the August 4, 2010, public hearing was published and posted on July 17, 2010, in accordance with the City's procedural requirements. There were no public comments. V. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for zoning text amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed zoning text amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130. The City may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWRC zoning text amendments are consistent with the following goals and policies contained in the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP): LUG2 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public/private partnership. LUP4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. EDP15 The City will continue to implement a streamlined permitting process consistent with state and federal regulations to reduce the upfront costs of locating businesses in the City. EDP18 The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans, policies, and programs. HP9 Maximize efficiency in the City's development review process and ensure that unnecessary time delays and expenses are eliminated. Continue to provide streamlined permitting processes for development that is consistent with the FWCP and FWCC, and that has no adverse impacts. Planning Commission Staff Report K:\2009 Code AmendmentslSubmittal "quirements\Staff report\Current staff report with odubits\STAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amendmcutdoc Page 3 HP10 Encourage community input, where appropriate, into the development permit process by providing thorough and timely information to the public. HP11 Continue to assist developers with housing proposals at the earliest possible opportunity, including preapplication meetings, to produce projects that can be reviewed quickly and maximize their ability to receive permits. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWRC text amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare because it standardizes development regulations to provide clarity about what constitutes a complete application; defines completeness eligibility; and refines various related codes in order to increase the efficiency of the development review process. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. Approval of the proposed code amendment would benefit the City as a whole as it provides clarity about what constitutes a complete application, which results in continued development within the City, thus aiding the local economy and the housing market. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND ACTION Pursuant to FWRC 19.80.050(b), the City Council may review City -initiated changes to the text of the zoning code from time to time at the Council's discretion. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed changes to the zoning code and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Chapter 19.80 FWRC, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is to review and evaluate the zoning code text regarding any proposed amendments; to determine whether the proposed zoning code text amendment meets the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130; and to forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the above staff analysis and decisional criteria, staff recommends that the following amendments to FWRC Title 18 Subdivisions, and to Chapter 19.15 FWRC Permits and Review Processes as outlined in Section III above be recommended for approval to the City Council. 1. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit A, to FWRC 18.30.030, Content and form of application. 2. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit C, to FWRC 18.35.020, Content and form of application. Planning Commission Staff Report F \2W9 Code Ameadments\SubmitW requiremeots\Suaff repordCurrent staff report with exhibitASTAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amendment.doc Page 4 3. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit E, to FWRC 19.15.040, Development Application Submittal Requirements. 4. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit I, to FWRC 19.15.045, Completeness of Applications. 5. Amendments as set forth in Exhibit J, to FWRC 19.15.030, Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. EXHIBITS Exhibit A, FWRC 18.30.030 Content and form of application (Short subdivision) Exhibit B, Revised Short Subdivision Handout Exhibit C, FWRC 18.35.020 Content and form of application (Preliminary plat) Exhibit D, Revised Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements Handout Exhibit E, FWRC 19.15.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements Exhibit F, Checklist for Development Requirements for Process I, Director's Approval Exhibit G, Revised Checklist for Development Requirements for Process R, Site Plan Review Exhibit H, Revised Checklist for Development Requirements, Process III (Project Approval) or Process IV (Hearing Examiner Approval) Exhibit I, FWRC 19.15.045 Completeness of applications Exhibit J, FWRC 19.15.030 Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites Planning Commission Staff Repoli K:\2009 Code AmendmentMubmittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\STAFF REPORT current with housekeeping amendmentdoc Page 5 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18.30, "Short Subdivisions" 18.30.030 "Content and form of application" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit 18.30.030 Content and form of application. All short subdivision applications must at the minimum provide the information contained within Bulletin #010, Short Subdivision Submittal Requirements. The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted. A code related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted. The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. aRGempassed by the appliGation 8F by a duly autheFized agent. The 'comer er ouineFS of all paFsels to he inrluded m++St iein in or be represented in ,the -appli - dFa R to w Seale of e -Re innh renfeseent 59 feet OF !agger and sheuld be. assempan ed by the following infwmatien /o\ Drenesed name of the plat (b) Lewfien by + + + Name, and/eF by etheF legal + Name, + and phene nuFnbeF of eash pFepeFty. Name, and +phene numbeF of Feg.steFed land suFveyGF. and neFth-1 + date, pe " . + ea'wetlands+ stands Of and wateF bedies to the extent that signifisant + views, + sabdivis;GF}: 6) PrelimiRaFy eleaf:inn and gr-adine and treeh.er.etatien_ retentien plan eensistent urith the re..++irements of Ghonter 1 120 PNRG Gle_aFinn (�r�+rlini+ 'GQTI��TC'GT�C•TRLTi�Eri .C�GC�RirGTIT rRIT�i'�i�RQrJCGT-T.7Tt-LVi-'TYTCO+ �T .w. .. ..J. + v..wv...�+ and Tree earl VeneFntinn Retention + widths, and names of exisfiRg OF POOF platted stFeetsF r ;!marl or Utility rights of way or ea ements neeess easements, slope clfea.. (GG) The fee established by the Gity. The appliGation shal. not be aGGepted unless if is .+ni.i+rr panie d by the requected fee. (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.150.10 —16.150.30), 2-27- 90. Code 2001 § 20-83.) K:\2009 Code Ameadments\Submittal requirements\Staffreport\Current staffreport with exbibitt\Exhibits A. B. C, D\Exhibit A 18.30 short plat.doc Page 2 ■MWEITT- - - - - - arr.1cr.frM�- - - -0---- RM.F-'T.'z- - - - - - - - KIM 1-1— clfea.. (GG) The fee established by the Gity. The appliGation shal. not be aGGepted unless if is .+ni.i+rr panie d by the requected fee. (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.150.10 —16.150.30), 2-27- 90. Code 2001 § 20-83.) K:\2009 Code Ameadments\Submittal requirements\Staffreport\Current staffreport with exbibitt\Exhibits A. B. C, D\Exhibit A 18.30 short plat.doc Page 2 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18.30, "Short Subdivisions" Bulletin 010 - Short Subdivision (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) 44k CIT federal Way DEPARTMENT OF CommuNrrY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ciiyoffederalway.com SHORT SUBDIVISION PURPOSE A short subdivision (i.e., short plat) is the division or re -division of land into nine or fewer lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership. A short subdivision may be a conventional or cluster subdivision, cottage housing, zero -lot line townhouse development, or small lot detached development of nine or fewer lots, as well as a binding site plan. A short subdivision must be approved and recorded before newly created lots may be legally sold. HOW TO APPLY The applicant (owner or owner's appointed agent) files a complete application with the Department of Community Development Services using the Master Land Use Application form available at the department (and on our website, www.cityoffederalway.com). The applicant also provides any information or material as specified in the provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) describing the decision applied for and any additional information or material that the*director determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. Please refer to the following "Submittal Requirements" section to determine the materials that must be submitted to complete your application for a short subdivision. PREAPPLICATION CONFERENCE Applicants are encouraged to schedule a preapplication conference to become familiar with FWRC requirements, policies, and regulations. It is also an opportunity to coordinate with City departments and obtain their comments on the proposed subdivision. Refer to the City's preapplication conference handout for information on preapplication conferences. WHO MAKES THE DECISION The director will make the decision on the short subdivision. The application is processed under the provisions of Chapter 18.30 FWRC, "Short Subdivision Plats." Your application will be evaluated on the basis of the information you provide, the criteria listed in the pertinent sections of the City's regulations, and inspection of the property. Short subdivisions shall be designed to the standards of FWRC 18.55.0 10 through 080, and 18.60.030 through 120. Upon determining that the short subdivision application is complete, the director (or his/her designee) shall distribute a notice of complete application. COMPLIANCE WITH SEPA Short subdivisions are usually exempt from the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). However, a SEPA checklist and corresponding fee will be required if any of the following is associated with the short subdivision: 1) the site is subject to critical area review; 2) the short subdivision requires stormwater, sewer, or water lines larger than eight inches in diameter, 3) the short subdivision occurs on X-VAo9 Code AmendmentslSubmithl requirements%Staff repon\Cuttent staff reportwith exbibiwExhibits A. B, C, DT-,cbNt B - Bulletin olo Short Sub&visi doc Page I land covered by water; or 4) the short subdivision is a further subdivision of a previously exempted short subdivision. The director will determine the scope of the environmental review required by the application in order to comply with SEPA. For a detailed explanation of the City's environmental policy, refer to FWRC Title 14. CRITICAL AREAS Projects that involve work within critical areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and lakes) may require that the City contract out for expert technical assistance. Pursuant to FWRC 19.150.030, the applicant is responsible for providing any information, mapping, studies, and materials, and for paying for inspections or review by a qualified professional acceptable to the City. You will be advised at an early point in the process if your project will be subject to these types of expenses. SHORELINES Short subdivision that are within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound, Steel Lake, North Lake, or Lake Kilarney require review under the city's Shoreline Master Program. Applicants should speak with department staff for further information regarding shoreline regulations prior to submitting.a formal application. TRAFFIC -RELATED REQUIREMENTS All short subdivisions are subject to transportation concurrency and Traffic Impact Fee requirements. Refer to Concurrency Application Information and Traffic Impact Fee handouts for additional information. APPEALS Any decision issued by the director can be appealed. The City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner decides appeals of short subdivision decisions after a public hearing. See FWRC 18.30.140, et seq. for detailed information regarding appeals of short subdivision decisions. RECORDING The City records all approved short subdivisions with the King County Division of Records and Elections. A copy of the documents (referred to as a short plat), stamped with the recording number, is then distributed to the applicant, file, and King County Department of Assessments. All fees for such recording must be paid by the applicant before recording. Bulletin #010 —June 7, 2010 Page 2 of 5 k.\Handouts\Short Subdivision SHORT SUBDIVISION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A complete application is required before the City can proceed with technical analysis and make an informed decision on your application. Following is a list of materials that must be submitted with your application. Please do not turn in your application until all items on the list that apply to your proposal have been included. Consult with the Department of Community Development Services if you have a question_ All application materials become public information. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Required Submitted Bulletin #010 —June 7, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:\Handouts\Short Subdivision A. Completed Master Land Use Application form including signature of persons with sownership 1� t interest in the property. Agent authorization is required if application is not s signed by owners of all subject parcels. B. All application fees .:� C. Two copies of a computation sheet (with surveyor's seal) that provides the square footage 5 of all streets, individual lots and tracts, and total area contained within the subject parcels, i.e. lot closure calculations. .-. D. Two copies of a title report for the subject property, prepared within 90 days, including ' any easements or restrictions affecting the properties with a description, purpose, and x reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; parties of interest; and any x restrictions or covenants running with the property. E. A copy of the current county quarter section map for the area. (These maps can be found at A. metrokc. ov. r.= F. Vicinity map on separate 8'/Z x 11 sheet 4 G. Two copies of certificate of water availability, signed within a year of the date of f application(only required for vacant property). <" K H. One copy of certificate of sewer availability, signed within a year of the date of application, unless the site is to be served by an on-site septic system. One copy of the Seattle -King County Health Department approval of the proposed subdivision is required, m if the project is to be served by on-site septic sstem. * I. Site photographs from each compass point (north, east, south, & west) referenced on the site plan J. Two copies of preliminary engineering drawing showing the location and size of all L x :" ditches, culverts, catchbasins, and other parts of the design for the control of surface water drain e. This is a separate sheet from the short plat map.) K. Two copies of a preliminary clearing and grading and tree/vegetation retention plans_ l� consistent with Chapter 19.120.040 FWRC, Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention. L. Two copies of a preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), if required per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manua[ KCSWDM . M. Additional information as required by the Community Development Services and/or Public Works Departments. 3 N. Seven full size prints of the proposed short plat as specified below as well as one copy of { y t r 8-1/2 by I I inch paper. One set of reproducible mylar drawings will be required after the short plat is approved, prior to signing and recording. Bulletin #010 —June 7, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:\Handouts\Short Subdivision SEVEN COPIES OF FULL SIZE PLANS (ASSEMBLED IN SETS AND FOLDED TO 9" X 12") The drawing shall be 18" x 24"in size, drawn to a scale of 1"=50' or larger on the City's standard short plat title block form, and must comply with the provisions of RCW 58.09 and WAC 332-130. The drawing shall include, but is not limited to, the following information: L Proposed name of the short subdivision. (You may wish to check with the City to make sure the name of the short plat has not been taken yet.) 2. Location by section, township, range, and/or other legal description. 3. Name, address, and phone number of developer. 4. Name, address, and phone number of each property owner. 5. Name, address, and phone number of registered land surveyor. 6. Scale of drawing, north arrow, and date (subsequent resubmittals must have a revision date). 7. Existing topography of the land indicated by contours of two foot intervals for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot intervals for slopes of 15 percent or greater. Vertical Datum (NVGD-29 or KCAS). 8. Location and extent of significant natural features on and immediately adjacent to the site. Such features shall include but are not limited to streams, wetlands, views, stands of trees, and water bodies to the extent that significant natural features and/or their associated buffers affect the short subdivision. 9. Comprehensive plan and zoning classification of the proposed short subdivision site and adjoining properties. 10. Adjacent ownerships and the land or lot divisions of adjoining properties not in common ownership for a distance of at least 100 feet around the perimeter of the property proposed for subdivision. A separate list of names may be used for clarification purposes. 11. Location, widths, and names of existing or prior streets, railroad, or utility rights-of-way or easements, access easements, parks and other public spaces, and existing permanent structures to be retained within and adjacent to the proposed short subdivision. Where the property has been previously subdivided, the original lots, blocks, streets, easements, etc., shall be shown by dotted lines. Show distance between existing structures to be retained and property lines._ (Show pavement widths, planter strips, sidewalks, utility poles, etc.) 12. Existing and conceptually proposed water, sewer, and drainage facilities on, under, or over the land showing size, grades, and locations. 13. Location and widths, and names of proposed streets, utility right-of-ways, and easements. 14. Layout, number, lot sizes, and dimensions of proposed lots. Include the square footage of each lot. 15. Parcels of land intended to be dedicated for public use, or reserved for use of owners of the property in the short subdivision. 16. A statement explaining how open space shall be provided. For a conventional short subdivision, open space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site is required to be provided. If the City determines that the location, quality, or extent of the required open space would not fulfillthe intent or purpose of useful common open space, a payment of an equivalent fee -in -lieu of the required project open space shall be paid pursuant to FWRC 18.55.060(2).[ 17. Total acreage of the site platted, prior to creation of any lots, tracts, or other dedications. 18. Acreage precluded from development due to the presence of critical areas, including: wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and other features (along with buffers), broken out by category, covered by critical areas regulations. 19. Acreage dedicated for public rights-of-way (for both newly created streets and expansions of existing streets), as well as private tracts, alleys, and ingress/ egress and utilities easement created for the purpose of providing access to lots within subdivisions. 20. Location and acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities, broken out by category. 21. Calculation of net plat area, which is gross plat area minus critical areas, rights-of-way, private open space, and public purpose lands.2 22. Building setback lines. 23. Typical roadway sections including streetlights and street trees (existing and proposed). 24. Vicinity map with labeled streets and north arrow. 25. Basis of bearing, statement of equipment and procedures used, indication of perimeter boundary, lot, and right-of-way lines with a notation of bearings or azimuth from the north, distances, and curve data, as well as the location and description of all monuments, both found and set. 1 Open space requirements for cottage housing, zero -lot line town house development, and small lot detached development can be found in FWRC 18.55.060. z Public purpose lards mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/ drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #010 August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 5 k:�Handouts\Short Subdivision 26. Statement of equipment and procedures used. 27. Existing addresses, if applicable. 28. Indication of perimeter boundary, lot, and right- of-way lines with a notation of bearings or azimuth from the north, distances, and curve data. 29. Location and description of all monuments, both found and set. 30. The City's file number will be assigned upon application. Include the file number on subsequent resubmittals. Bulletin #010 —August l8, 20I0 Page 5 of 5 k:\Handouts\Short Subdivision EXHIBIT C PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 18.35, "Preliminary Plat" 18.35.020 "Content and form of application" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit C 18.35.020 Content and form of application. All preliminary plat applications must at the minimum provide the application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to I determined if all required materials have been submitted. A code related review ;will occur after a complete application has been submitted. The director may ..waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. (i) PFepesed name of the plat. desG9ptiea- . Name,@Y) Name, address, and phone RumbeF of eash pmpeFty ewneF. addFess, and phone numbeF Of FegisteFed land suFveyer-. date,(yi) Seale of plat, pement er-g' eatB . (Viii) L eoUFate delineation of deep slenes 40 nernent nr gFeater PM - .plans eeRsistent with GhapteF , , , and T -Fee and 1\ /egetatien Detention KA2009 Code AmendmentskSubmittal requirements\Staff reporc\Curreat staff report with exhibits\Exhibits A, B, C, D1Exhibit C - 18.35.020 Preliminary Pla submittal req.doc r. ON- IQ "ISM 0.00- - - -- - r. – – 10114-0—,- – – – – –MAN M01,00 =71. -- KA2009 Code AmendmentskSubmittal requirements\Staff reporc\Curreat staff report with exhibits\Exhibits A, B, C, D1Exhibit C - 18.35.020 Preliminary Pla submittal req.doc , (h) Rreliminwy plat oeFtifiGate net less than 90 days eld fFeFn a WeR payment of ree+„ired feed S �e.h fees shall ho edetenrineel nrnnrrling fe a standaF --,PR�'rrr�rvt—r .C'Si'.7�tLF;sr'vcZri-.tc�{'I7Tr1GQ�vwrO-rrr9-cy c��...... v the , (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 07-554, § 5(Exh. A(2)), 5-15-07; Ord. No. 98-309, § 3,1-6-98; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4-1-97; Ord. No. 90-41, § 1(16.50), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 20-111.) K\2009 Code Amendmmms\SubmitW mgttk ments\StatFtepont Curcmt staffrgwtt with exhibits\Exhibits A, B, C, DTxhibit C - 18.35.020 Preliminary PIs submetal «q.doc EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 18.35, "Preliminary Plat": Bulletin #037 - Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) CITY OF 10;t�am� Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8" Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffedemlmy.com Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements PURPOSE A preliminary plat application allows the division or re -division of land into ten or more lots for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer of ownership. A preliminary plat may be a conventional or cluster subdivision, cottage housing, zero -lot line townhouse development, or small lot detached development of ten or more lots. A final plat must be approved and recorded before newly created lots may be legally sold. (Refer to Final Plats Submittal Requirements handout for information on final plats.) HOW TO APPLY The applicant (owner or owner's appointed agent) files a complete application with the Department of Community Development Services using the Master Land Use Application form available at the department (and on our website, www.cityoffederalway.com). The applicant also provides any information or material as specified in the provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) describing the decision applied for and any additional information or material that the director determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. Please refer to the following "Submittal Requirements" section to determine the materials that must be submitted to be considered a complete preliminary plat application. ?REAPPLICATION CONFERENCE Applicants are required to schedule a preapplication conference to become familiar with FWRC requirements, policies, and regulations. It is also an opportunity to coordinate with City departments and obtain their comments on the proposed subdivision. Refer to the City's preapplication conference handout for information on preapplication conferences. WHO MAKES THE DECISION The City Council makes the decision on the preliminary plat based on a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner, who holds the public hearing. The preliminary plat application is processed under the provisions of Chapter 18.35 FWRC, "Preliminary Plat." Your application will be evaluated on the basis of the information you provide, the criteria listed in the pertinent sections of the City's regulations, and inspection of the property. Preliminary plats shall be designed to the standards of FWRC 18.55.010 to 080, and 18.60.030 to 120. COMPLIANCE WITH SEPA Preliminary plats are subject to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). For a detailed explanation of the City's environmental policy, refer to FWRC Title 14. CRITICAL AREAS Projects that involve work within critical areas (e.g., wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and lakes) may require that the City contract out for expert technical assistance. Pursuant to FWRC 19.150.030, the applicant is responsible for providing any information, mapping, studies, and materials, and for paying for inspections or review by a qualified professional acceptable to the City. You will be advised at the earliest possible point if your project will be subject to these types of expenses. SHORELINES Subdivision that are within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of Puget Sound, Steel Lake, North Lake, or Lake Kilarney require review under the city's Shoreline Master Program. Applicants should speak with department staff for further information regarding shoreline regulations prior to submitting a formal application. K\2009 Code Amendmenu\Submittal requiremeaW Staff reportW—urtmt mff report with a NWts\Exhibits A, B, C. D\Exbibit D - Bulletin 037 Preliminary Platdoc TRAFFIC RELATED REQUIREMENTS All preliminary plats are subject to transportation concurrency and Trak Impact Fee requirements. Refer to the concurrency information and Traffic Impact Fee handouts for additional information. APPEALS Any decision on a preliminary plat can be appealed to King County Superior Court. See FWRC 18.35.210, for detailed information regarding appeals of preliminary plat decisions. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A complete application is required before the City can proceed with technical analysis and make a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on your application. All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. Please note that a complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. Please do not turn in your application until all items on the list that apply to your proposal have been included. Consult with the Department of Community Development Services if you have a question. All application materials become public information. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Required Submitted "IN tir"goon6 J�6 A. Completed Master Land Use Application form including signature of persons with T11� ownership interest in the property. Agent authorization is required if application is not N0, ��I, ��r.n �} signed b owners of all subject parcels. 4a�1-1 B. All application fees including preliminary plat and SEPA fees. 1 o , xu EM H"i� 6 t r �u n C. Two copies of a current title report or plat certificate, prepared within the last 90 days, �� fia'�� (including any easements or restrictions affecting the properties with a description, Mr,u� ' F ,' � purpose, and reference by auditor's file number and/or recording number; parties of interest; and any restrictions or covenants running with the property.) - NU31 INI 114 b�yggy, N 11 � EA puce h nix��i ii iiFGr�dd�GK�, D. A copy of the current King County Assessor's quarter section map for the area identifying all within 300 feet of the subdivision. (These maps can be found at properties proposed metrokc. ov. ,I4 E. One 11 x 17 reduced co of the reliin plat ma copy P' p R F. Notice of availability from the purveyor(s) of sewer and water signed within a year of the 3 date ofpreliminary plata lication. G. G. Copy of the preapplication summary letter. H. Four copies of the project's Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) per the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). The TIR must include a Level I downstream analysis and must address relevance of the 8 Core and 5 Special Requirements ' KCSWDM. of the 30 I. Four copies of critical areas studies, (i.e., geotechnical study, wetland delineation, wetland , In,mitigation, stream delineation, classification, critical aquifer recharge and wellhead protection areas inventory, etc.) � .J. Four copies of a School Access Analysis. {� K. Four copies of special studies or requirements as requested in your preapplication summary letter. y�� w a ik L. Four copies of Trip Generation or Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington, as required by the Traffic Division. Bulletin #010 — August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 4 k:\Handouts\Short Subdivision Bulletin #010— August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 4 k:\Handouts\Short Subdivision M. Seven copies of a landscapeplan prepared by a licensed landscape architect identi mg existing wooded areas, meadows, rock outcroppings, proposed and required buffers, open spaces, street trees, ornamental landscaping, other landscape features, and stands of trees _ and protection techniques as may be required per the FWRC. N. Seven copies of a preliminary clearing and grading and treelvegetation retention plan consistent with Chapter 19.120.040 FWRC, Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention. O. Seven copies of a property survey in conformance with FWRC 18.35.020(2), stamped by a licensed land surveyor. P. Seven copies, as applicable, of a phasing plan showing divisions of the plat and a proposed timetable for construction of each division. Q. Seven copies of a proposed preliminary plat drawn to scale of 1" = 100' or larger (1:50 is preferred), which includes the Preliminary Plat Drawing Requirements listed on Page 5 of this handout. R. Additional information as required by the Community Development Services and/or Public Works Departments. Notice Requirements Preliminary Plat - A list of the names and addresses of all owners of real property, as shown by the records of the county assessors located within 300 feet of any portion of the boundary of the proposed subdivision and any adjoining real properties owned by the owners of the land proposed to be subdivided. If the owner of the property which is proposed to be subdivided owns adjacent property, the addresses of owners of property located within 300 feet of any portion of the boundaries of such adjacently located parcels must also be provided. Two sets of stamped envelopes with address labels for all owners described above. t SEPA — Provide one set of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties M g ` within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include aseparate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. ` IMPORTANT — Please do not submit metered envelopes. The Federal Way Post Office may refuse such envelopes. In addition, you are highly encouraged to use the T Forever stamps. Bulletin #010— August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 4 k:\Handouts\Short Subdivision PRELIMINARY PLAT DRAWING REQUIREMENTS The preliminary plat drawing shall include, but is not limited to, the following information: I. Proposed name of subdivision. (You may wish to check with King County to make sure that the name of your plat has not yet been used.) 2. Location by section/township/range and legal description. 3. Name, address, and phone number of the developer. 4. Name, address, and phone number of each property owner. 5. Name, address, and phone number of registered land surveyor. 6. Scale of plat, date, and north arrow (subsequent resubmittals must have a revision date). 7. Existing topography of the land indicated by contours of two -foot intervals for slopes less than 15 percent and five-foot intervals for slopes of 15 Percent or greater. Identify all slopes 40 percent or greater on or within 25 feet of the site. 8. Location and extent of significant natural features on and adjacent to the site. Such features include streams, wetlands, views, stands of trees, water ' bodies, to the extent that the significant natural feature and/or their associated buffers affect the proposed plat. 9. Comprehensive plan and zoning classifications of subject and adjoining properties. 10. Adjacent common ownerships and the land or lot divisions of adjoining properties not in common ownership for a distance of at least 100 feet around the perimeter of the property proposed for the subdivision. A separate list of names may be used for clarification purposes. 11. Location, widths, and names of existing or prior platted streets; railroad, or utility rights-of-way or easements; parks or other public spaces; and existing permanent structures to be retained within and adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Where the property has been previously subdivided, the original lots, blocks, street easements, etc., shall be shown in dotted lines in scale with the proposed subdivision. Show distance between existing structures to be retained and property lines. (Show pavement widths, planter strips, sidewalks, utility poles, etc.) 12. Existing and conceptually proposed water, sewer, and drainage utilities on, under, or over the land showing size, grades, and location. 13. Locations and widths of proposed streets, utility rights-of-way and easements. 14. Layout, number, and dimensions of proposed lots. Include the square footage of each lot. 15. Parcels of land intended to be dedicated for public use, or reserved for the use of owners of the property in the subdivision. 16. Building setback lines. 17. The location of all ditches, culverts, catch basins, and other parts of the design for the control of surface water drainage. 18. Typical roadway sections, existing and proposed, including streetlights and street trees. 19. A statement explaining how open space shall be provided. For conventional subdivisions, open space in the amount of 15 percent of the gross land area of the subdivision site is required to be provided. If the City determines that the location, quality, or extent of the required open space would not fulfill the intent or purpose of useful common open space, a payment of an equivalent fee -in -lieu of the required project open space shall be paid pursuant to FWRC 18.55.060(2).` 20. Total acreage of the site platted, prior to creation of any tots, tracts, or other dedications. 21. Acreage precluded from development dote to the presence of critical areas, including: wetlands, streams, steep slopes, and other features (along with buffers), broken out by category, covered by critical areas regulations. 22. Acreage dedicated for public rights -of --way (for both newly created streets and expansions of existing streets), as well as private tracts, alleys, and ingress/egress and utilities easement created for the purpose of providing access to lots within subdivisions. 23. Location and acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities, broken out by category. 24. Net plat area, which is gross plat area minus critical areas, rights-of-way, private open space, and public purpose lands. 25. Vicinity map with labeled streets and north arrow showing the proposed subdivision's relation to the area. 26. List the height of all retaining walls and rockeries. 27. The City's file number will be assigned upon application. Include the file number on subsequent resubmittals. n Open space requirements for cottage housing, zero4ot line town house development, and small lot detached development can be found in FWRC 18.55.060. Z Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #010 — August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 4 k:\HandoutslShort Subdivision EXHIBIT E PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (F WRC) Chapter 19.15 "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.040 "Development application submittal requirements" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit E 19.15.040 Development application submittal requirements. All use process I, II, III and IV applications pfGjerAs w#i ,,,� ,,,,, deteTT�iRa+ien to be Fnade as a ssawh� eth FGF a GeVPmpleC nppliratien s been shitted must at the minimum provide the information contained within Bulletin #053, Development Requirements for Process 1, Bulletin #054, Development Requirements for Process Il or Bulletin #001, Development Requirements Handout for Process Ill or IV, depending on the particular Use Process being applied for. The submittal requirements are not intended to determine if an application conforms to city of Federal Way codes. They are used only to determine if all required materials have been submitted. A code -related review will occur after a complete application has been submitted. The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary. of this n- /7\ A nnliGatinn feed as set eut in the adenied fed eFd; tonne (4) Statement of amhiteeAuFal design inteRt, fiRiSh t Gemmunity Design t ids sidelines. �T .the pFenerhr within the !.gnat- ares plan,(8) Eight Gemplete and bound sets ef dFawings. Minimum dFawing set sha4 puFsuant to PNRG 19. r FWRG 19. 1-0 and building All t t . Gentents ef eaGh of these plans is available at the depaFtment. building elevation d st be at the same seale.- FAust be t t at .;,R engineerinrY-an.+le of-ene innh Fenresent- -20- feel1. •. the site $7-5,000OFgFeat8F, SUFvey, site and build;Rg tpFeli i inage,gFading, Fight ef way plans, ::of Wa hines n The suFyey shall he nrepa ed by a neFtified Iand surveyor*and the ske t tgFading, development, Fight of way plans, and building eleyatiens by ae,eFNed aFeh;teGtGFengineeF. RegaFdless of the value of the K\2009 Code AmddmenukSub=" requiremems\Staff rVort\Cutrmt staff report with «IdbitsW-%Wbits E, FG, F5. I and AExhibit E - revised 19.15.040.doc - 1.1- 9_07:rr 47.4 IMMIM MV: NOW W.- . 1 1 •rr 1 ■- WN 1 r► , (G) T-Faffir. iFnpaGt anal, / `Cil (g) Wetland delineation andler- wetlaM Fnitigatien plan. (h) StFeaFn delineation. maenehltc nenea_+sa Fy Fea- n idesisien en the Fnatter-. awwa awa✓a� a avvvvvawa r ava u .,avv '(Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-594, § 18,1-6-09; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3,4-1-97. Code 20014 22-33.) [02009 Code Amendments\SubmicW requiremenWStaffreport\Current staff report with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G, K i and J\Exhibit E -revised 19.15.040.doc EXHIBIT F EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" Bulletin #053 - Development Requirements for Process I — Directors Approval (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) 4k ciry of A0';:tSP Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMuNrrY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit3Loffedera[MgL.com DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS I Director's Approvai Project Name: Project Description: Applicant/Agent: File No(s): • This form is to be used by an applicant as a guide in determining what constitutes a complete application for Process I, Directors Approval. • All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. • Process I applications that contain all checked items will be determined complete at intake. The applicant or agent will be notified immediately if an application is considered complete. • A complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. How To APPLY The applicant (owner or owner's appointed agent) must file the following items: Required Submitted If the project involves a new structure or changes to the exterior of an existing structure, also provide: Required Submitted ❑ A. Master Land Use Application, with owner's signature ❑ B. A detailed narrative description of the project, on a separate 8% x 11 sheet ❑ C. Six (folded) copies of the site plan ❑ JD. Application fees If the project involves a new structure or changes to the exterior of an existing structure, also provide: Required Submitted ❑ E. Six (folded) copies of existing and proposed building elevations ❑ F. Color & materials indicators (color photos or color board and materials sample) K:\2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G, H, I and AExhibit F - Bulletin 053 Process I Development Requirements.doc WHEN USE PROCESS I IS USED Reference to Process I is found in various places in the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), indicating that certain development, activities, uses, or interpretations are permitted only if approved using Process I. Any Process I application that is not exempt from the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) will be reviewed using the procedural requirements of Process III. See FWRC Title 19, Chapter 55, for a detailed explanation of Process L WHO MAKES THE DECISION Under Process I, the Director of Community Development Services makes the decision based on review and analysis of decisional criteria and the official file. See FWRC 19.55.010 for decisional criteria. APPEALS Any decision issued by the director can be appealed. Appeals of Process I, Director's Decision, are decided by the City of Federal Way Hearing Examiner after a public hearing. See FWRC 19.55.050 for detailed information regarding appeals of Process I decisions. .,�� x •'�' � ,�"�` t ;> �:�.,�-�_:�-ria Bulletin #053 — August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 2 k:lHandouts\Process I Development Requirements EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (F WRQ Title 19.155 "Permits and Review Processes" Bulletin #054: "Development Requirements for Process II — Site Plan Review" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) 4k CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMuNrrY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8`h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ci!3Loffederalway.com DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PROCESS II SITE PLAN REVIEW Project Name: Project Description: Applicant/Agent: File No(s): • This form is to be used by an applicant as a guide in determining what constitutes a complete application for Process B, Site Plan Review. • All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. • Process H applications that contain all checked items will be determined complete at intake. The applicant or agent will be notified immediately if an application is considered complete. • A complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. Process 11 Submittal Checklist l_1 Q A. Completed Master Land Use Application, with owner's signature ©,. B. Application fees C. Copy of entire underlying plat or King County Assessor's parcel map l Q D. Vicinity map on separate 8%i x 11 sheet E. Two copies of current title report for subject property :!- Y F. Two copies of current letters of water and sewer availability (only required for vacant nronerty) G. Site photographs from each compass point (north, east, south, & west) referenced on the site plan K V009 Code Ameodmetts\Suhmittal raryiremeatsCStaff repordCumem staff report with exlubitsT-Aubits E, F G. K I and A1Exhibit G - Process Q Development Reqs poor Format.doc General Plan Standards for Process II • Eight complete and folded sets of drawings (folded to 9 x 12 inches). • Minimum plan sheet size shall be 24 x 36 inches. • Plans must be drawn at an engineering scale that allows the entire plan to fit on one sheet. • Minimum scale is 1:20 unless otherwise authorized. • All information is to be legible. • Plans shall be prepared by a certified professional (licensed in the state of Washington) unless otherwise authorized. Note: If the development proposal has a value of $75,000 or greater, the site survey, site plan, preliminary drainage, arg ding,, right-of-wayplans, and building elevation plans shall be prepared by a certified professional licensed in the state of Washington. The survey shall be prepared by a certified land surveyor: and the site plandrainage arading_riaht-of-way plans and building, elevations by a certified architect or engineer. Regardless of the value of the development, landscape plans must be prepared by a Washington State licensed landscape architect. Required Submitted Bulletin 9054 — August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process 11 Development Requirements H. Topographic survey `t=1 • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale Site area • Property lines, utilities, easements, sidewalks, street edges, existing structures, parking, and site improvements (e.g. drainage systems with pipe sizes, invert and rim elevations) • Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) • Minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes 15 percent or greater; datum shall be King County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 • Delineate slopes greater than 40 percent grade on or within 25 feet of the site • Delineate streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage courses, and other surface water features on or within 200 feet of the site per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, Chapter 30, "Critical Areas" • Identify trees defined by FWRC 19.05.200 Bulletin 9054 — August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process 11 Development Requirements ILUM Code Amm3mdft%SuboiW roWiranents%Staff report\Curtae staff report with adubits\Exbibia E. FG. K [ sod AExbibit G - Process Q De dopman Reqs poor fonnat.doc ' Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #054 — August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process II Development Requirements L Site plan"` _ - '' • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) s Name and phone number of owner/agent - 3 F Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer a~'�n North arrow and bar scale M Vicinity map ��_ • Site area R ' . s • Total parking stall count f .. • Total gross floor area of all proposed floors or levels x� • Location and dimensions of existing/proposed structures, property lines, sidewalks, easements, parking layout, street edges, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, outdoor uses, storage areas, fencing, rockeries, and retaining walls Existing streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage courses, and other surface water ars features on or within 200 feet of site per FWRC Title 14, Chapter 30, "Critical Areas" :=Ag - Location of stands of trees as defused by FWRC 19.05.200 ` • Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, t sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants z • Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) x� IBC construction and occupancy classification type p Y • Location and square footage calculations of any on-site pedestrian areas (i.e., plazas, courtyards) or open space areas N {� • Show location and calculate acreage precluded from development due to the presence of critical areas. including: wetlands, streams steep sloes and other features (along with buffers), broken out by categorycovered by critical areas regulations as applicable. • Show location and calculate acreage dedicated for public ri ts-of-way (for both newly created streets and expansions of existing streets) as well as private tracts alleys and ingress/egress and utilities easement broken out by category. • Show location and calculate acreage of tracts or other areas) dedicated or set aside for retention/detention/drainage facilities open space or other on-site public facilities broken out by category. • Provide net site area, which is gross area minus critical areas rights -of -Kay. private open space, and gublic purpose lands.' I Preliminary drainage, grading, and right-of-way plan • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale 4 • Preliminary storm drainage system in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCS WDM) as amended by Federal Way • Preliminary grading plan with finished contours; minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes 15 percent or greater, datum shall = be King County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 F • Preliminary right-of-way improvement plan, as required by the Public Works Dept t Approximate cut & fill quantities of site earthwork n x:. • Total existing and proposed impervious surface area • Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, _ sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants ' Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #054 — August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process II Development Requirements K\2009 Code Ame dmwslSubmi" requiranenu\Staff report\Cuffe= staff report with cdsbtu\Exhibits E, FG. K C and AExhibit 0- Process n Development Reqs poor fomut.doc Bulletin #054— August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process II Development Requirements K. Preliminary landscape plan Q • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Specific location, type, size, and number of trees to remain and to be removed • Plant schedule with the scientific name, common name, size, spacing, and quantity of each • Specific location and square footage calculations of drought tolerant landscaping (document that a minimum 25 percent is provided per FWRC 19.125.040[6]) • Irrigation plan for lawn areas • Specific location, square footage calculations, and total square footage of each parking lot landscape island per FWRC 19.125.070(2)(x) • Screening of outdoor facilities such as: trash/recycling enclosures, outdoor storage, drive through facilities, stormwater facilities, andground based mechanical equipment • Building wall area landscaping per FWRC 19.125.040 • Specific location of street trees in the right-of-way • Identify perimeter landscape type as I, H, or III } L. Building elevations • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) a • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer x Bar scale Statement of architectural design intent, finish materials, and colors �� a;' • Front, rear, and side (labeled as north, south, east, and west) building elevations of proposed structures �3 } ', • Exterior wall openings • Exterior materials and colors board • Garbage/recycling facility screen details • Roof -top and ground based mechanical equipment screen details • Building height calculation A Clearing and juading plan Q , • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer. • North arrow and bar scale. •Identification of existingslope depicting: areas with 0% to 15% slope areas with 15% to 40% slope, and areas of 40% or gxeater slope • Proposed grades. • Location of all existing and/or proposed structures driveways right—of—way improvements. utilities, and easements on the subject property. • Designation of all wetlands. streams and other critical areas that are on or within 300 feet of any area proposed to be disturbed by the proposed clearing and/or grading action. • Areas proposed for clearing and the proposed use for such areas • Any proposed grade changes that adversely affect or endanger trees on the property and/or adiacent properties, and specifications to maintain them • A minimum of two cross sections of the site drawn to scale depicting the existing and proposed grade and any proposed rockeries and/or retaining walls The director may also require a three dimensional topographic model of existing and proposed t_pographic conditions. • Location anddescription of proposed erosion control devices and structures • When required, a geotechnical reportprepared by a geotechnical engineer, that contains sufficient information to determine the potential impacts of the proposed clearing and grading, as well as proposed measures to reduce or eliminate these im acts. Bulletin #054— August 18, 2010 Page 4 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process II Development Requirements KUM Code Am nab mq mmncotAStaffmpweCwrast stafftepott wid, C& M %xhibita E. F G. K I and AExiubit G - Process n Dewdopm Reqs poor rrn doc N. TreeNegetation Retention Plan E7 Proiect name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name. Rhone number. and license stamp of preparer, who shall be a certified arborist or a certified landscape architect • North arrow and bar scale. E • Statement outlining the purposes of any proposed tree removal (e.&, building construction. street or roadway driveway recreation area patio or parking lot), together with a proposed timetable for when this work will occur. • A tree survey that identifies the location approximate size species and number of trees on this site and also identifies the general location of trees within 50 feet of the site. Tree survey g=les es may only be used at the discretion of the director. • A depiction of the spatial limits for tree/vegetation retention areas and details of tree/vegetation protection measures • A depiction of any new vegetated areas to be established • The manner in which the cleared areas on the property will be reclaimed with vegetation. specification or any required mitigation plantings and a timetable for replanting • ARproved tree/vegetation retention plan shall be incorporated into the clearing and Bulletin #054 — August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process It Development Requirements KA2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staffreport\Current staff report with exhibits)Exhibits E, F G, H, I and AExhibit G - Process II Development Reqs poor format.doc Special studies and additional information for Process II. Re wired Submitted Please provide FOUR copies of the following: 4"I Level One Downstream storm drainage analysis as described in the KCSWDM as amended by Federal Way R Preliminary technical information report addressing relevance of the 8 Core and 5 Special Requirements of the KCSWDM 1 Y. Trip generation analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington ., Concurrency application prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington 77 Traffic impact analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington Parking study as required by the Traffic Division ` IA �d ,WE Noise study �w P P. Lighting plan Geotechnical study D Wetland delineation report Wetland mitigation plan Cl 1T. Stream delineation and classification report Critical aquifer recharge & wellhead protection areas information/inventory Other information relating to design and siting of proposed development (including site cross sections) Specific information to determine compliance with city goals, policies, and regulations Bulletin #054 —August 18, 2010 Page 6 of 6 k:/Handouts/Process II Development Requirements EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" Bulletin #001 -Development Requirements: Process III (Project Approval) or Process IV (Hearing Examiner Approval) (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) 4k CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8'' Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ciiyoffederalWay.com com DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ❑ PROCESS III (PROJECT APPROVAL) Name: ❑ PROCESS IV (HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL) Fite No(s): • This form is to be used by an applicant as a guide in determining what constitutes a complete application. • All checked items must be submitted to constitute a complete application. • Applicant will be notified of a complete application within 28 days. • A complete application does not imply compliance or conformance with applicable codes. • Additional fees may be required for consultant review of critical areas. General Plan Standards • Eight complete and folded sets of drawings (folded to 9 x 12 inches). • Minimum plan sheet size shall be 24 x 36 inches. • Plans must be drawn at an engineering scale that allows the entire plan to fit on one sheet. • Minimum scale is 1 to 20 unless otherwise authorized. • All information is to be legible. • Plans shall be prepared by a certified professional (licensed in the state of Washington) unless otherwise authorized. • If the development proposal has a value of S75 000 or greater, the site survey site plan preliminary drainage, grading. right -of -may plans, and building elevation plans shall be prepared by a certified professional licensed in the state of Washington. The survey shall be prepared by a certified land surveyor: and the site plandrain eg_grading- i t -of way plans, and building elevations by a certified architect or engineer. Regardless of the value of the development landscape plans must be prepared by a Washington State licensed landscape architect Required Submitted nuuenn imui —August its, Zulu Page 1 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements ' Code Amadme 'Submittal -quir --\Staff repoMCutrem stiff report with-d-NUTxlubits E. F G. H, i and AExhibit H - Devdopmem Requirenems poor rormaWng.dm A. Completed Master Land Use application, with owner's signature " B. Application fees including SEPA fees as applicable. sr l� =: C. Copy of entire underlying plat or King County Assessor's parcel map ❑ D. Vicinity map on separate 8%Z x 11 sheet E. Two copies of current title report for subject property . ❑ F. Two copies of current letters of water and sewer availability (only required for vacant property) ❑ G. Eight copies of site photographs from each compass point (north, east, south, & west) x referenced on the site plan H. Concurrency application nuuenn imui —August its, Zulu Page 1 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements ' Code Amadme 'Submittal -quir --\Staff repoMCutrem stiff report with-d-NUTxlubits E. F G. H, i and AExhibit H - Devdopmem Requirenems poor rormaWng.dm Reauired Submitted J. Site Plan • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name and phone number of owner/agent • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Vicinity map • Site area .„ • I. To Survey EV • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) s • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Site area • • Property lines, utilities, easements, sidewalks, street edges, existing structures, parking, and a site improvements (i.e. drainage systems with pipe sizes, invert and rim elevations, etc) Wqv Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) ` Minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes 15 percent or gTeater, datum shall be King County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 ,> xr < • • Delineate slopes greater than 40 percent grade on or within 25 feet of the site spy • • Delineate streams ponds, wetlands, , p natural drainage courses, and other surface • water features on or within 200 feet of the site per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 14.30, "Critical Areas" • Identify trees as defined by FWRC 19.05.200 • Show location and calculate acreage precluded from development due to the presence of J. Site Plan • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) • Name and phone number of owner/agent • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer • North arrow and bar scale • Vicinity map • Site area .„ • Total parking stall count • Total gross floor area of all proposed floors or levels Location and dimensions of existing/and or proposed structures, property lines, sidewalks, easements, parking layout, street edges, mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, outdoor uses, storage areas, fencing, rockeries, and retaining walls • Existing streams, ponds, wetlands, natural drainage courses, and other surface water features on or within 200 feet of site per FWRC Chapter 1430, "Critical Areas' • Location of stands of trees as defined by FWRC 19.05:200 ` Existing and proposed utilities including: utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants • Structures and driveways within 150 feet of subject site (on both sides of street) • International Building Code (iBC) construction type and occupancy classification • Location and square footage calculations of any on-site pedestrian areas (i.e., plazas, courtyards) or open space areas • Indicate any oro op sed phi with proposed timelines for full com leD t10R • Show location and calculate acreage precluded from development due to the presence of critical areas, including: wetlands streams steep slopes and other features (along with buffers), broken out by category, covered by critical areas regulations • Show location and calculate acreage dedicated forubp lic rits-of way (for both newly created streets and expansions of existing; streets) as well as private tracts alleys and meress/eoxess and utilities easement broken out by category • Show location and calculate acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated or set aside for retention/detention/drainage facilities open space or other on-site public facilities broken out by category. f f , • Provide net site area which is gross area minus critical areas rights of way.private open r• space, and ublic purpose lands' t Public purpose lands mean acreage of tracts (or other areas) dedicated for retention/detention/drainage facilities, open space and parks, or other on-site public facilities. Bulletin #001— August 18, 2010 Page 2 of 5 k:/14andouts/Develo ment Requirements K:0009 Code NneodmentsiSubm�ttal requirWW"\$taffreport\Curtmt staff report with OdaIntsedubita E. F G. H, [ and RExhibit H - Development Requirements poor formatting -doe p Reauired Submitted Bulletin #001— August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements r:\2009 Code AmendmwxsZubmitW regwr=mu\Staff mVw\CunreK staff report with adn1ds\Ex1tibits E. F Q K [ and AExbibit H - Devdopment Requiremenu poor form am&d0e K. Preliminary Drainage, Grading, and Right -of -Way Plan 3 - = • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) r x • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer s • North arrow and bar scale £Y • Preliminary storm drainage system in accordance with the 2009 King County Surface Water _ Design itlanual (KCSWDM), as amended by Federal Way • Preliminary grading plan with finished contours; minimum two foot contours for slopes less than 15 percent and five foot contours for slopes 15 percent or greater; datum shall be King County Aerial Survey or NGVD-29 Preliminary right-of-way improvement plan, as required by the Public Works Dept • Approximate & fill �,> cut quantities of site earthwork 9x � � �� • Total existing and proposed impervious surface area �� ,Y • Existing and proposed utilities including- utility poles and boxes, water, storm sewer, x sanitary sewer, and fire hydrants L. Preliminary Landscape Plan �r;�, • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) ;�l • Name, phone number, and license stamp of preparer :' • North arrow and bar scale "' • • Specific location, type, size, and number of trees to remain and to be removed r Plant schedule with the scientific name, common name, size, spacing, and quantity of each Specific location and square footage calculations of drought tolerant landscaping (document K� Et that a minimum 25 percent is provided per FWRC 19.125.040(61) ' • Irrigation plan for lawn areas Specific location, square footage calculations, and total square footage of each parking lot r� landscape island per FWRC 19.125.070(2)(a) r� • Screening of outdoor facilities such as: trash/recycling enclosures, outdoor storage, drive through facilities, stormwater facilities, and ground based mechanical equipment KKK • Building wall area landscaping per FWRC 19.125.040 Specific location of street trees in the right-of-way Y • Identify perimeter landscape type as I II or III s F M. Building Elevations/Design Intent Q • Project name, plan date, and/or revision date(s) 4 • Name hone number, and license stamp of re � P P Parer • Bar scale . • Statement of architectural design intent, finish materials, and colors =; • Front, rear, and side (labeled as north, south, east, and west) building elevations of proposed + _ structures • Exterior wall openings Exterior materials and colors board Garbagelrecycling facility screen details v. r� • Roof -top and ground based mechanical equipment screen details k Building height calculation Narrative summary of how project complies with applicable design guidelines (FWRC § F - = Chapter 19.115, Community Design Guidelines") N. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist Eight copies of the completed, signed, and dated SEPA checklist Bulletin #001— August 18, 2010 Page 3 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements r:\2009 Code AmendmwxsZubmitW regwr=mu\Staff mVw\CunreK staff report with adn1ds\Ex1tibits E. F Q K [ and AExbibit H - Devdopment Requiremenu poor form am&d0e outLcun tfuv L — AUgUSt t S, Zu t u Page 4 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements K:UM Code AmendmentASubmittal requiremenwSuffrepoMCutrent staffreport with xb bksl&ANts E, F G. K [ and AExhibit H - Development Requirements poor formattingdoc O_ . Clearing and grading plan • Proiect name plan date and/or revision dates) • Name, phone number and license stamp of preparer. • North arrow and bar scale -g Identification of existing slope depicting: areas with 0% to 15% slope• areas with 15% to 40% slope: and areas of 40% or greater slope Pro sed �`` • Location of all existing and/or proposed structures driveways right-of way improvements r utilities. and easements on the subject property. Desitation of all wetlands streams and other critical areas that are on or within 300 feet X r of any area proposed to be disturbed bye proposed clearing and/or grading action. `M • Areas proposed for clearing and the proposed use for such areas `:' t • Any proposed grade changes that adversely affect or endanger trees on the p petty and/or ro adjacent pronerues. and specifications to maintain them A minimum of two cross sections of the site drawn to scale depicting the existing and yproposed grade and any proposed rockeries and/or retaining walls The director may also require a three dimensional topographic model of existing and proposed topographic conditions. �� k • Location and description of proposed erosion control devices and structures. • When re uire a geotechnical report. re ared by a geotechnical engineer, that contains y Jai sufficient information to 'determine the potential impacts of the proposed clearing and .� , dm as well as ro osed measures to reduce or eliminate these int cls. P. TreeNegretation Retention Plan _ fi • Proiect name plan date and/or revision dates) Name. phone number and license stamp of preparer who shalt be a certified arborist or a certified landsMe architect. 4 North arrow and bar scale. • Statement outlining the proposes of any proposed tree removal (e g building construction is sza street or roadway dnvewav recreation area patio or parkin lot) together with a proposed tableor when this work will occur. a • A tree serve-y that identifies the location aonroximate size species, and number of trees on this site and also identifies the general location of trees within 50 feet of the site Tree survey samples may only be used at the discretion of the director. • A depiction of the spatial limits for tree/vegetation retention areas and details of tree/vegetation protection measures yr A depiction of any new vegetated areas to be established 4 • The manner in which the cleared areas on the pro >l eM will be reclaimedwith vegetation specification or any required mitigation plantings and atimetable for replanting y Approved tree/vegetation retention plan shall be incorporated into the clearing and grading outLcun tfuv L — AUgUSt t S, Zu t u Page 4 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements K:UM Code AmendmentASubmittal requiremenwSuffrepoMCutrent staffreport with xb bksl&ANts E, F G. K [ and AExhibit H - Development Requirements poor formattingdoc Special Studies and Additional Information Please provide FOUR copies of the following: Level One Downstream storm drainage analysis as described in the KCSWDM, as amended by Federal Way Preliminary technical information report addressing relevance of the 8 Core and 5 Special Requirements of the KCSWDM Trip generation analysis prepared by an engineer licensed in State of Washington I Traffic impact analysis an engineer licensed in State of Washington Parking study as required by the Traffic Division. I Noise study Geotechnical study Wetland delineation report Wetland mitigation plan Stream delineation and classification report Critical aquifer recharge & wellhead protection areas information/inventory Other information relating to design and siting of proposed development (including site cross sections) Specific information to determine compliance with city goals, policies, and regulations Notice Requirements Process IV — Provide two sets of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. SEPA — Provide one set of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. IMPORTANT — Please do not submit metered envelopes. The Federal Way Post Office may refuse such envelopes. In addition, you are highly encouraged to use the Forever stamps. Bulletin #001— August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements KA2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G, H, I and ]\Exhibit H - Development Requirements poor formatting.doc Process III — For applications that are located within, or are, 300 feet from properties V OM zoned SE, RS, or RM, provide one set of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list ` of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot �.: 4 ` boundary. Process IV — Provide two sets of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. SEPA — Provide one set of self-addressed, stamped business sized envelopes (with City of Federal Way return address) of persons receiving property tax statements for all properties within 300 feet of the boundary of the subject property. Include a separate list of the addresses with their parcel numbers and an assessor's map showing the 300 -foot boundary. IMPORTANT — Please do not submit metered envelopes. The Federal Way Post Office may refuse such envelopes. In addition, you are highly encouraged to use the Forever stamps. Bulletin #001— August 18, 2010 Page 5 of 5 k:/Handouts/Development Requirements KA2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staff report\Current staff report with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G, H, I and ]\Exhibit H - Development Requirements poor formatting.doc EXHIBIT I PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.045 "Completeness of applications" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit I 19.15.045 Completeness of applications. (1) Use Process I and Use Process ll. At the time of intake of a complete use process I or use process II application a notice of completeness as referenced in date the application is deemed complete. If the city determines that the use process or use process II application is incomplete the City shall notify the applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete use process I or use process II application sity shall notify the app"Gant ef what needs to be submitted f9F a Gemplete applieatiIn the notice of application, if required, this sairiffen deteffninati , the city shall also identify, to the extent known to the city, the other agencies of local, state, or federal government that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed development activity. (2) Use Process /// or Use Process IV. Within 28 calendar days of receiving an application for use process III or use process IV the city shall determine whether the application is complete, as referenced in FWRC 19.15.040. If found to be complete prior to the 28 -day deadline a letter of completeness shall be issued indicating the date the use process III or use process IV application is deemed complete If the city determines the application to be incomplete prior to the 28 -day deadline the city shall notify the applicant of what needs to be submitted for a complete use process III or use process IV application. In this written determination the city shall also identify, to the extent known to the city, the other agencies of local state or federal government that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the proposed development activity. If the use process III or use process IV an application was found incomplete and an applicant submits additional information, the city shall notify the applicant in writing within 14 days, the date the application is deemed complete or whether further additional information is necessary. (3) Additional information. A determination of completeness shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the letter of completeness or subsequently, if new information is required or if there are substantial changes in the proposed action. (4) Vesting. A proposed use process I, II, III, or IV application shall vest to and be considered under the zoning code and other land use control ordinances in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for use process I, II, III, or IV has been submitted to the city. In the event that the application is deemed incomplete, the use process I, II, III, or IV application shall vest to those codes in effect on the date that all requested supplemental or specific information is submitted. A complete application shall be defined as set forth in FWRC 19.15.040 and based on requirements in related handouts. Vested rights shall not be waivable pursuant to the vested rights doctrine. (Ord. No. 09-625, § 3, 9-15-09; Ord. No. 09-594, § 19, 1-6-09. Code 2001 § 22- 33.5.) Ki2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirementAStaffreport\Current staffreport with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G, K I and J\Exhibit I version 2 revised 19.15.045.doc EXHIBIT J PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ Title 19.15, "Permits and Review Processes" 19.15.030 "Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites" (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) Exhibit J 19.15.030 Review processes for improvements and additions to developed sites. Improvements and/or additions to existing developed sites shall be subject to land use review processes as follows: (1) Process L Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are exempt from SEPA shall be processed using process I, provided the improvements and/or additions do not exceed any of the following thresholds: (a) There is no change of use. (b) There is no reduction in the amount of required landscaping, buffering, open space, or public areas. (c) There is no material change or reduction in the amount of required parking. (d) There is no material change in the location of utilities, easements, or pedestrian connections. (e) There is no material change to the approved architectural design. (f) There are no additional adverse impacts to sensWve critical areas. of (2) Process IL Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are exempt from SEPA and exceed the thresholds in subsection (1) of this section shall be processed using process II. (3) Improvements not exempt from SEPA. Improvements and/or additions to an existing developed site that are not exempt from SEPA shall be processed under process III, unless process IV is indicated by the applicable use zone chart in which case process IV shall be used. (Ord. No. 07-573, § 10, 12-4-07; Ord. No. 00-375, § 9, 10-3-00. Code 2001 § 22- 32.2.) KA2009 Code Amendments\Submittal requirements\Staffreport\Current staffrepott with exhibits\Exhibits E, F G. K 1 and AExhibit J - revised 19.15.030.doc City Council Agenda Bill Attachment #3: Draft Minutes of the August 25, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing Amendments to FWRC Chapter 19 relating to clarifying the complete application and review standards of the zoning and development code and a housekeeping amendment that maintains consistent critical areas language. (City File No. 10 -102132 -00 -UP) CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tim O'Neil and Tom Medhurst. Staff present: Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Deb Barker, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Darlene LeMaster. Council Member Jeanne Burbidge was also present. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL All commissioners present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 21, 2010, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Director of Community Development Services will address the commission during the `Additional Business' section of the agenda. COMMISSION Bi75I1'4ES9" PUBLIC HEARING — Shoreline Master Program Update Chair Pfeifer explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing Senior Planner Janet Slttill stated that the intent of tonight's meeting was to consider revisions to the draft Shoreline Master Plan (SMP).She introduced the City's consultant, Teresa Vanderburg with ESA Adolfson and David Pader with the Department of Ecology. She also stated that there was a sign up sheet at the back that serves two purposes. The first was to sign in if you would like to testify and secondly, to sign up if you would like to be on an e-mail notification list. Ms. Shull gave a brief overview of the SMP, which serves to regulate development along shorelines of the state and establishes a comprehensive vision of how the shoreline area will be used and developed over time. She also stated that local jurisdictions are required to prepare a local. SMP to carry out the requirements of the Shoreline Master Act (SMA). The SMP also includes goals and policies that are part of the City's comprehensive plan and regulations that are part of the city code. The SMP includes information about existing conditions and analysis about the potential cumulative impacts of future development and opportunities for restoration. Ms. Shull then showed a map of the City's shorelines explaining that there were two categories — marine shorelines and shorelines associated with lakes. There are two lakes, Steel Lake and North Lake within the City GAPlanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 25, 2010 and a number of additional lakes within the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The City is required to plan for the lakes within the PAA, however, the regulations will only apply when the area is annexed into the City. Ms Shull then summarized the SMP process to date. She explained that work on the SMP began in early 2006. At that time a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) were formed to provide input on the update. The City held a public open house in June 2006 and set up a website with information on the SMP update. In 2007, the Planning Commission held three public meetings after which they forwarded their recommendation to the City Council, who approved the draft SMP update in June 2007. In July 2007, the draft SMP update was submitted to the DOE for review and comments were received from DOE in January 2009. City staff and their consultant ESA Adolfson have been working with DOS do revisions based on DOE's comments for the past year. Because the draft SMP update has been changed since the Planning Commission and Council last saw it, staff decided to bring it back to both Planning Cor mis� sjpn and City Council. The City mailed notice to all shoreline property owners within the City and PAA, about the public comment process and the availability of draft documents. The City also marled notice to former, CAC and TAC members. This City's website was also updated and links to the revisdddraft SMP were provided,.. Hard copies of the revised documents were placed in libraries and were made available at City Hall. A,,;'PpY- was also made available in the City Council Conference Room and council "members weie�made aware of itsAailability. Ms Shull then went over highlights to the revisions. She'eained that Section 2 — Inventory and Characterization and Section 4 — Shoreline Environment had not been updated as DOE had no comments on these sections. Section 2 is very bulky so it was ni t included in the Plan* Com mission's blue binder, but is on the website, however the Shoreline Environment'De gnations, which is ,�i,PgYe page map, was included. Ms Shull explained that Section One - Introduction was revised 'to present a better linkage between our local SMP and the Statewide SMA. Four new policies were added to Section Three -- Goals and Policies. Ms Shull stated that we modified existing `pa)tme's to add emphasis on the AVIA goal of "no net loss" of ecological function of the city's shorelines, the 'urpose and Responsibility section was expanded and a section summarizing Public Participation was added. Ms Shull stated that in Section Five -= Shore fne ;Regulations, numerous revisions were made for clarity. For example, city stgff'added 4 Development Standards Table; integrated critical areas regulations instead of having them be appdices; added recuiremebt for a 50 -foot setback from top of marine bluffs; and added a staff proposed change to allow piers And docks dri,thp .Marine Shoreline. In Section Six-=storation Plan, City staff added and updated information on regional programs that help with shoreline restoration;; added information on restoration opportunities for freshwater lakes; and added two tables that summarize and prienitize resto ion opportunities. In Section 7, staff added defmiilons that are required to make the City's SMP consistent with the SMA. Ms Shull also stated that in Appendix A -- Cumulative Impacts Analysis, staff added a table that summarizes land development activity in the past five years within the shoreline area and added a section that analyzes the potential cumulative impact of allowing docks and piers on the marine shoreline. Ms Shull mentioned that staff had scheduled a study session with the planning commission and interested citizens for August 4, 2010, however it was changed to an informational meeting when only one Planning Commissioner, Commissioner Carlson, attended. There were eleven citizens, the City's Consultant and the DOE staff in addition to staff in attendance. During the meeting, there was discussion on proposed setbacks from marine bluff and proposed standards for bulkheads. There was also one written comment, Exhibit 2, a request from the Kutschas to modify the stringline provisions for lakes only. Ms Shull stated that since the stringline setback provisions had already been approved by Council, staff is not recommending any changes. GAPlanning Commission\20 I OWeeting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 25, 2010 Ms Shull then went over some modifications proposed by staff. These included clarifying that the 50 -foot minimum marine bluff setback is from the "top" of the marine bluff. It also included modifying Section 15.05.050(1)(a)(i-iii) to make it clear that hard shore armoring (bulkheads/riprap) is subject to proof of imminent damage and a shoreline conditional use permit in the Urban Conservancy Environment and that no conditional use permit is required for soft shore armoring regardless of zone. Ms Shull ended her presentation by stating that staff recommends approval of the proposed revisions to the draft SMP Update with staff modifications as depicted in Exhibit 1 to the August 25, 2010 staff report. The public hearing was opened for public testimony. Norm Kutscha, 33021 38`h Ave S, Federal Way — Submitted a document dated August 25, 2010 and also read from the document requesting that the Planning Commission tale another look at the shoreline setback regulations for lakes in order to make them more equitable for a*fisting homes in relationship to new homes. Peter Townsend; 29508 12`h Ave SW, Federal Way — He felt ghat it is importan ,Jo know what staff considers the problem areas under the SMA for the past fiVe years and what shoufd ;done to solve the problems. The public hearing was opened to questions from the commissioners - Commissioner Bronson asked what changes are ,being made because`of DOE requirements and what changes are being made by the City, such as setbacks, that we could change later. Ms; Shull replied that most of the changes in the binder are required changes, except for pie s/dgcks and setbacks. "the_ noted that the Kutscha's request would not be opposed by DOE. However, staff didn't fe4'ii etas their place to make changes to what the City had already approved. David Pater with Department ,of Ecology from the Bellevue office introduced himself and noted that he has worked with the city to resolve issues And believed that they have resolved them. The state recognizes the unique distinction of each jurisdiction, and there is some flexibility. The shoreline stabilization section is the most rigid. The state uses a checklist to make sure each jurisdiction has met requirements, and that there is room for modifications to setbacks, piers and decks. ;He further added that there was a lot of back and forth negotiations between the City and DOL; Commissioner O'Neil wondered ;what the changes meant for the taxpayer and how might the use of waterfront property, be chaffed. Ms. Shull rioted that the goal was to make as few changes as possible, and that the changes appear reasonable, Teresa Vanderburg with ESA/Adolfson noted that there is a new focus on conserving and preserving vegetation within the setback zone and also ' to avoid impacts to resources in the water. There are also provisions for dimensions of docks and piers. `She clarified that the changes are only for new development and not existing development. There is a provision for tear -down houses or expanding existing uses. Commissioner Medhurst asked if variances were available. Ms. Shull replied that yes, shoreline variances are subject to hearing examiners recommendation that is forwarded to the State, which has the ultimate approval. Commissioner O'Neil asked whether the DOE had the final say just for variances. Ms. Shull answered that DOE would have the final say only for variances and conditional use permits. However, these decisions are appealable to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Commissioner Carlson was concerned about the length of time it took for the DOE's response to proposed changes to the City's shoreline code. Ms. Shull noted that the state experienced staff shortages, and that once their comments were available, the amendment was prioritized and brought to commissioners as complete as GAPlanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 25, 2010 possible. Commissioner Carlson also had questions about the value of the cumulative impacts analysis as the analysis is quantitative but the conclusions are qualitative. David Pader, with DOE responded, that the cumulative impacts analysis is adequate Chair Pfeifer asked if there were any more questions from the commissioners, and seeing none called for the motion. Commissioner Bronson moved to recommend adoption of the code amendment as prepared by staff. Commissioner Medhurst seconded the motion. Discussion — Commissioner Elder urged Commissioners to consider item #4 of the`Kutscha's request regarding setbacks. Commissioner Carlson disagreed with Commissioner Elder noting thatFthe Kutscha's request, if approved, might penalize property owners who have not yet exercised their development rights. Commissioner Carlson also acknowledged that critical areas need greater setbacks The motion carried, 6-1 (Elder dissenting). The public hearing was closed. PUBLIC HEARING — Amendments Related to Submittal Requirements for Plats and Commercial Projects Chair Pfeifer explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Senior Planner Deb Barker delivered the staff report. Prop amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) include: • Short Subdivisions — Chapter 19. 36.030 Content and form of application; • Preliminary Plat — Chgper 18.35. d2,0 Content and. oarm of application; • Permits and Review 'Profess — .Chapter 19.15.440,, Development Application Submittal Requirements; • Permits and Review Processes Chapter 1,0 15.045 Completeness of Applications; and • Permits and`Reviewu Processes -Chapter 19.15.630(1)(fl Review Processes for improvements and additiow, �,to developed Ates The public hearing was opened far public testimony. There was no public comment. The public testimony was closed. The public hearing was opened to questions from the commissioners: Commissioner O'Neil said he agreed with the checklist concept and feels that it is much easier for the public to use. He inquired whether this information was available on-line. Ms. Barker replied that submittal requirements checklists are available on the City's website and staff can assist the applicant to locate the requirements and the checklists. Commissioner O'Neil asked if the applications are tracked on-line. Ms. Barker noted that the current permit tracking system is not set up to track these applications on-line. Commissioner Medhurst wanted to understand if the requirements have changed, or if some have been eliminated. He feels that the checklist is more confusing and could be arbitrarily applied. He prefers code as written. Ms. Barker said that the code does not give any discretion to waive submittal items that may not be GAPIanning Commission12010Wee[ing Summary 08-25-10.doc r>annmg commission Minutes Page 5 July 25, 2010 necessary, while the checklist provides flexibility. Chairman Pfeifer noted that there is lots of support from Master Builders for the checklist and bulletin concept. Commissioner Medhurst asked for clarification as to which codes were eliminated. Chairman Pfeiffer stated that none of the codes were eliminated and the code is still there. The checklists provide a place to go to find out what their specific application requires. Ms Barker pointed out that the code states that the director may waive any requirements that are determined to not be reasonably necessary. Commissioner Medhurst replied that language addressed his concerns and he is satisfied. Commissioner Carlson is also in support of the checklist format. However, he is still concerned that submittal requirements can be modified at the stroke of a pen. He believes that any types of changes to the submittal process should go through the public process, especially the planning commission. He supports the amendments only if substantive changes to application submittal requirements go through public process. Ms. Barker stated that substantive changes to the code do come from code amendments that have 'Already gone through a public process. She noted that recent changes to the clearing and grading codes contained very substantive changes to performance standards, and those changes to code went through a very public recess. Substantive code changes are not administratively made, but are approved through the code arndmerft process. Commissioner Carlson stated that allayed some but not all of his concerns. Commissioner Bronson agreed that the checklist is a wonderfuI idea. He asked why pr cts can't be submitted electronically. Ms. Barker replied the City's permitting stem is only equipped to recei,electrical permits electronically. Commissioner Bronson asked why apptica�Qns could <ot be submitted 'ort ,a thumb drive. Planning Manager Conlen agreed that these types of projects do, take a lot of paper and the City would love to reduce paper. However, the City does not have the technology to re*}ew applications on a computer screen, to mark it up or make comments. If applications are submitted electronieally, the City has added copying costs that should be borne by the applicant. Commissioner Bronson is amazed that City does not have enough equipment to review the plans electronically. Planning Manager Chen said that it woo be great if we did but currently we do not have that technology. Commissioner Long thanked staff fox bringing this topic to the Coir�ri i"ssioners. He feels that this concept will be a big benefit to developers. He inquired if plans` Were required for Process I and II before they were determined to be complete; Ms. Barker confirmed that plans were required and gave examples of typical process I and II applications. Commiissioner Long inquired about the differences between existing code and proposed changes to the completeness section of the bode. Planning "Manager Conlen stated that there is no change to current practices. The intent is taolrify tie code so it is clear what the practice is. There is no change from current practicefor prooss I and II completeness"reiE ov, which is done at counter; and there is no change for process III and IV compleYen/e§s review,, which take a more lengthy review process and includes a follow-up letter. Commissioner O'Neill said that lie." understands that the proposed amendment clarifies when an applicant becomes vested. Ms,'Barker confirmed that as the current code is vague, it is important to clarify that a complete application is a vested application. Commissioner Long observed that currently the City's Traffic Division determines if a submitted traffic study is acceptable, and therefore if in application is complete. With the proposed language, an application would be considered complete even if the submitted traffic study was later found to be unacceptable. Ms. Barker noted that was an on-going topic of concern by staff since reports are not always professionally prepared. Commissioner Long recommends that the checklists be changed to add that traffic impact analysis shall be stamped by a professional engineer. This was clarified so that the report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer in State of Washington. Chairman Pfeifer thanked staff for putting the amendment together. He believes that the code amendment makes sense and will save developers time in the long run. Commissioner Long moved to recommend adoption of the code amendment as prepared by staff. GAPIanning Commission\201OWeeting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 25, 2010 Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. There was general discussion and agreement that Commissioner Long's recommended changes to the checklist do not need to be reflected in the motion. The motion carried, 7-0. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins addressed the Commission with the following items: Administrative Assistant Piety will be on medical leave for an undet0tied period of time. During her absence, Tamara Fix will be the person to communicate with regarding �i'lannii commission. Ms. Fix will be assembling the Planning Commission agenda packet and corresponding with ail" Penning Commissioners and Stakeholders. Darlene LeMaster will be staffing all Planning'Commission meetf p and drafting meeting minutes � October 20, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing Will be on Urban Chickens. T'//1wrp11,4re, no topics for either the Sept. 1 or the Sept. 15, 2010 Planning Conurt'isisiOn meetings, therefore, thole> fieetings will be cancelled. Staff would like to propose a study session for the. full 'PTa/hi ring Commission on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. to talk about the urban chicken tcic: All Commissioners said they would be able to attend the special study session. 2011-2012 Budget — Director Fewins explained t� the commissioners how ioc #cress all of the 2011-2012 City Budget documents from the City's website. Director Fewins also highlighted the proposed budget cuts to impact the Department of Community Development`Services shauld Council approved the proposed budget. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:060.nL GAPlanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.dm COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM BASED ON ECOLOGY COMMENT POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council pass a Resolution approving revisions to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and authorizing submittal of the revised SMP documents to the Department of Ecology for their formal review and approval as required under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation MEETING DATE: Sept. 20, 2010 CATEGORY: ® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business N Resolution ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Janet Shull, Senior PlannerDEPT: Community Development Attachments: A. Staff Report B. Resolution C. Revised SMP Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and Appendix A (as recommended by Planning Commission) D. Comment Letters E. Response to Comment Letters Options Considered: 1. Recommend City Council pass a resolution approving the revised SMP as recommended by the Planning Commission, and authorize submittal to Department of Ecology for their formal review/approval. 2. Recommend City Council pass a resolution approving the revised SMP with specific modifications, and authorize submittal to the Department of Ecology for their formal review/approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option 1 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: , Lo' q I M Jtne DIRECTOR APPROVAL: 6W Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward to the (fill in date) consent agenda for approval. Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move adoption of a resolution approving revisions to the City of Federal Way SMP and authorize submittal of the revised SMP to the Department of Ecology for review and approval as required under the SMA. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED 1ST reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # 11AmCITY OFFederal WaV CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 2010 TO: Dini Duclos, Chair Members of the Land Use/Tr nspo-rtation Committee (LUTC) VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manage `�I91do(o FROM: Greg Fewins, CDS Directbr"' Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planne SUBJECT: Revisions to Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update in response to Department of Ecology review and comment. MEETING DATE: September 20, 2010 A. POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council pass a Resolution approving revisions to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and authorize submittal of the revised SMP documents to the Department of Ecology for their formal review and approval as required under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)? B. INTRODUCTION This staff report contains an overview of proposed revisions to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The proposed revisions are based on review and comment by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). The DOE reviews all locally -adopted SMP documents and must approve them prior to local government implementation. Staff and our SMP Consultant, ESA Adolfson, have been working with the DOE for the past year on the development of these revisions. The following "Background" section of this report summarizes the SMP update process to date. Attachment C contains the draft revised sections of the SMP for your review. The proposed revisions are clearly indicated by underline and s#ikethfeugh font. A few additional modifications were made to Section 5, "Regulations" during Planning Commission deliberations. These changes are indicated by and font. Section D of this report summarizes the proposed revisions. C. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way is required to update its Shoreline Master Program under Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 6012, passed by the 2003 Washington State Legislature, to be consistent with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) guidelines established by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). The City of Federal Way obtained a grant from the DOE and hired ESA Adolfson for technical assistance with the update. City staff and ESA Adolfson prepared draft elements of the SMP and obtained input from a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 City Council Committee Staff Report Page 1 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Committee (TAC). A public open house was held on June 7, 2006, and was advertised with direct mailings to all shoreline property owners as well as public notices on the City's website. In addition to the input of the CAC and the TAC membership and public input at the open house, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, King County, neighboring cities, and the Tribes were notified of the SMP update. Three meetings were held with the Planning Commission (February 14, March 28, and April 4, 2007) and public comment taken. The City Council Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) held a meeting on the SMP Update on May 21, 2007, followed by City Council approval of the SMP Update by resolution on June 5, 2007. Following Council approval, the draft SMP Update documents were sent to the Department of Ecology for review and comment. On January 28, 2009, the City of Federal Way received formal comments from the Department of Ecology. In the summer of 2009, staff and ESA Adolfson began working on draft revisions including several iterations of consultation and review by DOE staff. The result is the proposed revised draft SMP Update accompanying this report (Attachment Q. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing in August, a direct mailing to all shoreline property owners and former members of the CAC and TAC was done to notify of availability of the revised SMP. The City website was updated and links were provided on the website to electronic copies of the proposed revisions to the SMP Update. Hard copies of the revised SMP Update documents were also placed in both Federal Way libraries and at City Hall for access by the public. On August 4, 2010, an informational meeting was conducted for the public. On August 25, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed revisions and passed a motion recommending the City Council approve the proposed revisions as presented. D. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS Department of Ecology review and comment on the June 2007 Council -approved draft have resulted in proposed revisions to all but two of the SMP Elements. The elements that have not been revised are: ■ Section Two: Inventory and Characterization; and ■ Section Four: Shoreline Environment Designations Section Two, Inventory and Characterization, was not included in the LUTC packet due to its size and its not being revised. City council members may view Section Two on the City website via a link on the homepage under "Major Projects." A hard copy of Section Two is also available for review in the Council Office. The remaining sections do have proposed revisions and these revisions are summarized in this section of the report. Sections to be revised in order to respond to Department of Ecology comment and correction include: ■ Section One: Introduction ■ Section Three: Goals and Policies ■ Section Five: Shoreline Regulations ■ Section Six: Restoration ■ Section Seven: Definitions; and ■ Appendix A: Cumulative Impacts Analysis City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 2 Attachment A 40k CITY OF Federal Way CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: September 8, 2010 TO: Dini Duclos, Chair Members of the Land Use/TrAnsportation Committee (LUTC) VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manag,„q`/)91A0 FROM: Greg Fewins, CDS Direct Janet Shull, AICP, Senior Planne SUBJECT: Revisions to Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update in response to Department of Ecology review and comment. MEETING DATE: September 20, 2010 A. POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council pass a Resolution approving revisions to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and authorize submittal of the revised SMP documents to the Department of Ecology for their formal review and approval as required under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)? B. INTRODUCTION This staff report contains an overview of proposed revisions to the City of Federal -Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The proposed revisions are based on review and comment by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). The DOE reviews all locally -adopted SMP documents and must approve them prior to local government implementation. Staff and our SMP Consultant, ESA Adolfson, have been working with the DOE for the past year on the development of these revisions. The following "Background” section of this report summarizes the SMP update process to date. Attachment C contains the draft revised sections of the SMP for your review. The proposed revisions are clearly indicated by underline and s#iketlf-eugh font. A few additional modifications were made to Section 5, "Regulations" during Planning Commission deliberations. These changes are indicated by bold, doable underline and font. Section D of this report summarizes the proposed revisions. C. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way is required to update its Shoreline Master Program under Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 6012, passed by the 2003 Washington State Legislature, to be consistent with Shoreline Management Act (SMA) guidelines established by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). The City of Federal Way obtained a grant from the DOE and hired ESA Adolfson for technical assistance with the update. City staff and ESA Adolfson prepared draft elements of the SMP and obtained input from a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 1 Committee (TAC). A public open house was held on June 7, 2006, and was advertised with direct mailings to all shoreline property owners as well as public notices on the City's website. In addition to the input of the CAC and the TAC membership and public input at the open house, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, King County, neighboring cities, and the Tribes were notified of the SMP update. Three meetings were held with the Planning Commission (February 14, March 28, and April 4, 2007) and public comment taken. The City Council Land Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) held a meeting on the SMP Update on May 21, 2007, followed by City Council approval of the SMP Update by resolution on June 5, 2007. Following Council approval, the draft SMP Update documents were sent to the Department of Ecology for review and comment. On January 28, 2009, the City of Federal Way received formal comments from the Department of Ecology. In the summer of 2009, staff and ESA Adolfson began working on draft revisions including several iterations of consultation and review by DOE staff. The result is the proposed revised draft SMP Update accompanying this report (Attachment Q. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing in August, a direct mailing to all shoreline property owners and former members of the CAC and TAC was done to notify of availability of the revised SMP. The City website was updated and links were provided on the website to electronic copies of the proposed revisions to the SMP Update. Hard copies of the revised SMP Update documents were also placed in both Federal Way libraries and at City Hall for access by the public. On August 4, 2010, an informational meeting was conducted for the public. On August 25, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed revisions and passed a motion recommending the City Council approve the proposed revisions as presented. D. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS Department of Ecology review and comment on the June 2007 Council -approved draft have resulted in proposed revisions to all but two of the SMP Elements. The elements that have not been revised are: ■ Section Two: Inventory and Characterization; and ■ Section Four: Shoreline Environment Designations Section Two, Inventory and Characterization, was not included in the LUTC packet due to its size and its not being revised. City council members may view Section Two on the City website via a link on the homepage under "Major Projects." A hard copy of Section Two is also available for review in the Council Office. The remaining sections do have proposed revisions and these revisions are summarized in this section of the report. Sections to be revised in order to respond to Department of Ecology comment and correction include: ■ Section One: Introduction ■ Section Three: Goals and Policies • Section Five: Shoreline Regulations ■ Section Six: Restoration ■ Section Seven: Definitions; and ■ Appendix A: Cumulative Impacts Analysis City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 201U Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 2 Section One: Introduction The Introduction section has been revised to incorporate changes that better reflect the specific language contained in the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) regarding the overall purpose of the local SMP. In addition, specific citations to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC) were added at the request of the DOE to provide a clearer link between our local SMP and the statewide SMA. Section Three: Goals and Policies The Goals and Policies section has been revised to add four new policies that are required to be included in local SMPs. The following are new policies: ■ SMPP9 Promote respect of private property rights while implementing Shoreline Management Act Requirements. ■ SMPP77 Use the City's established permit tracking program to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the Shoreline Master Projzram for achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions with respect to shoreline permitting and exemptions Prepare an evaluation report eves seven years when the SMP is required to be updated under RCW 90.58.080(4). ■ SMPP 101 The existing system of pedestrian ways bikeways and equestrian ways in the city should be extended to provide safe access to public parks located on the shoreline (author's note: existin policy in FWCP Transportation Element) ■ SMPP 103 Regionallyignificant pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities along shoreline circulation routes should be pursued in partnership with other agencies (author's note: existmQ policy in FWCP Transportation Element) In addition to new policies, several existing policies were revised to add emphasis to the overall goal of no net loss of ecological function on the city's shorelines. The Goals and Policies section was also revised to expand the Purpose and Responsibility section and add some additional sections that explain how the SMP is implemented via the comprehensive plan policies, and the shoreline regulations that become a part of the municipal code once formally adopted. A section summarizing Public Involvement was also added. Section Five: Shoreline Regulations The Shoreline Regulations section received the most comments from the DOE resulting in most of the revisions. This can be expected as this section will become the most frequently consulted element of the SMP once formally adopted by the City. Revisions to this section reflect DOE comments regarding the specific requirements of the SMA. The following are some of the more notable revisions: ■ A Development Standards Table was added to summarize in one section the development standards that will apply in each of the shoreline environments. ■ The Critical Areas regulations are completely integrated in the revised shoreline regulations, whereas the previous version incorporated them as appendices to the shoreline regulations. These sections are now Chapter 15.10 — Critical Areas; and Chapter 15.15 — Flood Damage Prevention, of Title 15, Shoreline Management, rather than Appendices A and B. ■ One substantive change made was to establish a minimum setback from marine bluffs. The revised shoreline regulations establish a minimum 50 -foot setback from the top of marine bluffs. This change was made in response to a DOE comment citing the need to ensure that new development on steep slopes and bluffs is set back to prevent the need for future shoreline stabilization during the life City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 3 of the project, based on a geotechnical analysis. Staff assessed the 25 -foot setback in the existing critical areas code and determined that the current 25 -foot setback from a geological hazard area does not provide adequate protection for a marine bluff, which may be subject to a high rate of natural erosion. The City of Des Moines has adopted a 50 -foot setback from the top of marine bluffs in their updated SMP. In application to a specific development proposal, the marine bluff setback requirement may be greater than the 50 -foot minimum if determined necessary by a site-specific geotechnical analysis. Exceptions to the 50 -foot minimum marine bluff setback may be considered through application for a Shoreline Variance. Another substantive change was made to the Shoreline Regulations that is a staff -proposed change. That change is to allow, under certain conditions, docks and piers on the marine shoreline (the existing regulations and previous draft prohibited docks/piers on the marine shoreline). We wanted to point out this change as it is not responding to DOE comment, but rather reflects a better understanding on the part of staff regarding the intent of SMA dock/pier policy. There are currently few docks or piers on the marine shoreline, and staff does not anticipate that many new dock or pier structures will be constructed due to the natural conditions. Additionally, the regulations state the mooring buoys are preferred over piers and docks and a property owner must demonstrate why a mooring buoy is not adequate before being allowed to construct a pier or dock. Section Six: Restoration Plan The Restoration Plan was revised to add a section discussing the difference between restoration and protection. The section that describes the integration of restoration goals and policies into the Comprehensive Plan was updated and expanded. Additional/updated information on Regional Programs that are in place to help with shoreline restoration was added. A section was added that describes restoration opportunities for freshwater lakes. Two tables (Table 2 and Table 3) were added that summarize the potential restoration opportunities for marine and freshwater shorelines and prioritize the potential restoration actions. Section Seven: Definitions Definitions were added that are required to be included in local SMPs to be consistent with the SMA. Staff also deleted the definition of "land surface modification" in keeping with a recent code amendment on clearing and grading that eliminated that term in reference to clearing and grading activities. Appendix A: Cumulative Impacts Analysis The Cumulative Impacts Analysis was revised to add a section and table that summarize land development activity in the past five years within the shoreline area. These recent development trends are then related to potential future development that can be anticipated within Federal Way's shoreline area. A section was added that analyzes the potential impact of allowing piers and docks on the marine shoreline as the current shoreline regulations do not allow this. A new table (Table 5), was added that provides an assessment of existing shoreline functions and how the SMP will protect the shorelines. Table 5 also assesses the anticipated future performance of shoreline functions. E. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AT AUGUST 4 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING On August 4, 2010, planning division staff hosted a public information meeting on the SMP. There were 11 citizens in attendance at the meeting in addition to city staff and our Shoreline Consultant: Aaron Booy, ESA Adolfson; our Department of Ecology Regional Shoreline Planner: David Pater; and Planning Commissioner: Wayne Carlson. City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 4 Staff made a presentation that summarized the information contained in the "Introduction" and "Background" sections of this staff report. Following the presentation, there was an informal question and answer session with those in attendance. Citizens had questions about the proposed revision to establish 50 -foot setback from marine bluffs in the Residential and Urban Conservancy Environments (50 -foot minimum setback was already established for the Natural Environment). It was brought to staff's attention that the reference in Section 15.05.040(4)(b)(iii) did not specify "top" of bluff, so the setback requirement was unclear. A question was also raised about shoreline stabilization and whether proof of imminent damage to existing structures was required for all shoreline stabilization methods or just hard armoring (bulkheads). Staff proposed the following minor modifications to Section 5 — Shoreline Regulations that were incorporated into the Planning Commission recommendation: 1. A modification to clarify the application of the 50 -foot minimum marine bluff setback is from the "top" of a marine bluff. 2. A modification to Section 15.05.050(1)(a)(i-iii) that clarifies the proof of imminent damage to existing structures is only required for proposed hard shore armoring (bulkheads and riprap), and only subjects hard armoring to the shoreline conditional use permit in the Urban Conservancy Environment. F. WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SMP REVISIONS At the time of this writing, the Community Development Services Department has received three written comments (all transmitted via email). These written comments are provided as Attachment D. Staff has met with Mr. and Mrs. Kutscha regarding their proposed changes to application of the stringline setback and we anticipate the Kutschas will be in attendance at the September 20, LUTC meeting. Staff has provided written response to the two other comments (Muckleshoot Tribe and Futurewise) and these response letters are attached as Attachment E. G. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends that the proposed revisions to the SMP Update, including: Section 1 - Introduction; Section 3 - Goals and Policies; Section 5 - Shoreline Regulations; Section 6 - Restoration Plan; Section 7 - Definitions; and Appendix A - Cumulative Impact Analysis, as depicted in Attachment C, be recommended for approval to the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation as shown in Attachment C, and authorization of submittal of the revised SMP documents to the Department of Ecology for their formal review and approval. K:\Shoreline Master Program\2010 Revisions\LUTC\ LUTC Report.DOC City Council Committee Staff Report Meeting Date: September 20, 2010 Revisions to Shoreline Master Program Update Page 5 Attachment B RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING INTENT TO ADOPT UPDATES TO THE FEDERAL WAY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM FOLLOWING REQUIRED DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WHEREAS, the City adopted its Shoreline Master Program (SMP) in 1994 and amended it in 1998; and WHEREAS, the Washington Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.5 8, referred to herein as "SMA") recognizes that shorelines are among the most valuable and fragile resources of the state, and that state and local government must establish a coordinated planning program to address the types and effects of development occurring along shorelines of state-wide significance; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way ("City") is required to update its Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") pursuant to the SMA and WAC 173-26; and WHEREAS, the updated SMP includes a scientific inventory and characterization report, goals and policies, shoreline environmental designations, regulations and administrative procedures, a restoration plan, and a cumulative impacts analysis; and WHEREAS, the updated SMP is in the best interest and general welfare of the City of Federal Way because it provides for the protection of sensitive shoreline areas while allowing appropriate uses and activities in shoreline areas and includes a plan to restore degraded areas of the shoreline; and WHEREAS, the updated SMP will apply to all jurisdictional shorelines within City limits and will apply to all jurisdictional shorelines within the city's Potential Annexation Area (PAA), upon the effective date of annexation of the PAA or any portion of the PAA; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), on March 31, 2007, a Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by the city's SEPA Official and the appeal period expired on April 28, 2007; and Resolution No. 10- Page 1 of 4 Rev 1/10 WHEREAS, the city has incorporated public input into the update process by preparing a Public Participation Plan, holding a public open house, forming a Citizens Advisory Committee, holding public Planning Commission meetings, holding a public hearing before the Planning Commission, developing an SMP update web page, providing notice of meetings by mail and other means, and maintaining an SMP mail list; and WHEREAS, the city incorporated technical feedback on the SMP update by forming a Technical Advisory Committee to review draft products and provide comments and feedback; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission considered the updated SMP at their meetings ofFebruary 14, 2007, March 28, 2007, and held a public hearing on April 4, 2007, and forwarded a recommendation to approve, with minor modifications, the updated SMP; and WHEREAS, following passage of Resolution 07-500 by the City Council, the updated SMP was transmitted to the Department of Ecology for formal review; and WHEREAS, following Department of Ecology review, the City of Federal Way received official review comments in January 2009; and WHEREAS, city staff, the city's SMP consultant, and Department of Ecology staffworked collaboratively to prepare draft revisions to the SMP that responded to the official Department of Ecology review; and WHEREAS, former members of the SMP Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Shoreline Property Owners, Public Agencies, and other parties of interest were notified of the availability of the revised SMP documents; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2010, a public information meeting was conducted to discuss the revisions to the SMP; and WHEREAS, on August 25, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed revisions to the SMP and forwarded a recommendation to approve the proposed revisions; and WHEREAS, following passage of this resolution the revised SMP Update will be transmitted to the Department of Ecology for formal review and approval; and Resolution No. 10- Page 2 of 4 Rev 1/10 WHEREAS, following Department of Ecology review and approval, the City Council shall pass an ordinance adopting the approved SMP; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Public Interest. The best interests and general welfare of the City of Federal Way are served by enacting the updated SMP because the SMP provides for the protection of sensitive shoreline areas while allowing appropriate uses and activities in shoreline areas and includes a plan to restore degraded areas of the shoreline. Additionally, the updated SMP addresses Potential Annexation Areas so that residents in these areas have predictability with regard to future SMP requirements and policies. Section 2 Department of Ecology Review/Approval. Following passage of this resolution, the updated SMP will be transmitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) for formal review and approval. Following WDOE review and approval, the City Council shall pass an ordinance adopting the approved SMP. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this resolution. Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authorized to make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers, and any references thereto. Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. Resolution No. 10- Page 3 of 4 Rev 1/10 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of 52010. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: Resolution No. 10- Page 4 of 4 Rev 1/10 Attachment C 40k CITY Federalo. Way City of Federal Way Revised Draft SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Federal Way Community Development Services 33325 Eighth Avenue S. Federal Way, Washington Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 With Revisions based on Department of Ecology Review and Comment July, 2010 CITY OF Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DRAFT SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE Federal Way Community Development Services 33325 Eight Avenue S. Federal Way, Washington Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 PREFACE The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was adopted by Washington State in 1971. The SMA is intended to "prevent the inherent harm in uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." It establishes statewide policy to provide for management of the shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses in an environmentally responsible manner. The SMA is administered through a cooperative program between local governments and the Department of Ecology (Ecology), whereby local communities prepare a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is adopted under guidelines established by Ecology. The SMP serves to regulate development along shorelines of the state and establish a comprehensive vision of how the shoreline area will be used and developed over time. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Contents Introduction............................................................ Section 1 ............................................................ Shoreline Inventory and Characterization......................................................................... Section 2 Master Program Goals and Policies................................................................................... Section 3 Shoreline Environment Designations............................................................................... Section 4 Shoreline Use Regulations, Development Standards, and Administrative Procedures ..... Section 5 Restoration Planning........................................ Section 6 .............................................. ............................................ Section 7 Definitions ........................ Appendix A — Cumulative Impact Analysis Appendix B — Environmental Checklist and SEPA Determination Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Pending Department of Ecology Approval i Introduction 2 Inventory and Characterization 3 Goals and Policies 4 Shoreline Environment Designations Shoreline Regulations 6 Restoration Plan 7 Definitions 8 Appendix A Cumulative Impacts Analysis Appendix B SEPA Environmental Checklist Section 1 Introduction Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions based on Department of Ecology review and comment are indicated as follows: Additions are indicated with underline and deletions are indicated with stfikedifetigh text. Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION Purpose and Responsibility Washington's Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RC W (SMA), was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a referendum. The SMA Amt was created in response to a growing concern among residents of the state that serious and permanent damage was being done to shorelines by unplanned and uncoordinated development. The goal of the Aet SMA is "to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. 11 o also intended to pre-,4de fe-f appr-epriate sher-eline grevAh y ene )ufag ag land tises that enhane ' t' funefiens and < a1ues The overarching SMA policy is to manag shorelines of the state by planning for and supporting reasonable and appropriate uses while protecting against adverse impacts to public health the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life. The primary responsibility for administering the SMA is assigned to local governments through the mechanism of Shoreline Master Programs (SMP), adopted under guidelines established by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Ecology guidelines (WAC 173- 26) establish goals policies and standards Local SMPs contain goals and policies, maps, regulations and development standards and permitting procedures consistent with the SMA and Ecology guidelines. The SMP is required to protect shorelines as a statewide resource but provide for the program to be tailored to the specific conditions and needs of individual communities. The SMP is also meant to be a comprehensive vision of how the shoreline area will be used and developed over time. According to Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 6012, passed by the 2003 Washington State Legislature, cities within King County are required to amend their local SMPs consistent with Ecology's revised guidelines. The required update process also provided the City with an opportunity to incorporate the changes in the physical shoreline conditions (including annexations) and integrate current technical and scientific information into the SMP. At the time of incorporation in 1990, the City of Federal Way ("City") adopted King County's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The City developed and adopted its own SMP in 1998 that integrated the SMP into the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. In 1999, the City adopted associated development regulations for the shoreline. As of January 2005, newly annexed areas included the eastern shore of North Lake and the northwestern shore of Lake Killarney. The eastern shores of North Lake and northwestern shore of Lake Killarney continue to be governed by County shoreline regulations. In addition, all of the lakes within the City's potential annexation area (PAA) are also governed by County shoreline regulations. A comprehensive update to the City's SMP is needed to include newly annexed areas and to update the City's regulations to meet current shoreline requirements. June 2007, Revised 2010 based on Department of Ecology Comm cuts/Corrections 1-1 Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program The goals and policies contained in this SMP will be incorporated into the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan under a new Shoreline Use element. Development regulations contained in this program will be amended and incorporated in the Federal Way City Code Chapter 48 15.05, ^� i� HI — Shoreline Management. Shoreline Jurisdiction Under the SMA, the shoreline jurisdiction includes er-a' -high-wate r- maA (^HWN4` o waters that have been designated as "shorelines of statewide significance" or "shorelines of the state" and adjacent lands or "shorelands." Shoreline jurisdiction includes all the designated water bodies and the land underlying- them, plus their associated shorelands which includes land extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from those floodways and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams lakes and tidal waters subject to the SMA. and areas watefwefd-ef th, OHMzN4 that are w4hin City jtffisdietiaia hieh ex4ends te the EiEtf effie Lew- Tide) - These designations were established in 1972, and are described in the SMA (RCW 90.58.030 (2) WAG G 17 . Generally, "shorelines of statewide significance" include portions of Puget Sound and other marine waterbodies, rivers west of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, rivers east of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 200 cfs or greater, and freshwater lakes with a surface area of 1,000 acres or more. "Shorelines of the state" are generally described as all marine shorelines and shorelines of all other streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater and lakes with a surface area greater than 20 acres. The shoreline jurisdiction within the city limits of the City of Federal Way encompasses approximately 16.9 miles of shoreline. It includes all of the Puget Sound shoreline in Federal Way (about 4.8 miles), including areas waterward of the OHWM which extends to the line of extreme low tide. Of this, Approximately 12.1 miles of shoreline are found along freshwater lakes. The lakes currently within the city limits are: • Steel Lake, • The northwestern shore of Killarney Lake, and • North Lake. There are no rivers or streams meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" within the City or its annexation area. However, streams such as Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek discharge to the Puget Sound shoreline The mouths of the these streams and the upstream extent of tidal influence are considered under shoreline jurisdiction because of their association with the Puget Sound shoreline. Five freshwater lake shorelines are located in the City's PAA and are included in this master program update; these include Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake Geneva, he remaining portion of Lake Killarney, and Five Mile Lake. 2 June ZUU i Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program The portions of Puget Sound within the city limits waterward of the line of extreme low tide are defined as "shorelines of statewide significance" (RCW 90.58.030(2)(e)(iii)). Under the SMA, the shoreline area to be regulated under the City's SMP must include marine waters, lakes, and shorelands, defined as the upland area within 200 feet of the OHWM, as well as any associated wetlands (RCW 90.58.030). The shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Federal Way is shown in Figure 1. ......;::.;:.... ... . .......:::: ............. ::::::.............: �.S . a a . •iii::.::.}}}:}:: }:::::. �. �:: ::::: .:.::... '�' - . iU. ..............:::::::::::::. "iij'•:: iiiiii::�i}i: +.:•}:: i:::+.::4iii:.:�:}:} . ......:::..... .......::... . f t i;:t Q p�SSa t r. :Isa9^7i m . ............ 6Yt>i0rh& iHt39Ab 9t � ws �QtnR; *r, - - _ - < .' 'fby. . ; 5 �•S'ar2idt SO Ii«So-�oY f i^. $F?i� SS7afnSi f! ai .i is /y y i Figure l.City of Federal Way Shoreline Jurisdiction. Compliance in Federal Way Federal eral Way Shoreline Management Plan Federal eral Way and Its Potential Annexation Area Legend -_ City of Federal APAy Potential Annexation Area Regulated Shoreline Tdd/ Puget Sound East Puget Sound - DUmaS Say Puget Sound Vilest Steel Lake Star Lake Lake DOUoff Lake Geneva North Lake Lake Killarney Five We Lake 0�0.5 �1 Miles N tutap Date: May 2006 Cn± 0. Federal Way Tt" map is amm%med by NO.•;arranti". artd ie n40l3y a ryaphb ivpres.n fm.). The SMA establishes a cooperative prop -ram of shoreline management between local government and the state The state's primary role is to support local government and provide assistance, as well as reviewing some shoreline permits and reviewing and approving amendments to local SMPs. The SMA requires three priMpU tasks to be fulfilled by local governments. Compilation of a comprehensive inventory that includes a survey of natural characteristics present land uses and patterns of property ownership; Administfatiell of June 2007, Revised 2010 based on Department of Ecology Comments/Corrections 1-3 Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program pfesent a uses, a atte of pfepeffy owner -ship; an 2. Development of a master program to provide an objective guide for regulating the use of shorelines consistent with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and its provisions including the SMP Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC) and Shoreline permitting and enforcement procedures (Chester 173-27 WAC); and 3. Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial development and regulated uses in designated water bodies and on their associated shorelands. The City of Federal Way SMP refers to the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and other development plans and ordinances for which this SMP has relevance. Federal Way's shoreline regulations are considered part of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC), Chapter 15.05 4-9- ^fciele 1=, Shoreline Management. In compliance with the seem first requirement of the Act, the City completed a comprehensive inventory of natural characteristics, functions and values of resources, existing land use, and ownership patterns along the City's shorelines (Section 2 - Shoreline Inventory). This inventory was completed in August 2006 and finalized in June 2007. The gird -second requirement of the Act was met by the City with the help of local citizens and stakeholders, who assisted in developing goals and policies, which form the foundation for the SMP. The SMP serves as a guide for planning the use of and regulating the City's shorelines along Puget Sound and its freshwater lakes. Public Involvement To conduct the SMP update, City staff and ESA Adolfson prepared draft components of the City's SMP, worked with a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), sought review from a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and presented findings to the Planning Commission and Land Use & Transportation Committee. At the start of the project in February 2006, a Public Participation Plan was developed and used as a guide during the SMP update. A public Open House was held on June 7, 2006 to introduce the process to the public and shoreline residents. The Open House was advertised with direct mailings to all shoreline owners as well as public notices on the City's website. Six meetings were held with the CAC between July and December 2006. Citizen comment was integrated into the shoreline inventory, shoreline environment designations, and goals & policies section of the SMP. Technical documents were routed to the TAC, including Ecology staff, for review and comment. Other agencies involved in the process included Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, King County, neighboring cities, and the Tribes. Three meetings were held with the Planning Commission to present findings and discuss recommendations. The Planning Commission meetings were held on February 14, March 28, and April 4, 2007. A public hearing was held during the April 4, 2007 meeting. Approximately 20 citizens testified either at the public hearing or during public testimony during the March 28th Planning Commission meeting. Additional public comment was taken and response given during the City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting on May 21 St, 2007. City Council passed the SMP by resolution on June 5, 2007. 1-4 June 2007 Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program A programmatic environmental checklist was prepared for the Shoreline Master Program Update. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the City's SEPA Official issued a determination of Non -significance on March 31, 2007. The public comment period was open on the DNS for approximately 30 days. The appeal period expired on April 28, 2007. June 2007, Revised 2010 based on Department of Ecology Comments/Corrections 1-5 Federal Way Draft Shoreline Master Program Document Organization The Draft SMP establishes long-term planning goals and policies, specific development standards and use regulations, and permitting and administrative procedures. As such, the SMP is a consolidated document with sections that are formally part of other city planning documents and the Federal Way City Code. The organization of the SMP and the purpose for each chapter is explained below. • Section 1 - Introduction: provides background and overview; • Section 2 - Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report: provides the inventory and characterization of the City's shorelines, including a full map folio and previous work by WRIA 9 and Seattle Public Utilities on the marine shoreline; • Section 3 - Master Program Goals and Policies: provides general and specific SMP goals and policies for shoreline use elements. This chapter will be the new Shoreline Element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; • Section 4 - Shoreline Environment Designations: establishes new shoreline environment designations and management policies for specific areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. The management policies are included in Chapter 112 of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Specific development standards and use regulations for each shoreline environment are included in Section 5 g of the SMP. • Section 5 — Shoreline Use Regulations, Development Standards, and Administrative Procedures: establishes specific use regulations (e.g., allowance of piers and docks, marinas, recreational development, etc.) and standards (e.g., setbacks, height limits, etc.) for each shoreline environment. The uses and standards will be included in the City's Zoning Code (FW -CCC Chapter- 19 An �i H!, FWRC Title 15, Shoreline Management). The administrative procedures section identifies the process for permit applications associated with shoreline development. • Section 6 - Restoration Plan: establishes long-term restoration goals, provides an overview of regional Puget Sound restoration plans and programs, and discusses specific restoration opportunities in Federal Way; • Section 7 - Definitions: provides definitions for terms used throughout the SMP. Appendix A — Cumulative Impacts Analysis Appendix B — Environmental Checklist / SEPA Determination 1-6 June 2007 Section 3 Goals and Policies Chapter 11, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions based on Department of Ecology review and comment are indicated as follows: Additions are indicated with underline and deletions are indicated with strilethr-Ough text. SECTION 3 -_SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (Chapter 11, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan) i PurQose_.,___._.T ..........--:• 11.0 Purpose and Responsibility Washington's Shoreline Management Act Chapter 90.58 RCW (SMA) was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a referendum. The SMA was created in reponse to a g gowing concern among residents of the state that serious and permanent damage was being done to shorelines by unplanned and uncoordinated development The goal of the SMA is to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." The overarching SMA policy is to manage shorelines of the state by planning for and supporting reasonable_ and appropriate uses while protecting against adverse impacts to public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife and the waters of the state and their aquatic life. Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan t[ttu to Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 1 ............1 Shoreline Use Elemenfi_.—_.__..__.__::_.—_. ............—__ .__,..............:>_:___ 6 Public Access and Recreation Element....:,.__._..^ ..........................._._...._. 12 Conservation and _Restoration . Element ...... �:T,..........._,i_ •`...........:_...`...... .. 16 Historic and Cultural ResourcesElementi....__..............._ .......... 20 CirculationElement..................................................................................................................21 shorelineEnvironments............................................................................................................ 23 Shoreline Residential ......... ....... 23 Urban Conservancy ....... 24 Natural.......................................................................................................................................... 25 11.0 Purpose and Responsibility Washington's Shoreline Management Act Chapter 90.58 RCW (SMA) was passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by the public in a referendum. The SMA was created in reponse to a g gowing concern among residents of the state that serious and permanent damage was being done to shorelines by unplanned and uncoordinated development The goal of the SMA is to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines." The overarching SMA policy is to manage shorelines of the state by planning for and supporting reasonable_ and appropriate uses while protecting against adverse impacts to public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife and the waters of the state and their aquatic life. Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan t[ttu to Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 1 The primary responsibility for administering the SMA is assigned to local governments through the mechanism of Shoreline Master Programs SMP), adopted under guidelines established by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Ecology guidelines (WAC 173-26) establish goals, policies, and standards. Local SMPs contain goals and policies, maps, regulations and development standards, and permitting procedures consistent with the SMA and Ecology guidelines. The SMP is required to protect shorelines as a statewide resource while also being tailored to the specific conditions and needs of individual communities. The SMP is also meant to be a comprehensive vision of how the shoreline area will be used and developed over time. According to Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 6012, passed by the 2003 Washington State Legislature, cities within King County are required to amend their local SMPs consistent with Ecology's revised guidelines. The required update process also provided the City with an opportunity to incorporate the changes in the physical shoreline conditions (including annexations) and integrate current technical and scientific information into the SMP. At the time of incorporation in 1990, the City of Federal Way ("City") adopted King County's Shoreline Master Program(SMP). The City developed and adopted its own SMP in 1998 that integrated the SMP into the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. In 1999, the City adopted associated development regulations for the shoreline. As of January 2005, newly annexed areas included the eastern shore of North Lake and the northwestern shore of Lake Killamey. All of the lakes within the City's potential annexation area (PAA) are governed by County shoreline regulations. The goals and policies contained in this SMP are incorporated into the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan within the Shoreline Master Program element. Development regulations contained in this program are incorporated in the Federal Way Revised Code Title 15, Shoreline Management. 11.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction Under the SMA, the shoreline jurisdiction includes waters that have been designated as "shorelines of statewide significance" or "shorelines of the state" and adjacent lands or "shorelands." Shoreline jurisdiction includes all the designated water bodies and the land underlying them, plus their associated shorelands, which includes land extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from those floodways, and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters subject to the SMA. These designations were established in 1972, and are described in the SMA (RCW 90.58.030 (2). Generally, "shorelines of statewide significance" include portions of Puget Sound and other marine waterbodies, rivers west of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, rivers east of the Cascade Range that have a mean annual flow of 200 cfs or greater, and freshwater lakes with a Goals and Policies -- Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 2 surface area of 1,000 acres or more "Shorelines of the state" are generally described as all marine shorelines and shorelines of all other streams or rivers having a mean annual flow of 20 cfs or greater and lakes with a surface area greater than 20 acres. The shoreline jurisdiction within the city limits of the City of Federal Way encompasses approximately 16 .9 miles of shoreline It includes all of the Puget Sound shoreline in Federal Way (about 4.8 miles) including areas waterward of the OHWM which extends to the line of extreme low tide Approximately 12 .1 miles of shoreline are found along freshwater lakes The lakes currently within the city limits are: • Steel Lake; • The northwestem shore of Lake Killarney; and • North Lake. There are no rivers or streams meeting the definition of "shorelines of the state" within the City or its annexation area. However, streams such as Joe's Creek and Lakota Creek discharge to the Puget Sound shoreline The mouths of the these streams and the upstream extent of tidal influence are considered under shoreline iurisdiction because_ of their association with the Puget Sound shoreline. Five freshwater lake shorelines are located in the City's PAA and are included in this master program update• these include Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake Geneva the remaining portion of Lake Killarney, and Five Mile Lake. The portions of Puget Sound within the city limits waterward of the line of extreme low tide are defined as "shorelines of statewide significance" (RCW 90 58.030(2)(e)(ui)). Under the SMA the shoreline area to be regulated under the City's SMP must include marine waters lakes and shorelands defined as the upland area within 200 feet of the OHWM as well as any associated wetlands (RCW 90.58.030). The shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Federal Way is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 City of Federal Way Shoreline Jurisdiction Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan tt I LILU w Revisions Based on DOE Comtnents/Corrections Page 3 11.2 Compliance in Federal Way The SMA establishes a cooperative program of shoreline management between local _government and the state The state's primary role is to support local government and provide assistance, as well as reviewing some shoreline permits and reviewing and approving amendments to local SMPs. The SMA requires three primary tasks to be fulfilled by local governments: 1. Compilation of a comprehensive inventory that includes a survey of natural characteristics, present land uses, and patterns of property ownership; 2. Development of a master program to provide an obiective guide for regulating the use of shorelines consistent with the SMA (RCW 90.58) and its provisions, including the SMP Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC) and Shoreline permitting and enforcement procedures (Chapter 173-27 WAC ; and 3. Administration of a shoreline permit system for proposed substantial development and regulated uses in designated water bodies and on their associated shorelands. In compliance with the fust requirement of the Act the City completed a comprehensive inventory of natural characteristics functions and values of resources existing land use, and ownership patterns alongthe City's shorelines (Section 2 — Shoreline Inventory) This inventory was completed in August 2006 and finalized in June 2007. The second requirement of the Act was met by the City with the help of local citizens and stakeholders who assisted in developing goals and policies which form the foundation for the SMP. 11.3 Public Involvement To conduct the SMP update City staff and ESA Adolfson prepared draft components of the Cm's SMP worked with a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) sought review from a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and presented findings to the Planning Commission and Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC). At the start of the project in February 2006 a Public Participation Plan was developed and used as a guide during the SMP update. A public Open House was held on June 7 2006 to introduce the process to the public and shoreline residents. The Open House was advertised with direct mailings to all shoreline owners as well as public notices on the City's website. Six meetings were held with the CAC between July and December 2006. Citizen comment was integrated into the shoreline inventory, shoreline environment designations, and goals & policies section of the SMP. Technical documents were routed to the TAC, including Ecology staff, for review and comment. Other agencies involved in the process included Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 4 Resources Kine County, neighboring cities and the Tribes. . Three meetings were held with the Planning Commission to present findings and discuss recommendations The Planning_ Commission meetings were held on February 14, March 28 and April 4 2007 A public hearing was held during the April 4 2007 meeting. Approximately 20 citizens testified either at the public hearing or duringyublic testimony during the March 28th Planning Commission meeting Additional public comment was taken and response given during the City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting on May 21 st 2007 City Council passed the SMP by resolution on June 5, 2007. A programmatic environmental checklist was prepared for the Shoreline Master Program Update Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) the City's SEPA Official issued a determination of Nonsignificance on March 31 2007. The public comment period was open on the DNS for approximately 30 days The appeal period expired on April 28, 2007. 11 .4 Relationship to City Code The felleA4ng comprehensivfell set of shoreline goals and policies in this comprehensive plan element provide the foundation and framework on which the balance of the master program has been based. The policies contained herein are enforced through "Aiele III FARC Title 15, Shoreline Management, and any other applicable sections ehapters of the liWGGFARC. Article II of Chapter 15.05 includes all of the shoreline regulations that enforce the goals and policies of the SMP The following is a list of the primary sub- sections of Chapter 15 05 Article II These sections are listed here to illustrate how the SMP goals and policies are linked to the regulatory latory document. Chapter 15.05 (Shoreline Management) — Article II (Shoreline Regulations) • Section 15-05-040— General development standards. Provides standards consistent with the Conservation and Restoration Historic and Cultural Resources and Public Access and Recreation elements of this Chapter. This section of Article II adopts Critical Areas and Flood Damage Reduction regulations (as Chapter 15.10 and Chapter 15.15 of Title 15). • Section 15.05.050— Shoreline modiTcations Provides standards specific to shoreline modifications consistent with the Shoreline Use and Conservation and Restoration elements of this Chapter. • Section 15.05.060— Environment desijenations Introduces the system of environment designations, consistent with the Shoreline Environments section of this Chapter. • Section 15 05 070 Summary of Uses Approval Criteria and Process. Provides a graphical summary of the use and development regulations detailed in other sections of Article II. • Section 15 05 080 Shoreline residential environments Provides regulations specific to the shoreline residential environment consistent with the goals and policies for the shoreline residential environment within this Chapter. • Section I S 05 090 Urban conservancy environment. Provides regulations Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan " Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 5 specific to the urban conservancy environment consistent with the goals and policies for the urban conservancy environment within this Chapter. • Section 15.05.100 — Natural environment. Provides regulations specific to the natural environment consistent with the goals and policies for the natural environment within this Chapter. 11.5 Shoreline Use Element This element addresses the distribution, location, and extent of use of shorelines and adjacent areas for housing, recreation, transportation, office, public buildings, utilities, education, and other uses. The shorelines in Federal Way are more widely used for residential purposes than for any other use. Much of the undeveloped shoreline is privately owned, subdivided into small lots, and zoned to permit residential development. Goal SMPG1 Shoreline areas shall permit a variety ofdevelopment types in accordance with the City's zoning, Comprehensive Plan, and Shoreline Master Plan designations. Designs, densities, and locations for all allowed uses and developments should consider physical and natural features of the shoreline and pessibk-ad-,wrise effeet:q' evv"Ne eeelegiealfunetien prevent a net loss ofshoreline ecological functions. Policies SMPP1 Shoreline land and water areas particularly suited for specific and appropriate uses should be designated and reserved for such uses. SMPP2 Shoreline land and water uses should satisfy the economic, social, and physical -needs of the regional population, but should not lead to a net loss of ecological functions in the shoreline areas. SMPP3 Like or compatible shoreline uses should be clustered or distributed in a rational manner, rather than allowed to develop haphazardly. SMPP4 Multiple uses of shoreline should be encouraged where location and integration of compatible uses or activities are feasible. SMPPS Shoreline ecological functions should be protected from uses or activities that will have an adverse effect on them. SMPP6 Non-residential uses or activities that are not shoreline dependent should be encouraged to locate or relocate away from the shoreline. SMPP7 Federal Way shall -should consider the goals, objectives, and policies of the shoreline master program in all land use management decisions regarding the use or development of adjacent uplands where such use or development may have an adverse effect on designated shorelines. Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 6 SMPP8 Development should be regulated accordingly in shoreline areas known to contain development hazards or which would adversely impact designated critical areas as identified in Chapter 22 of the FWCC. a. All development should be prohibited within the 100 -year floodplain, except single- family residential and water -dependent or water -related uses. b. All development should be prohibited in shoreline areas of severe or very severe landslide hazard. C. All development should be regulated in shoreline areas with slopes of 40 percent or greater. d. Shoreline areas containing other potential hazards (e. g., geological conditions, unstable subsurface conditions, erosion hazards, or groundwater or seepage problems) should be regulated as necessary to avoid unsafe development and disturbance of sensitive areas. SMPP9 Promote respect of private property rights while implementing Shoreline Management Act requirements. Goal SMPG2 Residential use of shoreline areas should be continued and encouraged in areas that have not been designated as Natural environments by the SMP, allowing a variety of housing types. New development or redevelopment of residential uses should eid the gmate;4 extent pn.t^ aA-erse em ets en cause no net loss ofshoreline ecological function as identified in the SMP's Shoreline InventotyCharacterization and Analysis. Policies SA4PP9 SMPP10 Residential developments should avoid or ha.N,e'„"''fnal impae on she land and weAef efivirenment of the shoreline be designed to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and minimize interference with visual and physical obstfeetien access. Unavoidable impacts to the shoreline environment from residential development should be mitigated to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. a. Residential development in designated critical areas or their associated buffers should be regulated as required by the City's SMP regulations. Residential development on piers or over water is prohibited. C. Landfill for residential development that reduces water surface or floodplain capacity sheield shall -not be permitted. In residential developments the water's edge should be kept free of buildings and Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 7 fences e. Development standards should require the retention of natural shoreline vegetation and other natural features of the landscape to the greatest extent possible during site development and construction. SAWPI9 SMPPI l Residential use of shorelines should not displace or encroach upon areas that have existing or are designated as supporting water -dependent shoreline uses. S"�rSMPP12 Residential densities should be determined with regard for the physical capabilities of the shoreline areas and public services requirements and include the following considerations: a. Subdivisions and new development should be designed to adequately protect aesthetic characteristics of the water and shoreline environment. b. New residential development should only be allowed in those shoreline areas where the provision for sewage disposal and drainage ways are of such a standard that adjoining water bodies would not be adversely affected by pollution or siltation. C. Residential development along shorelines should be set back from the ordinary high water mark far enough to make unnecessary such protective measures as filling, bulk heading, construction groins or jetties, or substantial regrading of the site. d. Residential developments should be designed to enhance the appearance of the shoreline and not substantially interfere with the views from public property or access to the water. e. The shoreline ecosystems, processes, and functions identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization should be considered when determining standards for residential development patterns within the shoreline environment. SAI -2 SMPP13 Residential subdivisions in shoreline areas should provide public pedestrian access to the shorelines within the development in accordance with the public access and recreation element of this master program. S"�SMPP14 Developers of recreational projects such as summer homes, cabins, campgrounds, and similar facilities should satisfactorily demonstrate: a. The suitability of the site to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting the shoreline environment and water resources. Adequate provisions for all necessary utilities, including refuse disposal. Goal SMPG3 Shoreline areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan and the SMP to allow for commercial development shall permit a variety of commercial and office park development types. New development or expansion of existing commercial and office uses should result in no net loss of Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 8 shoreline ecological functions. Policies SA4PPj4-SMPP15 Consideration should be made of the effect a structure will have on scenic value, and when feasible should include opportunities for public access to shoreline areas. cnR�j5-SMPP16 Commercial and office structures and ancillary facilities that are not shoreline dependent or water -oriented should be set back from the water's edge and designed to avoid adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions. cn�6-SMPP17 The use of porous materials and other low impact development design alternatives should be encouraged for paved areas to allow water to penetrate and percolate into the soil. Use of holding systems should be encouraged to control the runoff rate from parking lots and rooftops. cnT�r SMPP18 Commercial and office development located within shoreline areas should be constructed to withstand normal rain and flooding conditions without contributing pollution to the watercourse or shoreline. State and local best management practices should be implemented to protect the natural shoreline environment from impacts associated with stormwater runoff. SA4PPI&SMPP19 Commercial and office development that is not water -dependent should provide a buffer zone of native vegetation for erosion control. S^.�*D�j_q_SMPP20 Commercial aquaculture activities should be prohibited. Goal SMPG4 Regional and subregional utilityfacilities, including communications, (radio, TV, and telephone ), energy distribution (petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity), water, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers should not be allowed in shoreline areas unless there is no alternative location. peo- . Design, location, construction, and maintenance of utilityfacilities must comply with the requirements of SMP regulations and other federal state and local laws, and should aveid—te the result in no net loss oft& shoreline ecological functions. Policies SxIOSMPP21 Utilities that could allow for growth should not be extended into or along shorelines without prior approval of such extension by appropriate land use authority. SA4 D21-SMPP22 Utilities located in shoreline environments inappropriate for development should not make service available to those areas. Goals and Policies Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 9 SA4PP22 SMPP23 In developed shorelines not served by utilities, utility construction should be encouraged to locate where it can be shown that water quality will be maintained or improved. SA PP23 SMPP24 Federal Way should be consulted prior to, or at the time of, application for construction of regional utility facilities to be located in or along shorelines. SAIPP24SMPP25 Utility corridors crossing shorelines should be encouraged to consolidate and concentrate or share rights-of-way where: Public access or view corridors would be improved. b. Concentration or sharing would not hinder the ability of the utility systems to be installed, operated, or maintained safely. Water quality would be as good as or better than if separate corridors were present. SARA. P25 SMPP26 Public access should be encouraged where rights-of-way for regional utility facilities cross shorelines in the City and where public safety and facility security would not be compromised. SA4PP26 SMPP27 New utility facilities should be located so as to not require extensive shoreline protection nor to restrict water flow, circulation, or navigation. SA4PP27 SMPP28 New utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located to preserve the natural landscape and minimize conflicts with present and planned uses of the land on which they are located. S"RP2SMPP29 New utility facilities and rights-of-way should be located and designed to minimize detrimental visual impacts from the water and adjacent uplands. S"�rSMPP30 New freestanding personal wireless service facilities are prohibited from locating within the shoreline environment. Goal SMPG5 Limit shoreline stabilization — which includes any action taken to reduce adverse impacts caused by current, flood, wake, or wave action —including the use of bank stabilization, rip rap, and bulkheading, to that which is necessary to protect existing improvements. Policies c"R�0 SMPP31 Shoreline stabilization should be allowed only if it is clearly Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 10 demonstrated that shoreline protection is necessary to protect existing improvements. S"T�TSMPP32 Structural solutions to reduce shoreline erosion should be allowed only after it is demonstrated that nonstructural solutions such as bioengineering or soft - shore armoring would not be able to protect existing development. SA D�2SMPP33 Planning of shoreline stabilization should encompass sizable stretches of lake or marine shorelines. This planning should consider off-site erosion, accretion, or flood damage that might occur as a result of shoreline protection structures or activities. SA4PP33 SMPP34 Shoreline stabilization on marine and lake shorelines should not be used as a means of creating new or newly developable land. S"�rSMPP35 Shoreline stabilization structures should allow passage of ground and surface waters into the main water body. S,=35 SMPP36 Shoreline stabilization should not reduce the volume and storage capacity of streams, and adjacent wetlands or flood plains. en�6 SMPP37 Whenever shoreline stabilization is needed, bioengineered alternatives such as natural berms and erosion control vegetation plans should be favored over hard surfaced structural alternatives such as concrete bulkheads and sheet piles. S"�rSMPP38 The burden of proof for the need for shoreline stabilization to protect existing developments or proposed redevelopments rests on the applicant. S18 SMPP39 Shoreline stabilization activities that may necessitate new or increased shoreline protection on the same or other affected properties where there has been no previous need for protection should not be allowed. eA011r3SMPP40 New development shall be designed and located so as not to require shoreline stabilization. SAMP40 SMPP41 Areas of significance in the spawning, nesting, rearing, or residency of aquatic and terrestrial biota should be given special consideration in review of proposed shoreline stabilization activities. SA4PP41 SMPP42 Shoreline stabilization activities should be discouraged in areas where they would disrupt natural feeder bluffs processes important for maintaining beaches. Goal SMPG6 Docks and moorages should be allowed when associated with residential, Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/201U Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 11 recreational, or other public facilities. The design, location, and construction of any dock, pier or moorage should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, adverse effects on shoreline ecological functions. Policies S#IPP42-SMPP43 Open pile construction should be preferred where there is significant littoral drift, where scenic values will not be impaired, and where minimal alteration to the shoreline and minimal damage to aquatic resources can be assured. SAWN3 SMPP44 Piers, floats, and docks should be prohibited or permitted as a conditional use where conflicts with recreational boaters and other recreational water activities would create public safety hazards. 81%4P -P44 SMPP45 Where new docks are allowed, new residential development of two or more dwellings should be required to provide joint use or community dock facilities, when feasible, rather than allow individual docks for each residence.. SM45 SMPP46 Temporary moorages should be permitted for vessels used in the construction of shoreline facilities. The design and construction of such moorages shall be such that upon termination of the project, aquatic habitat can be returned to original condition within one year at no cost to the environment or the public. SMWP46 SMPP47 Shoreline structures that are abandoned or structurally unsafe should be removed. S"�,-SMPP48 Docks, buoys, and other moorages should only be authorized after consideration of. a. The effect such structures have on wildlife and aquatic life, water quality, unique and fragile areas, submerged lands, and shoreline vegetation. b. The effect such structures have on navigation, recreational and commercial boating, shoreline access, and scenic and aesthetic values. C. The effect such structures have on water circulation, sediment movement, and littoral drift. SAVP�48 SMPP49 Moorage buoys should be preferred over moorage piles on all tidal waters. 11.6 Public Access and Recreation Element This element addresses the preservation and expansion of all types of public access and recreational opportunities through programs of acquisition, development, and various means of less -than -fee acquisition. Goal Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 12 SMPG7 Increase public access to and enjoyment of shoreline areas through improvements to physical access on publicly owned lands and improved visual access provided that private rights, public safety, and a.., rs t,. ,.rr eted-shoreline ecologicalfunctions remain intact.. Policies S"V4TSMPP50 Development of public access should respect and protect private rights that are held on shoreline property. cr,rm.�P 50 SMPP51 Public access should be maintained and regulated. Public access should be policed and improved consistent with intensity of use. b. Provisions to restrict access as to nature, time, number of people, and area may be appropriate for public pedestrian easements and other public access areas where there are spawning grounds, fragile aquatic life habitats, or potential hazards for pedestrian safety. S"�STSMPP52 Design of access should provide for the public health, safety, and enjoyment. a. Appropriate signs should be used to designate publicly owned shorelines. b. Pedestrian and non -motorized physical and visual access to the shoreline should be encouraged. C. Public access to and along the water's edge should be made available in publicly owned shorelines in a manner that protects shoreline ecological functions. S"�2-SMPP53 Acquisition and development of new shoreline public access locations should be consistent with overall parks and open space planning goals and policies. a. Acquisition and development of shoreline properties should be consistent with criteria and standards as part of an overall parks and open space master plan. b. Where appropriate, utility and transportation rights-of-way on the shoreline should be made available for public access and use, consistent with the shoreline use and circulation element policies. C. Where appropriate, publicly -owned street ends that abut the shoreline should be retained and/or reclaimed for public access, consistent with the circulation element policies. d. Shoreline recreational facilities and other public access points should be connected by trails, bicycle pathways, and other access links where possible. SAWF53 SMPP54 Public access should be provided in new shoreline developments. a. Incentives should be used to encourage private property owners to provide public shoreline access. Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 71121LUlu Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 13 b. Public pedestrian easements should be considered in future land use authorizations, and in the case of projects along lakes, streams, ponds, and marine lands, whenever shoreline features are appropriate for public use. Shorelines of the City characterized by the following should be considered for pedestrian easements: 1. Areas of significant, historical, geological, and/or biological features and landmarks. 2. Areas presently being legally used, or historically having been legally used, by the public along the shoreline for access. 3. Where public funds have been expended on or related to shoreline developments. C"4�rSMPP55 Shorelines in the City should be available to all people for passive use, visual access, and enjoyment. a. The City should preserve and provide publicly accessible viewpoints, lookouts, and vistas of shorelines. b. New developments should minimize visual and physical obstruction of the water from adjacent roads and public properties. SA4PP55-SMPP56 Physical and/or visual access to the water should use steep slopes, view points from bluffs, stream valleys, and features of special interest where it is possible to place pathways consistent with public safety and without requiring extensive flood or erosion protection. Goal SMPG8 Provide additional shoreline dependent and water oriented recreation opportunities that are diverse, convenient, and adequate for the regional population, and that will not result in a net loss ofshoreline ecological functions.. Policies SAW% SMPP57 Areas containing special shoreline recreation qualities not easily duplicated should be available for public use and enjoyment. a. Opportunities should be provided for the public to understand natural shoreline processes and experience natural resource features. b. Public viewing and interpretation should be encouraged at or near governmental shoreline facilities when consistent with security and public safety. S"�7-SMPP58 Shoreline recreational use and development should enhance environmental quality with minimal adverse effect to natural resources. a. Stretches of relatively inaccessible and unspoiled shoreline should be available and designated as low intensity or passive recreational use areas with minimal development. Service facilities such as footpaths, periphery parking, and adequate sanitary facilities should only be located where appropriate, considering both public safety and preservation of shoreline ecological functions. Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 14 b. Beaches and other predominantly undeveloped shorelines currently utilized for recreational purposes should be available and designated as medium intensity recreational use areas to be free from expansive development; intensity of use should respect and protect the natural qualities of the area. C. Small or linear portions of the shoreline suitable for recreational purposes should be available and designated as transitional use areas that allow for variable intensities of use, which may include vista points, pedestrian walkways, water entry points, and access from the water; utilizing stream floodplain, street ends, steep slopes, and shoreline areas adjacent to waterfront roads. d. At suitable locations, shorelines should be made available and designated as high intensive use areas that provide for a wide variety of recreational activities. e. Overall design and development in shoreline recreational areas should be sensitive to the physical site characteristics and be consistent with the level of use in the area concerned. f. Recreation areas and ancillary facilities on or adjacent to the shoreline should have adequate surveillance and maintenance. g. Non -water oriented recreational facility development should be setback the water's edge, except where appropriate in high intensive shoreline use areas. SM11zM SMPP59 The provision of adequate public shoreline recreation lands should be based on an acquisition plan that is consistent with overall goals for enhancing public access to the City's shorelines. S"�SMPP60 Existing buildings that enhance the character of the shoreline should be incorporated into recreation areas wherever possible. 60 SMPP61 A balanced variety of recreational opportunities should be provided for people of different ages, health, family status, and financial ability. a. Shoreline recreation areas should provide opportunities for different use intensities ranging from low (solitude) to high (many people). b. Opportunities for shoreline recreational experiences should include developing access that accommodates a range of differences in people's physical mobility, capabilities, and skill levels. C. Recreational development should meet the demands of population growth consistent with the carrying capacity of the land and water resources. Goal SMPG9 Recreational experiences that depend on, or utilize, the shoreline (including: harvesting activities offish, shellfish, fowl, minerals, and driftwood; various forms of boating, swimming, and utilization of shoreline pathways, and watching or recording activities, such as photography, painting, or the viewing of water dependent activities) shall be encouraged within parks and other public access areas, given aka thev they do Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 15 not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and are allowed uses under state and local regulations. Policies e^P6! SMPP62 Underwater parks should be extensions of shoreline parks, and, whenever possible, be created or enhanced by artificial reefs where natural conditions or aquatic life could be observed with minimal interference. SMPP6.2 SMPP63 During storm events, hazardous conditions, or emergencies, temporary use of public recreational shoreline areas by boaters should be allowed. S"�63 SMPP64 Prime -fishing areas should be given priority for recreational use. cnR�4 SMPP65 Recreational shellfish harvesting should be allowed on public beaches subject to rules, regulations, and periodic closures by Washington Department of Health and or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. SAVP65 SMPP66 Boating activities that increase shore erosion should be discouraged. c"F66 SMPP67 Effective interpretation should be provided to raise the quality of visitor experiences and provide an understanding of aquatic and shoreline resource. 11.7 Conservation and Restoration Element This element promotes and encourages the conservation of natural shoreline resources and shoreline ecological functions, considering, but not limited to, such characteristics as scenic vistas, parks and open space, fish and wildlife habitat, beaches, feeder bluffs, estuaries, and other valuable natural or aesthetic features. Additionally, this element promotes and encourages restoration of shoreline functions and ecological processes that have been impaired as a result of past development activities. Goal SMPG10 Preserve and protect the ecological unctions fu a t ' al as'eeate' in Me honefinc.ofintact natural shorelines and ecologically sensitive shorelines as outlined within the shoreline inventory and characterization. Policies S^��SMPP68 Manage designated critical areas in the shoreline — such as critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, regulated wetlands, and streams iflamm according to measures provided in this Shoreline Master Program These include shoreline environment designations allowed uses development standards and regulations and mitigation for unavoidable impacts. They should also be consistent with the policies contained in Chapter 9, Natural Environment, of the Comprehensive Plan. Goals and Policies Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 16 SMPP68S MPP69 Develop standards, buffers, and mitigation requirements for designated critical areas in the shoreline consistent with city-wide regulations unless mor Goal SMPG11 Assure preservation of unique and non-renewable natural resources and assure conservation of renewable natural resources for the benefit of existing and future generations and the public interest. Policies SMPP69 SMPP70 All new development and activity in or adjacent to shoreline areas should be designed, constructed, and operated as to avoid significant adverse impacts to ground or surface water quality. Use of State and Local Best Management Practices and guidance should be implemented to avoid significant adverse impacts to water quality. S*� WSMPP71 Shorelines that are of unique or valuable natural character should be considered for acquisition. Subsequent management of such areas should protect or enhance shoreline ecological functions. S"�71 SMPP72 Protection and conservation of vegetation within shoreline areas should be managed through implementation of setback, clearing and grading, and mitigation standards for development activity. SMPP72 SMPP73 Resource conservation should be an integral part of shoreline planning. All future shoreline development should be planned, designed, and sited to minimize adverse impact upon the natural shoreline environment and ecological functions. S"�73 SMPP74 Scenic and aesthetic qualities and ecological functions of shorelines should be recognized and preserved as valuable resources. When appropriate, natural flora and fauna should be preserved. In shoreline areas, the natural topography should not be substantially altered. c. Shoreline structures should be sited and designed to minimize view obstruction and should be visually compatible with the shoreline character. Wildlife and aquatic habitats, including spawning grounds, should be protected. SI D. PP74 SMPP75 Resources should be managed to enhance the environment w4h miniffial ,Advo fse a ff et. and prevent a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. a. Shoreline, in -water and over -water activities and development should be planned, constructed, and operated to minimize adverse effects on the natural processes of the shoreline, Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 17 and should maintain or enhance the quality of air, soil, natural vegetation, and water on the shoreline. b. Use or activity which substantially degrades the natural resources or ecological functions of the shoreline should not be allowed without mitigation as required by SMP regulations and FWMG r,iapter v FWRC Title 14, , Environmental Policy °r.etee =an. S"�sSMPP76 Critical salmonid habitats including saltwater and freshwater habitat used by Pacific salmonid species, support valuable recreational and commercial fisheries and should be protected for their importance to the aquatic ecosystem as well as state and local economies. a. Non -water -dependent and non -water -related uses, activities, structures, and landfills should not be located in critical salmonid habitats. b. Where uses, activities, structures, and landfills must locate in critical salmonid habitats, impacts on these areas should be lessened to the maximum extent possible. Significant unavoidable impacts should be mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the project where feasible. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitation of out -of -kind or off- site degraded habitat should be required. Mitigation proposals should be developed in consultation with the City, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and any affected Indian Nations. C. Development that is outside critical salmonid habitats that has the potential to significantly affect said habitats should be located and designed as to not create significant negative impacts to said habitats. d. Whenever feasible, bioengineering should be used as the bank protection technique for all streams considered to have critical salmonid habitat. e. Whenever feasible, open pile bridges should be used for all water crossings over areas considered critical salmonid habitat. f. Impervious surfaces should be minimized in upland developments to reduce stormwater runoff peaks. Structures and uses creating significant impervious surfaces should include stormwater detention systems to reduce stormwater runoff peaks. g. The discharge of silt and sediments into waterways shall be minimized during in -water and upland construction. h. Adopt -A -Stream programs and similar efforts to rehabilitate critical saltnonid habitats should be encouraged. i. Fishery enhancement projects should be encouraged where they will not significantly interfere with other beneficial uses. j. Project proponents should contact the Habitat Division of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and affected Indian Nations early in the development process to determine if the proposal will occur in or adjacent to critical salmonid habitat. k. When reviewing permits for uses, activities, and structures proposed in, over, or adjacent to marine waters, streams, wetlands, ponds connected to streams, or any other shoreline area, City staff should contact the Habitat Division of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if the proposal will occur in or affect any adjacent critical habitats. Staff should also contact Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 18 affected Indian Nations. SMPP77 Use the City's established permit tracking program to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the Shoreline Master Program for achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions with respect to shoreline permitting and exemptions. Prepare an evaluation report every even years when the SMP is required to be updated under RCW 90.58.080(4). Goal SMPG12 Develop regional solutions with other jurisdictions, tribes and interested parties to resolve the challenge of protecting shoreline ecological functions while also �g ntatfctin shoreline developments. Policies S"�6-SMPP78 Continue work with the State, King County, Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Steering Committee, and other governmental and non- governmental organizations to explore how local governments can contribute to the preservation and restoration of ecological processes and shoreline functions. CnR�T-SMPP79 Continue work with the WRIA 9 forum to restore shoreline habitats and seasonal ranges that support listed endangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous fisheries. Goal SMPG13 Pursue projects to restore and enhance shoreline habitats and processes on publicly owned lands. Policies SAIPP78-SMPP80 Prioritize enhancement and restoration efforts at public parks and open space lands. SA4PP79-SMPP81 Work with owners of other publicly -owned land, such as Washington State Parks to encourage restoration and enhancement projects, including funding strategies. S""MPP8^—SMPP82 Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize restoration opportunities identified in Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and SMP Restoration Plan. SA4PP84-SMPP83 Promote vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species to avoid adverse impacts to hydrology, and to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion. Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Conmments/Corrections Page 19 SAIPP82 SMPP84 Develop a program to implement restoration projects, including funding strategies. S"�83 SMPP85 Monitor and adaptively manage restoration projects. Goal SMPG14 Encourage voluntary restoration projects on private property in degraded shoreline environments. Policies SAWP84 SMPP86 Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise attractive for development proposals to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into development projects. SAI P85 SMPP87 Encourage protection, enhancement, or restoration of native riparian vegetation through incentives and non -regulatory programs. SAWF86 SMPP88 Promote bioengineering and/or soft engineering alternative design approaches to shoreline stabilization and provide technical guidance to shoreline landowners. S"'�r SMPP89 Establish public education materials to provide shoreline landowners technical assistance about the benefits of native vegetation plantings. Goal SMPG15 Provide ample opportunity for the public to learn about the ecological aspects and community values of the City's shorelines. Policies SA4PJ?88 SMPP90 Explore opportunities with other educational organizations and agencies to develop an on-going program of shoreline education for all ages. S"PeTSMPP91 Identify areas where kiosks and interpretative signs can enhance the educational experience of users of the shoreline. SAWP90 SMPP92 Develop strategies to fund identified educational and interpretive proj ects. 11.8 Historic and Cultural Resources Element Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 20 --{ Deleted: This element addresses identification and preservation of historic and cultural resources that are located in or associated with Federal Way's shorelines. Such resources may include historic structures or buildings, historic use or activities in the shoreline, and archaeological resources. Goal SMPG16 Identify, protect, preserve, and restore important archaeological, historical, and cultural sites located in or associated with Federal Way's shorelines for scientific and educational purposes. Policies Q^'�°rSMPP93 Manage cultural and historic resources in the shoreline consistent with city-wide policies for treatment of such resources in the Comprehensive Plan. SA2-SMPP94 Recognize that shoreline areas are of moderate to high probability for archaeological resources and require appropriate review and site investigation for proposed development or modifications. 1 11.9 Circulation Element This element deals with the location and extent of existing and proposed thoroughfares, transportation routes, and other public facilities; and coordinating those facilities with shoreline uses. Goal SMPG17 Circulation systems in shoreline areas should be limited to those that are shoreline dependent or would serve shoreline dependent uses or those that must pass through shoreline areas. The environment shall be protected from any significant adverse effects of circulation systems required in shoreline areas. Policies c"�9XSMPP95 New surface transportation development should be designed to provide the best possible service with the least possible infringement upon shoreline areas. a. New transportation facilities and improvements to existing facilities that substantially increase levels of air, noise, odor, visual, or water pollution should be discouraged, unless benefits of the facility outweigh costs. b. Transportation corridors should be designed to harmonize with the topography and other natural characteristics of the shoreline through which they traverse. C. New surface transportation facilities in shoreline areas should be set back from the ordinary high water mark far enough to make unnecessary such protective Goals and Policies Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 1111/LULU Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 21 measures as rip -rap or other bank stabilization, landfill, bulkheads, groins, jetties, or substantial site regrade. d. New transportation facilities crossing lakes, streams, wetlands, or other critical areas should be encouraged to locate in existing corridors, except where any adverse impact can be minimized by selecting an alternate corridor. Shoreline circulation systems should be adaptable to changes in technology. SAW WSMPP96 Circulation systems should be located and attractively designed so as not to unnecessarily or unreasonably pollute the physical environment or reduce the benefits people derive from their property. a. Motorized vehicular traffic on beaches and other natural shoreline areas shall be prohibited. b. Transportation facilities providing access to shoreline developments should be planned and designed in scale and character with the use proposed. C. New transportation facilities should minimize total impervious surface area by generally being oriented perpendicular to the shoreline where topographic conditions will allow. cn�p 6-SMPP97 Circulation systems should be designed to enhance aesthetic experiences through creating shoreline vista and access points and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. SA4PP9 rSMPP98 New transportation developments in shoreline areas should provide turnout areas for scenic stops and off road rest areas where the topography, view, and natural features warrant, consistent with the public access and recreation element policies. SA4a-D97-SMPP99 Shoreline roadway corridors with unique or historic significance, or of great aesthetic quality, should be retained and maintained for those characteristics. SAWP98 SMPP100 Shoreline circulation routes should provide for non -motorized means of travel and should incorporate multimodal provisions where public safety can be assured. SMPP101 The existing system of pedestrian ways bikeways and equestrian ways in the city should be extended to provide safe access to public parks located on the shoreline. SA4PP99 SMP102 Shoreline roadways should have a high priority for arterial beautification funds. SMPP103 Regionally significant pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities alone shoreline circulation routes should be pursued in partnership with other agencies. SlOO-SMP104 Pedestrian access should be built where access to public Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 22 shorelines is desirable and has been cut off by linear transportation corridors. New linear facilities should enable pedestrian access to public shorelines where access is desirable. SI%4PPIOISMPPI05 Transportation and utility facilities should be encouraged to coordinate joint use of rights-of-way and to consolidate crossings of water bodies when doing so can minimize adverse impact to the shoreline. 11.10 Shoreline Environments Intent In order to more effectively implement the goals, objectives, and policies of this master program and the SMA, the shorelines of the state within Federal Way have been categorized into three separate environment designations. The purpose of these designations is to differentiate between areas whose geographical features, ecological functions, and existing development pattern imply differing objectives regarding their management, use, and future development. Each environment represents a particular emphasis in the type of uses and the extent of development that should occur within it. The system is designed to encourage uses in each environment, which enhance the character of the environment while at the same time requiring reasonable standards and restrictions on development so that the character of the environment is not destroyed. The determination as to which designation should be given to any specific shoreline area has been based on, and is reflective of, the existing development pattern; the biophysical capabilities and limitations of the land; and the goals and aspirations of the local citizenry. Each environment designation includes: (1) a purpose statement which clarifies the meaning and intent of the designation; (2) criteria to be used as a basis for classifying a specific shoreline area with that environment designation; and, (3) detailed management policies designed to guide management decisions and development consistent with the character of the environment. Shoreline Residential Purpose: The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with SMP Guidelines — WAC 173-26-211 (5)(f). An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. Criteria: The Shoreline Residential environment designation is assigned to shoreline areas inside the City of Federal Way and the City's Potential Annexation Area (PAA) if the areas are predominantly single-family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for residential development. Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan 7/12/2010 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections , Page 23 Management Policies: 1. Residential uses shall be the primary use. Development and redevelopment activities shall be focused within already developed areas. 2. Standards shall be developed and implemented for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality. These standards shall ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values, taking into account the environmental limitations and sensitivity of the shoreline area, the level of infrastructure and services available, and other comprehensive planning considerations. 3. Multifamily and multi -lot residential and recreational developments shall provide public access and joint use for community recreational facilities. 4. All residential development shall occur in a manner consistent with the policies listed under SMPG2 of the shoreline use element. Urban conservancy Purpose: The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, flood plain and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. Criteria: The Urban Conservancy environment designation is assigned to shoreline areas appropriate and planned for development that is compatible with maintaining or restoring of -the ecological functions of the area, that are not generally suitable for water -dependent high-intensity uses. The Urban Conservancy environment is applied to shorelines if any of the following characteristics apply: 1. They have open space, flood plain or other sensitive areas that should not be more intensively developed; 2. They have potential for ecological restoration; 3. They retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed; or 4. They have the potential for development that is compatible with ecological restoration. Management Policies: 1. Residential, recreational, commercial, and public facility uses should be allowed provided they preserve the natural character of the area or promote preservation of open space, flood plain, bluffs, or sensitive lands either directly or over the long term. Water - oriented uses should be given priority over nonwater-oriented uses. For shoreline areas adjacent to commercially navigable waters, water -dependent uses should be given highest priority. Uses that result in restoration of ecological functions should be allowed if the use is otherwise compatible with the purpose of the environment and the setting. 2. Standards should be developed and implemented for management of environmentally Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan n �ucvw Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 24 sensitive or designated critical areas to ensure that new development does not result in < net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values. Development standards should be developed and implemented for density or minimum frontage width, setbacks, lot coverage limitations, buffers, shoreline stabilization, vegetation conservation, critical area protection, and water quality. 3. Public access and public recreation objectives should be implemented whenever feasible and significant ecological impacts can be mitigated. 4. To enhance the waterfront and iensure maximum public use, commercial or office facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities consistent with public safety, security, and protection of shoreline ecological functions. 5. Aesthetic considerations should be actively promoted by means of sign control regulations, architectural design standards, landscaping requirements, and other such means. Natural Purpose: The purpose of the "natural' environment is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. Consistent with the policies of the designation, the City of Federal Way should include planning for restoration of degraded shorelines within this environment. Criteria: A "natural' environment designation should be assigned to shoreline areas if any of the following characteristics apply: (A) The shoreline is ecologically intact and therefore currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem -wide process that would be damaged by human activity; (B) The shoreline is considered to represent ecosystems and geologic types that are of particular scientific and educational interest; or (C) The shoreline is unable to support new development or uses without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to human safety. Management Policies: 1. Any use that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of the shoreline area shall not be allowed. 2. The following new uses shall not be allowed in the "natural' environment: • Commercial uses; • Industrial uses; • Nonwater-oriented recreation; and • Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of "natural' designated shorelines. 3. Single-family residential development may be allowed as a conditional use within the "natural" environment if the density and intensity of such use is limited as necessary to Goals and Policies — Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan Page 25 Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections protect ecological functions and be consistent with the purpose of the environment. 4. Scientific, historical, cultural, educational research uses, and low -intensity water - oriented recreational access uses may be allowed provided that no significant ecological impact on the area will result. 5. New development or significant vegetation removal that would reduce the capability of vegetation to perform normal ecological functions should not be allowed. Do not allow the subdivision of property in a configuration that, to achieve its intended purpose, will require significant vegetation removal or shoreline modification that adversely impacts ecological functions. That is, each new parcel must be able to support its intended development without significant ecological impacts to the shoreline ecological functions. Goals and Policies - Federal Way Shoreline Master Plan " Revisions Based on DOE Comments/Corrections Page 26 Section 4 Shoreline Environment Designations Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 No revisions were made to this Section Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations Legend City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations: Natural Q Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy O w CL 0 0.5 1 Miles N Map Date: May, 2007 CITY OF ::�► Federal Way This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. ARA JL D Kent I�Ioin Star ' J •� ,a L� ,; r� p Sound S 288th St et Y ` Federal Way 4 Steel Lake Dolloff W 12 h s Steel Aub DLake 1L�IYYOY Lake ! Park _ Dash Point St h St S32 th State Park Q S 324th St �orY% a N w t Ceie6ration 2 " La Park:`- d q SW eaM D 3 th � Or Ta orfia S o t th t m � \ VA Hyie` osGenev Wetlands Park .Lake Lal e Killarney h 0 c > Five A-lile Lake O'� Trout Lake PaC Milton Edgew ife Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations Legend City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area Proposed Shoreline Environment Designations: Natural Q Shoreline Residential Urban Conservancy O w CL 0 0.5 1 Miles N Map Date: May, 2007 CITY OF ::�► Federal Way This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. ARA JL Section 5 Shoreline Regulations Title 15, Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions based on Department of Ecology review and comment are indicated as follows: Staff additions are indicated with underline and deletions are indicated with stfilethfough text. Planning Commission additions are indicated with bold, double underline and deletions are indicated withtext. Sections: City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Chapter 15.05 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Article I. Generally 15.05.010 Purpose and authority. 15.05.020 Jurisdiction. 15.05.030 Additional definitions. Article II. Shoreline Regulation 15.05.040 General development standards. 15.05.050 Shoreline modifications. 15.05.060 Environmental designations. 15.05.070 PeFF fitted +*e *-""-4e Summary of 15.05.080 Shoreline residential environ 15.05.090 Urban conservancy envir 15.05.100 Natural environment. Article III. AWMinistrative Procedures 15.05.110 Shoreline management permit and enforcement procedures, adoption by reference. 15.05.120 Permit processing and public notice. 15.05.130 PFGredUFef0E---i- 15.05.1340 Shoreline exemption. 15.05.1450 Application requirements. 15.05.1560 Shoreline substantial development permit. 15.05.167-0 Shoreline variance. 15.05.1760 Conditional uses. 15.05.1850 Final approval of shoreline permits. 15.05.190200 Combined hearing authority. 15.05.2040 Appeals. 15.05.2120 Permit revisions. 15.05.2220 Replacement, alteration, or reconstruction of nonconforming use or development. 15.05.2340 Shoreline environment redesignations. 15.05.2450 Amendments to this chapter. Page 1 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Chapter 15.10 CRITICAL AREAS Sections: Article I. Generally 15.10.010 Purpose 15.10.020 Applicable provisions 15.10.030 Jurisdiction 15 10 040 Other authority and jurisdiction 15.10.050 Liability Article II. Administration 15.10.060 Administration 15 10.070 Maps adopted. 15.10.080 Basis for determination 15.10.090 Bonds 15.10.100 Dedication Article III General Site Design Requirements 15 10 120 Responsibility of applicant 15.10.130 Vehicle circulation areas 15.10.140 Time limitation 15 10 150 Other requirements Article IV: Geologically Hazardous Areas Development 15.10.160 Limitations Article V: Streams 15.10.170 Stream setbacks 15.10.180 Relocation 15.10.190 Culverts 15.10.200 Removal of streams from culverts 15.10.210 Rehabilitation 15.10.220 Intrusion into stream setbacks 15 10 230 Additional requirements for clearing and grading Article VI Regulated Wetlands Page 2 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology. Comments 15 10 240 Determination of wetland and regulated wetland 15 10 250 Wetland categories and standard buffers 15 10 260 Structures improvements and clearing and grading within regulated wetlands 15 10 270 Structures improvements and clearing and grading within regulated wetland buffers Article VI I: Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection Areas 15.10 280 Limitations 15 10 290 Classification of wellhead capture zones 15 10 300 General requirements 15 10 310 Prohibited activities in Wellhead Capture Zone 1_ 15 10 320 Regulation of facilities handling and storing hazardous materials 15.10.330 Performance standards . I .-.e---- and wellhead protection areas Sections: PV Article I: Generally 15.15.010 Purpose 15 15 020 Adoption of state and federal statutes and regulations 15 15 030 Methods of reducing flood losses 15.15.040 Definitions Article II: Provisions 15 15 050 General provisions 15.15.060 Permits 15 15 070 Use of other base flood data (in A and V zones) 15.15.080 Information to be obtained and maintained 15.15.090 Alteration of watercourses 15.15.100 Conditions for flood variances 15.15.110 Provisions for flood hazard reduction 15 15 120 Subdivision proposals 15 15 130 Review of building permits 15 15 140 Specific standards 15 15 150 AE and Al 30 zones with base flood elevations but no floodways 1515.160 Floodways 15 15 170 Critical facility Me 3 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Chapter 15.05 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Article I. Generally 15.05.010 Purpose and authority. The city adopts these regulations under the authority of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended, and the Shoreline Management Guidelines, Chapter 173-26 WAC. The director of the department of community development has the authority to adopt rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this title and has the authority to administer and enforce this title and any such rules and regulations It is unlawful to violate or fail to comply with any provision of this title or any such rule or regulation. (Ord No. 09-597 � 50, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.10), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 18-161.) 15.05.020 Jurisdiction. (1) The provisions of this article s#,hall p t II Pm ent proposed within the areas defined as "shorelines" in RC , a "shorelines of state-wide significance" in RCW 90.58.030(2)(es" in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f); see 15.05.030, Additional definitions. Thto location of these shorelines shall be designated on maps maintained by artment of community development; however, the property owner or apphall be responsible for determining the specific location of the shoreline jurisdiction on the subject property when a permit is filed. The city shall be responsible for verifying shoreline jurisdiction. Washington Department of Ecology may be contacted to delineate the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) on a subject property as per its authority and responsibilities outlined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(f). (2) No development shall be undertaken by any person on the shorelines of the state without obtaining a shoreline permit from the department of community development, or an authorized statement of exemption per WAC 173-27-040 and for developments exempted by RCW 90.58.140(9) and (10). (3) All proposed uses and development occurring within shoreline iurisdiction must conform to chapter 90.58 RCW the Shoreline Management Act and the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program whether or not a permit is required. (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.30.10, 24.30.20), 2-27-90. code 2001 § 18-162.) 15.05.030 Additional definitions. Unless otherwise defined in this chapter, the definitions contained in this section, FWRC Title 15 Chapter 90.58 RCW Chapter 173-26 WAC and Chapters 173727 WAC, Chapter 19.05 FWRC or FWRC 1 05 020 shall apply in that order. "Act" means the Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended. "Amendment means a revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to the Federal Way shoreline master program. Page 4 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments "Aquaculture" means the farming or culturing of food fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants and animals in streams, inlets and other natural or artificial water bodies. Activities include the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising and harvesting of aquatic plants and animals and the maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings, and growing areas. Cultivation methods include but are not limited to fish pens, fish traps or other similar apparatuses. "Average grade level" means, for structure built on lands the average of the natural or existing topography of the portion of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed building or structure. In the case of structures to be built over the water, "average grade level" shall be the elevation of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Calculation of the average grade level shall be made by averaging the ground elevations at the midpoint of all exterior walls of the proposed building or structure. "Backshore" means a berm, together with associated marshes or meadows, on marine shores landward of the ordinary high water ma kw 'ch is normally above high tide level and has been gradually built up by accretio of water or water course. "Bank" means a steep rise or slope at the ed Y "Beach nourishment" means the artifici p i g f a beach by delivery of materials dredged or excavated else "Berm" means a ledge or shoulde ounded earth or rock. water for vessels, such as a launchin mp rails or lift station open to the public. For purposes of the Shoreline Master Program boating facilities do not include docks, piers, moorage piles mooring buoys or floats associated with single-family residences or other joint use structures not accessible to the public. `Breakwater" means an off -shore structure, either floating or not, which may or may not be connected to the shore, such structure being designed to absorb and/or reflect back into the water body the energy of the waves. "Bulkhead" means.a wall, seawall, embankment or other structure erected at or near the OHWM and roughly parallel to the shoreline that retains or prevents sliding or erosion of land or protects land and/or structures from wave or current action. `Bluff' means a steep slope which abuts and rises from Puget Sound. Bluffs contain slopes predominantly in excess of 40 percent, although portions may be less than 40 percent. The toe of the bluff is the beach of Puget Sound. The top of a bluff is typically a distinct line where the slope abruptly levels out. Where there is no distinct break in slope, the slope is either the line of vegetation separating the unvegetated slope from the vegetated uplands plateau or, when the bluff is vegetated, the point where the bluff slope diminishes to less than 15 percent. "Commercial use" means the uses allowed in the commercial zones and the nonindustrial uses permitted in the commercial enterprise zone. "Conditional use" means a use, development, or substantial development which is classified as a shoreline conditional use or is not classified within the shoreline master program. "Critical salmonid habitats" mean habitats that are used by Pacific salmonid species that migrate between fresh water and salt water during their life cycle. These habitats include: Page 5 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (1) Gravel bottomed streams used for spawning; (2) Streams, lakes, and wetlands used for rearing, feeding, and cover and refuge from predators and high waters; (3) Streams and salt water bodies used as migration corridors; (4) Shallow areas of salt water bodies used for rearing, feeding, as well as cover and refuge from predators and currents, including, but not limited to, forage fish habitats such as sandy beaches and eelgrass beds; and (5) Pocket estuaries including streams mouths and deltas where freshwatermixes with salt water and provides rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids.All saltwater shorelines in Federal Way are critical salmonid habitats. "Department" means the department of community development services, unless the context indicates otherwise. "Development" means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures, dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or an project of a permanent or temporary nature which interferes with the normal pu Iof the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to the shoreline n m t act (RCW 90.58) at any state of water level. "Dock" means all platform structur up water bodies and connected to land to provide moorage or landin pleasure craft "Dredging" means the removal of h from the bottom of a stream, marine water body, lake or other water body for the purposes of deepening and/or maintaining a navigational channel. "Drift cell" (also referred to as "drift sector," or "littoral celf') means a particular reach of marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such drift. "Ecological functions" means the work performed or role played by the physical, chemical, and biological processes in the shoreline that contribute to the maintenance of the aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. "Ecosystem -wide processes" means the suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes of erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functions. "Exemptions" means those development activities which are not required to obtain a Substantial Development Permit, but which must obtain an authorized statement of exemption and which must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the city's local shoreline master program. "Fair market value" means the open market bid price for conducting the work, using the equipment and facilities, and purchase of the goods, services, and materials necessary to accomplish the development. This would normally equate to the cost of hiring a contractor to undertake the development from start to finish, including the cost of labor, materials, equipment and facility usage, transportation and contractor Pace 6 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology. Comments overhead, and profit. The fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials. "Feasible" means that an action, such as a development project, mitigation, or preservation requirement, meets all of the following conditions: (1) The action can be accomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in similar circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; (2) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and (3) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended legal use. In determining an action's feasibility, the reviewing agency may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames. "Fill" means the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sedi ent, earth retaining structure, or other material to an area waterward of th M, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation r dry land. "Float" means a structure or device whi t e water and which is moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in th t ral ay, and which is not connected to the shoreline. "Floodplain" means one hundred- plain and means that land area susceptible to inundation with a one ent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the Act. "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas which because of their susceptibility to erosion, land -sliding, seismic or other geological events are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. Geologically hazardous areas include the following areas: (1) Erosion hazard areas are those areas having a severe to very severe erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow. (2) Landslide hazard areas are those areas potentially subject to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including, but not limited to, the following areas: (a) Any area with a combination of: (i) Slopes greater than 15 percent; (ii) Permeable sediment, predominately sand and gravel, overlying relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock, typically silt and clay; and (iii) Springs or groundwater seepage. (b) Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years ago to the present, or which is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. (c) Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or undercutting by wave action. (d) Any area located in a ravine or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or flooding. (e) Those areas identified by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as having a severe limitation for building site development. Page 7 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (f) Those areas mapped as class U (unstable), UOS (unstable old slides), and URS (unstable recent slides) by the Department of Ecology. (g) Slopes having gradients greater than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking. (3) Seismic hazard areas are those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table. (4) Steep slope hazard areas are those areas with a slope of 40 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet, a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top, and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. "Geotechnical report" or "geotechnical analysis" means a scientific study or evaluation conducted by a qualified expert that includes a doe scription of the ground and surface hydrology and geology, the affectOland for s susceptibility to mass wasting, erosion, and other geologic hazao s , conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect oft d elopment on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site t the pacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches development, and measures to mitigate potential site-specific and cuological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development, including the edverse impacts to adjacent and down - current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified professional engineers or geologists who have professional expertise about the regional and local shoreline geology and processes. "Grading" means the movement or redistribution of the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner that alters the natural contour of the land. "Groin" means a barrier type structure extending from the backshore into the water across the beach. The purpose of a groin is to interrupt sediment movement along the shore. "Height" means that distance measured from average grade level to the highest point of a structure: Provided, that television antennas, chimneys, and similar appurtenances shall not be used in calculating height, except where such appurtenances obstruct the view of the shoreline of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines, or the applicable master program specifically requires that such appurtenances be included: provided further, that temporary construction equipment is excluded in this calculation. "Jetty" means an artificial barrier used to change the natural littoral drift to protect inlet entrances from clogging by excess sediment. "Landslide"means an episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock that includes but is not limited to rockfalls, slumps, mudflows, and earthflows. "Littoral drift" means the natural movement of sediment along marine or lake shorelines by waveaction in response to prevailing winds. Page 8 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15, Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments "Major stream" means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. "Marine" means pertaining to tidally influenced waters, including Puget Sound and the bays, estuaries and inlets associated therewith. "Minor stream" means any stream that does not meet the definition of major stream. "Mooring buoys" means a floating obiect anchored to the bottom of a water body that provides tie up capabilities for vessels. "Native Shoreline Vegetation" means trees, shrubs and other plant species that are indigenous to a specific area or region. Plants native to western Washington are referenced in Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist). Ornamental landscaping and invasive species shall not be considered n ti ve shoreline vegetation. "Natural" or "existing topography" means the topo of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property immediately prior to any site prepa ti r ading, including excavating or filling. "Nearshore"means either nearsh or arshore habitat and refer that extends from the top of bluffs generally to an area along the Puget a or upland area immediately adjacent ch to the point where sunlight penetrates marine waters to a depth where aqu lant life is supported. "Nonconforming use" or "development" means a shoreline use or development which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Act or the applicable shoreline master program, or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the shoreline master program. "Non -water -oriented uses" means those uses that are not water -dependent, water - related, or water -enjoyment, and which have little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not considered priority uses under the shoreline management act. Examples include professional offices, automobile sales or repair shops, mini -storage facilities, multifamily residential development, department stores, and gas stations. "Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)" means the mark on all lakes, streams and tidal waters that will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in all ordinary years as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation, as that condition existed on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the Department of Ecology. In any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water. "Permit" means any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision authorized under chapter 90.58.RCW. "Pier" means any fixed platform structure upon water bodies that is supported by piles and connected to land. and pitevid as publie. aracess, fishing GF engaged IR GeFnFneFGe Page 9 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments "Primary structure" means the structure associated with the principal use of the property. If more than one structure is associated with the principal use of the property, the one with the highest value shall be considered the primary structure. "Public access" means theeg neral public's ability to get4o-to view reach, touch and enioy the water's edge) and use the State's public waters, the water/land interface and associated public shoreline area. Public access also includes actual, physical, unobstructed access from land to the ordinary high water mark or adiacent shorelands._ "Public utility" means the facilities of a private business organization such as a public service corporation, or a governmental agency performing some public service and subject to special governmental regulations, the services which are paid for directly by the recipients thereof. Such services shall include but are not limited to: water supply, electric power, telephone, cablevision, natural gas and transportation for persons and freight. The term also includes broadcast towers, antennas and related facilities onerated on a commercial basis. Residential development includes the creation of new residentiai lots tnrougn subdivision of land. "Restoration" means in the context of "ecological restoration," the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre - European settlement conditions. `Riprap"means a layer, facing or protective mound of angular stones randomly placed to prevent erosion, scour or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so used. "Shall" means a mandate; the action must be done. "Shorelands," also referred to as "shoreland areas," means those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways, and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the department of ecology. "Shoreline administrator" means the director of the department of community development or his or her designee and is responsible for administering the Federal Way shoreline master program. "Shoreline environment designation" means the categories of shorelines of the state established by the city of Federal Way shoreline management master program to Page 10 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments differentiate between areas whose features imply differing objectives regarding their use and future development. "Shoreline jurisdiction" means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as defined in the Federal Way shoreline master program and RCW 90.58.030. "Shoreline Master Program (SMP)" means the comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. "Shoreline modifications" means those actions that modify the physical configuration or qualities of the shoreline area, usually through the construction of a physical element such as a dike, breakwater, pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline structure. They can include other actions, such as clearing and grading. "Shoreline variance" means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards in the local shoreline master program, but not a means to vary a "use" of a shoreline. "Shoreline stabilization" means structural anind actions taken to address erosion impacts to property, dwellings, busineses caused by natural shoreline processes such as currents, floo iave action. Expansion or enlargement of existin stabilization ew stabilization. "Shorelines" means all of the watat Vu"derle, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with ying them; except (i) shorelines of statewide significance; (ii) shorelines segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than 20 acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. "Shorelines of statewide significance" means those areas of Puget Sound in the city of Federal Way lying seaward from the line of extreme low tide. "Shorelines of the state" means the total of all "shorelines" and "shorelines of statewide significance" within the city of Federal Way. "Should" means that the particular action is re uired unless there is a demonstrated compelling reason based on policy of the Shoreline Management Act and this title, against taking the action. "Soft -shore bank stabilization" means the use of bioengineering or biotechnical bank stabilization measures where vegetation, logs, rock and beach nourishment are used to address erosion control and slope stability. "SMP" means the Shoreline Master Program. "SMA" means the Shoreline Management Act. "Stringline setback" means a straight line drawn between the points on the primary structures having the greatest projection water ward on the two adjacent properties. If one of the adjacent properties is unimproved the line shall be drawn to the point of the standard shoreline setback at the side property line of the unimproved lot. "Substantial accessory structure" means non primary structures equal to or larger than 400 square feet and in good repair. "Vegetation conservation area" means an upland area adiacent to the ordinary high water mark or top of bluff where existing native vegetation and native trees shall be retained per the requirements of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The width Page 11 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments of the vegetation conservation area is consistent with setback requirements for specific uses and shoreline environment designations. "Vessel" means ships boats barges or any other floatinq craft which are designed and used for navigation and do not interfere with the normal public use of the water_. "Water quality" means the physical characteristics of water within shoreline Lurisdiction including water quantity, hydrological physical chemical, aesthetes recreation -related and biological characteristics Where used in this title, the term "water quantity" refers only to development and uses regulated under this chapter and affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and storm water handling practices Water quantity, for purposes of this title does not mean the withdrawal of ground water or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03.250 through 90.03.340. "Water -dependent use" means a use or portion of a use which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water dependent uses may incf^,�ir ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, barge loading f, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane faciliti r outfalls. i iom fhat facilitntPc ni ffi is al use or aesthetic operation ensures the pupuc s ar)uiIX iwy LI IC 121IY;DItaI Gil lu shoreline. In In order to qualify as a water -enjoyment use the use must be open to the general public and the shoreline -oriented space within the proiect must be devoted to the specific aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enloyment. "Water oriented use" means a use that is water -dependent water -related, or water- enloyment or a combination of such uses. "Water -related" means a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic vitality is dependent upon a waterfront location because: (1) Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or (2) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Examples include professional services serving primarily water -dependent activities and storage of water - transported foods. "Wetland" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass - lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Page 12 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non -wetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. (Ord No 09-593 � 19, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3; 12-1-98. Code 2001 § 18-163.) Article II. Shoreline Regulation 15.05.040 General development standards. The following general development standards apply to all uses and activities in all shoreline environments: (1) Impact mitigation. (a) To the extent Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, is applicable, the analysis of environmental impacts from proposed shoreline uses or developments shall be conducted consistent with the rules implementing SEPA (FWRC 14.05.010 and WAC 197- itigation for adverse impacts to shoreline functions will be triggered d i EPA review, shoreline land use permit process, or exemption approval (b) Where required, mitigation a plied in the following sequence of steps listed in order of p (i) Avoiding the impact alto of taking a certain action or parts of an action; (ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (iii) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (iv) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; (v) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (vi) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. (c) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to shoreline development, lower priority measures shall be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. (d) Required mitigation shall not be in excess of that necessary to assure that proposed uses or development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (e) Mitigation actions shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline functions fostered by the policy of the Shoreline Management Act. (f) When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and are located in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation may be authorized if said mitigation occurs within the watershed and addresses limiting factors or identified critical Page 13 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments needs for shoreline conservation based on watershed or comprehensive management plans. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms, or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. (2) Vegetation conservation. Existing shoreline vegetation shall be preserved per development standards established for each shoreline environment designation. (3) Water quality/stormwater. All activities and development within the shoreline jurisdiction shall incorporate water pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management. Such measures shall address both temporary impacts to water quality from construction activities as well as the need for permanent stormwater management facilities in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of all applicable city and state regulations. (4) Critical areas. Activities and development in critical areas found within shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC AppepAbO^ Critical Areas and Chapter 15.15 FWRC Appendix-� - Flood Damage Reduction, for each area describedbe Lal -Geele& hazard ama-9 An conflict be standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC or Chapter 15.15 FWRC and I e resolved in favor of the .,f +hc nic functions. In addition to the JRC and Chapter 15.15 FWRC, followina minimum requirements (i) Minimum setbacks from the OHWM established by this chapter shall be maintained in all cases unless a shoreline variance is granted. (b) Geologically hazardous areas. Regulated geologically hazardous areas located in the shoreline jurisdiction include seismic hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, steep slopes, and erosion hazard areas. If a geological hazardous area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I II, 111, and IV SeGfien 1, , 3, and -4 of Appendix A Chapter 15.10 FWRC. In addition to the development standards outlined in Chapter 15 10 FWRC the following shall apply with regard to activities and development in geologically hazardous areas found within shoreline iurisdiction: ,(i) Creation of new lots shall be prohibited where development and use on new lots would cause a foreseeable risk from geological conditions during the life of the development. (ii) New development that causes risk from geological conditions should not be allowed. (iii) New development on sites with steep slopes and bluffs is required to be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the project as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. In no case shall the setback from the top of a marine bluff be less than 50 feet unless a shoreline variance is granted. Lc) Streams and wetlands. If a stream or wetland is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I II III V and VI of Chapter 15.10 FWRC SeGtiens 7 7 32 65 -and 6 of .,,-Ie-ndmx A. Page 14 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (d) Flood damage reduction. If an area of special flood hazard is located on or adjacent to a development site within shoreline jurisdiction, all activities on the site shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC Appendix.. All activities allowed within the special flood hazard area by the requirements and restrictions of Chapter 15.15 FWRC shall not result in a net loss of ecological function. Le) Critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. If a critical aquifer recharge area or wellhead protection area is located within the shoreline jurisdiction, all activities within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of Articles I II III and VII of Chapter 15.10 FWRC Sectiens 1, 2, 3, and 7 of Appendox-A. (5) Critical salmonid habitats. All saltwater shorelines in Federal Way are critical salmonid habitats. Activities and development in critical salmonid habitats found within the shoreline jurisdiction are required to comply with the following development standards, in addition to those contained in other sections this chapter: (a) Structures which prevent the migration of s and steelhead are prohibited. Fish bypass facilities shall allow the s igration of adult fish. Fish bypass facilities shall prevent fry and juve ' r g wnstream from being trapped or harmed. (b) Shoreline modification stru de into critical salmonid habitats only where the proponent demonstra a following conditions are met: (i) An alternative alignment ocation is not feasible; (ii) The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment; (iii) If the project will create unavoidable adverse impacts, the impacts are mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the project. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute. (iv) The project satisfies all provisions of FWRC 15.05.050 Shoreline modifications. (c) Open pile bridges are the preferred water crossing structures over critical salmonid habitats. If a bridge is not feasible, one of the following water crossing structures may be approved if the impacts can be mitigated: temporary culverts, bottomless arch culverts, elliptical culverts or other fish -passable round culverts. These structures are listed in priority order, with the first having the highest preference and the last the lowest preference. In order for a lower priority structure to be permitted, the applicant must show the higher priority structures are not feasible. The project shall be designed to minimize its impacts on the environment. (d) Bridges and in -water utility corridors may be located in critical salmonid habitats provided the proponent shows that all of the following conditions are met: (i) An alternative alignment is not feasible; (ii) The project is located and designed to minimize its impacts on the environment; (iii) Any alternative impacts are mitigated; and (iv) Any landfill is located landward of the ordinary high water mark. Open piling and piers required to construct the bridge may be placed waterward of the ordinary high water mark, if no alternative method is feasible. Page 15 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments When installing in -water utilities, the installer may be required to place native material on the bed and banks of the water body or wetland to re-establish the preconstruction elevation and contour of the bed. The project shall be designed to avoid and minimize impacts on the environment. (e) Dredging in critical salmonid habitats shall not be allowed unless the proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met: (i) The dredging is for a water -dependent or water -related use; (ii) An alternative alignment or location is not feasible; (iii) The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment; (iv) The project is in the public interest; and (v) If the project will create significant unavoidable adverse impacts, then the impacts are mitigated by creating in-kind replacement habitat near the project. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible, rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute. (f) In -water dredge spoil disposal sites shall not be located in critical salmonid habitats. (g) Filling, dumping, dischar in includm dfir n or siormwatu commercial or industrial waste water), dre I tion, draining, flooding, disturbingthe water level duration of ' r ables and other activities which negatively impact habitat are p s, ponds, and side channels which are associated with critical sal ats. (h) Within critical salmonid ha s, permanent channel changes and realignments are prohibited. (i) The removal of aquatic and riparian vegetation within or adjacent to critical salmonid habitats shall be minimized. Trees which shade side channels, streams, estuaries, ponds and wetlands associated with critical salmonid habitats shall be maintained consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Areas of disturbed earth shall be revegetated. (j) Unless removal is needed to prevent hazards to life and property or to enhance critical salmonid habitats, large woody debris below the ordinary high water mark shall be left in the water to provide salmon and steelhead habitat. (6) Archaeological and historic resources. (a) If any archeological artifacts are uncovered during excavations in the shoreline, work must stop immediately and the city of Federal Way, and the state dDepartment of amheelegy Archaeology and hHistoric preservation Preservation, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and the Puyallup Tribe of Indians must be notified. (b) Proposals er-mite issued -for ground disturbing activities in areas known to contain an historic cultural or archaeological resources) or highly suspected to contain archaeological artifacts and data shall require #ef a site inspection and evaluation by as professional archaeologist or historic preservation professional, as applicable, ardgeelegiet:prior to issuance of a permit or initiation of disturbance. The evaluation shall include recommendations and for monitoring of potentially disruptive activities data recovery; and/or mitigation measures if warranted. Cost for inspection and evaluation of the site will be the responsibility of the applicant. SignifiGaRt aFeheelegiGalaFGhee.Gg"GaI data OF aFtifac-ts -shall bbe me-_ leered befeFe WOFk. sumes Page 16 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (7) Public access. (a) In review of all shoreline permits or developments of more than four residential lots or dwelling units, or subdivision of land into more than four lots, or commercial development, or non water dependent uses (including water-enioyment and water -related uses) consideration of public access and joint use of community recreational facilities shall be required when: (i) The development would generate demand for one or more forms of public shoreline access; and/or (ii) The development would eliminate, restrict, or otherwise impair existing legal access opportunities or rights. In these instances public access shall be provided by the development in a form as detailed by FWRC 15 05 040(7)(d) of this section, consistent in character with the existing public access that was eliminated, restricted, or otherwise impaired. (b) Requirements or conditions for public access shall be consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation of private property. (c) Public access requirements shall not be re •thenihi h � Fe 'rho , PW .Alen A'7n e1/± nn 4 /A%f—% r.r when the applicant demonstrates thaOoneo a Ilowing provisions apply: (i) Unavoidable health or sthe ublic exist that cannot be prevented by any practical means; (ii) Inherent security requiruse cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design feator other solutions; (iii) The cost of providing the access, easement, alternative amenity, or mitigating the impacts of public access is unreasonably disproportionate to the total long term cost of the proposed development; (iv) Significant environmental impacts would result from the public access that cannot be mitigated; and/or (v) Significant undue and unavoidable conflict between any access provisions and the proposed use and/or adjacent uses would occur and cannot be mitigated. (d) Public access shall consist of a dedication of land or a physical improvement in the form of a walkway, trail, bikeway, corridor, viewpoint, park, or other area serving as a means of view and/or physical approach to shorelines of the state and may include interpretive centers and displays. (e) Public access locations shall be clearly marked with visible signage. (f) Public access provided by shoreline street ends, public utilities, and rights-of- way shall not be diminished (RCW 36.87.130). (g) Shoreline development by any public entities, including the city of Federal Way, state agencies, and public utility districts, shall include public access measures as part of each development project, unless such access is shown to be incompatible due to reasons of safety, security, or impact to the shoreline environment or other provisions in this section. (8) Restoration Projects. (a)Restoration projects within the shoreline environment consistent with WAC 173- 27 -080(2)(o) -shall be allowed without a shoreline substantial development permit; be reviewed through the shoreline exemption review process; and be designed consistent Page 17 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments with the development standards outlined in Chapter 15.10 FWRC — Critical Areas and the provisions of this chapter. (j) Approval of restoration projects shall be based on a review of a plan containing, at a minimum an analysis of existing conditions identification of the area to be restored, proposed corrective actions including installation of native species performance standards monitoring schedule planting plans erosion and sedimentation control dans and grading plans as necessary. (c) The shoreline administrator shall require an applicant to retain the services of a qualified professional in preparing the restoration plan Intrusions into regulated steep slopes and associated setbacks will be allowed for purposes of approved restoration__ rQ o*ects. (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98, Code 2001 § 18-165) 15.05.050 Shoreline modifications (1) Shoreline stabilization. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment. �ZpgfnosSeprv!Mnc�y-� a is afe subject to a shoreline conditional use ep rmit int nvironments, Shoreline stabilization fpfevided: (a) Shoreline stabilization, incl , shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the city's s r order for shoreline stabilization to be permitted the city must find that: (i) The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified professional, that estimates the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; and the urgengy associated with the specific situation; and (ii) PleHstFi&etwa4 Soft -shore stabilization alternatives such as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization, gravel berms, and beach nourishment shall be prioritized over structural options such as bulkheads and riprap. The "softest" effective alternative shall be utilized; and (iii) In the case of proposed hard armoring stabilization solutions bulkheads and riprap-l.-erosion from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within 3 years) threat to a legally established primary structure, one or more substantial accessory structures, water -dependent development, ecological restoration / toxic clean-up remediation projects, or public improvements. (#ice In the case of bulkheads and riprap, the proposed shoreline stabilization is located landward of the ordinary high water mark; and (ivyj The proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing improvements; and (vXD The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment transport are minimized to the greatest extent possible; and (vim Shoreline stabilization shall not have an adverse impact on the property of others and shall be designed so as not to create the need for shoreline pfetectiea stabilization elsewhere; and (v#AW Shoreline stabilization shall not significantly interfere with normal surface and/or subsurface drainage into the water body and shall be constructed using Page 18 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments an approved filter cloth or other suitable means to allow passage of surface and groundwater without internal erosion of fine material; and (44ft) Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands; and () Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited for any shoreline stabilization proposal within freshwater lake shorelines; and (MO Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited within marine shorelines; and (*ice Re -vegetation with native plants is required as part of the shoreline stabilization project; and i "' Shoreline stabilization shall not otherwise result in a net loss of ecological functions. (b) When a bulkhead or other structural alternative is permitted subject to subsection (a) above, the following standards shall apply: (i) The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead or other stabilization structure is no more than one foot above the elevation of mean higher high water on tidal waters, or one foot in height above the elevation of ord'nary high water mark on lakes, measured from grade on the waterward side of Ikhead or structure; and (ii) When a bulkhead or other stabiliza ' u re has deteriorated such that the ordinary high water mark has been est h resence and action of water landward of the existing bulkhead, th r nt Ikhead or structure must be located at or landward of the ordina i (iii) Repair of an existing b other stabilization structure is permitted provided that the repaired bulkhead ructure is not relocated further waterward or increased in height. (iv) If an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is destroyed it may be replaced as it existed prior to destruction, provided application for required permits is made within one year of destruction. Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new structures. v Soft shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. vi The project satisfies the provisions of FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b). fcfCreation of new lots shall be prohibited where development and use on new lots would require structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development.: The following standards shall apply to new development. i New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts to adoacentor down -current Properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed. (ii) New development including newly created parcels are required to be designed and located to revent the need for future shoreline stabilization as documented by a geotechnical analysis. (iii) New development on steep slopes and bluffs is required to be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the project as demonstrated by a geotechnical analysis. In no case shall the setback from a 'n bluff be less than 50 feet unless a shoreline variance is granted. (2) Piers, docks, floats, and moo age4x4eys mooring buoys and-fleats. Pace 19 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Piers, docks, floats, and mer mooring buoys 6, deek, moefage, buoy, OF float allthOFazed by AN. G 15.05.070 thFOUgh 45-.Q&.4-00 May be permitted in the shoreline residential and urban conservancy environments subject to the following conditions: (i) Residential pieFs aFe PFOhibited on the Puget Sound sheFeline. (a) Public piers and docks shall only be allowed for water -dependent uses and public access subject to a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and the following criteria: (i) Public's need for such a structure is clearly demonstrated; (ii) The project including any required mitigation will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater, habitat; (iii) The project is consistent with the state's interest in resource protection and species recovery: and iv Moorage at public docks is limited to recreational purposes and shall not extend more than one 24-hour period. Public docks may not be used for commercial or residential moorage. (12m) Residential piers, docks, floats, or n4eeragea; mooring buoys, eFgeats m b er itted accessory to a single- family residence, o se facilities associated with a subdivision, er short subdivision, or t i to ent, in accordance with this chapter and the following limitations: (i). Residential mooring bull ferred over docks and iers on the F U Gl %JWUI IW Shoreline must demonstrate why a mooring buoy will not provide adequate moorage for recreational watercraft. (ii) No more than one pier, dock float or mooring buoy for each existing residential lot is permitted. (iii) New multiple Farrlilu residential developments of two or more units, subdivisions, or short subdivisions shall be wed -limited to one shared dock or pie r. (A) The total number of moorage spaces shall be limited to one moorage space for every dwelling unit up to four. For each two dwelling units after four, one additional moorage space is permitted. (c+) All docks and piers shall be subject to the mitigation requirements per FWRC 15.05.040(1) and will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat. A preliminary eelgrass survey as specified under the Army Corps of Engineers Regional General Permit RGP 6 shall be required for new docks or piers on the Puget Sound shoreline. Ldb) No dwelling unit may be constructed on a pier or dock. (eE) No covered pier, covered dock, covered moorage, covered float, or other covered structure is permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark. (fd) Piers, docks, Moorages -mooring buoys, or, buoys -Gr -floats shall meet the side and rear yard setbacks of the underlying zoning classification, except in the case of shared facilities, in which case no side yard setback is required. Page 20 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (ge) All piers, docks, nae mooringbuoys, floats, or other such structures shall not, during the course of the normal fluctuations of the elevation of the water body, protrude more than five feet above the surface of the water. (h) Floats cannot rest on the tidal substrate at any time Stoppers on the piling anchorinq the floats or stub piling must be installed such that the bottom of the floatation device is at least one (1) foot above the level of the substrate. Rd fleats OF any F any (ih) Any pier, dock, moorina buoy or float, efage must be constructed out of materials that will not adversely affect water quality. Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited in freshwater lake shorelines. Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited in marine shorelines. W) Any new pier or dock must be located erpendicular to the shoreline, and oriented to minimize shadin � t t maximum degree feasible. development may not extend greater than one 24-hour Period without a lease from Washington Department of Natural Resources. Pier and dock dimensions and grating marine shorelines. (iA) Where authorized by FWRC 15.05 iers and docks located on marine shorelines shall be the minimum size required to provide for moorage. Single family piers or docks shall not exceed 75 feet in length measured perpendicularly from the OHWM. Shared moorage m,ay extend up to 100 feet in length if demonstrated to be necessary to provide adequate moorage Docks that cannot meet this standard may request a review under the variance provisions of this Program. (ii) The maximum width of each pier or dock shall be six (6) feet. (iii) The maximum width of walkway ramps shall be four (4) feet and shall be fully prated. iv The decking of all piers and docks shall be designed to allow a minimum of 45% light passage This may be accomplished through orated decks space between decking light prisms or other means. (v) Pier skirting is not permitted. �_ Pier and dock dimensions and fratinq lake shorelines. QA) The maximum waterward intrusion of any portion of any pier or dock shall not extend further waterward than the average length of the piers or docks on lots abutting the location of the new dock as measured perpendicularly from the ordinary high water mark unless an alternative dimension is required in order to prevent impacts to critical areas. In no circumstances shall the maximum waterward intrusion of any portion of any pier or dock shalI-be extend more than 36 feet from the ordinary high Pape 21 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments water mark, or the point where the water depth is 43 ei ht LEfeet below the elevation of the ordinary high water mark, whichever is reached first. (jig) The maximum width of eachip er or dock shall be six n feet, or up to eight M feet wide on joint use docks where additional mitigation is provided. (iiiG) The decking of all piers and docks shall be designed to allow a minimum of 45% light passage This may be accomplished through prated decks, space between deckinq, liqht prisms or other means. (n) (W) Floats are limited under the following co s: (iA) One float per single-family re 'd d no more than one common use float for each new multifamily develop t, u ivision, or subdivision is permitted. ii13) No portion of a fl ed more than 36 45 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark on la es. iiiG) Retrieval lines s not float at or near the surface of the water. ivg) No float shall have more than 100 square feet of surface area. Lvl=) Floats shall use grating on at least 30 percent of +ts their surface to allow light penetration. (3) Boating facilities - launching'' auRG" ramps, rails, and lift stations. (a) Launching ramps rails and lift stations may be permitted in parks and public access areas in the shoreline residential and urban conservancy environments subject to a shoreline conditional use permit where authorized by FWRC 15 05 070 through 15.05.090. The following conditions shall apply: (i) No portion of a launching ramp, rail, or lift station shall be placed more than 60 feet water ward of the ordinary high water mark. (ii All portions of a launching ramp, rail, or lift station shall be placed at a depth not to exceed eight feet below the ordinary high water mark. (iii) Launching rails or ramps shall be anchored to the ground through the use of tie -type construction. Asphalt, concrete, or other ramps, which solidly cover the bottom or bed of a waterbody, are prohibited. (Ly) No more than one launching ramp, of rail or lift station per shoreline development is shall be permitted. (v-) Launching ramps, rails, or lift stations shall not be permitted for shoreline developments that have an existing pier, dock, float mooring buoy or other functional moorage. Piers, docks, floats, or other forms of moorage shall not be permitted for shoreline developments that have existing launching ramps, rails, or lift stations. NO Launching ramps, rails, and lift stations shall be sited and designed to ensure protection of navigation routes and access; shall be aesthetically compatible with Page 22 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecolocry Comments or enhance existing shoreline features; and shall be clearly marked and separated from nearby swimming areas_ NO On shore facilities associated with public boating facilities shall provide adequate off-street parking and loading area and have adequate facilities for handhna of sewage and litter. k4) Breakwaters, and jetties and groins. (a) Floating breakwaters are permitted in the shoreline residential and urban conservancy environments, with a conditional use permit when the following conditions apply: (i) Floating breakwaters may be allowed if necessary to protect a public boat launch, when no other alternative with less impact to the environment is feasible. (ii) When permitted, develo m-nt of floating breakwaters shall include mitiaation measures consistent with the chapter as to ensure no net loss of ecological function. (ii) Non -floating breakwaters are prohibited. (b) Jetties are prohibited within all shoreline en ents in the city. (c) Groins are prohibited in all shoreline e i is in the city. (5) Dredging and filling. (a) Dredging: (i) Dredging activities in sh al or urban conservancy environments require a conditional u redging is not permitted in the natural environment. (ii) Dredging activities are allowed only where necessary to protect public safety or for shoreline restoration activities. (iii) Dredging is allowed only where an alternative alignment that would not require dredging is not feasible. (iv) Where allowed, dredging operations must be scheduled so as to not damage shoreline ecological functions or here allowed, dredging operations shall avoid and minimize significant -colo ical im acts to the qreatest extent feasible and shall be mitigated as required by this chapter. vi Siting and desi n of new development shall avoid the need for new and maintenance dredging. (vii) Dredging for fill materials shall be prohibited except for projects associated with MTCA or CERCLA remediation actions habitat restoration or any other si nificant restoration effort approved by,a shoreline conditional use permit. In such instancesplacement of dredged fill material must be waterward of the OHWM. (b) Filling: (i) Fill activities waterward of the ordinary high water mark shall only be allowed with a shoreline conditional use permit in association with allowed (permitted) water dependent use developments; public access-, cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan; dis osal of dredged material in accordance with DNR Dredged Material Management Program or expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide si nificance currently located on the shoreline (if alternatives to fill are shown not feasible Fill water Page 23 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments ward of the ordinary high water mark associated with non -water dependent uses shall be prohibited. (ii) Fill water ward of ordinary high water mark needed to support the following water dependent uses may be allowed through a conditional use permit in the shoreline residential and urban conservancy environments: (A) Public access; (B) Expansion, alteration, or repair of transportation facilities currently located with in the shoreline; (C) Mitigation actions; (D) Environmental, ecological, or watershed restoration projects; (E) Beach nourishment or enhancement projects; and (F) Soft shore bank stabilization projects. (iii) Permitted fill activities must comply with the following standards: (A) Demonstration that alternatives to fill are not feasible; (B) Demonstration that fill shall be deposited o as to minimize disruption of normal surface and ground water passage; (C) Demonstration that fill material f such quality that it will not adversely affect water quality; (D) Demonstration that I rfa water penetration into the ground water supply, where such co i rior to the fill; and (E) Demonstration that ill minimize damage to water quality and aquatic life. (iv) Fill, except for beach nourishment, shall be prohibited in areas of high shoreline erosion potential. (v) Fill located waterward of the ordinary high water mark that results in a net loss of shoreline function is prohibited. 15.05.060 Environmental designations. (1) Purpose and establishment of designations. (a) The purpose of the designations is to differentiate between areas whose geographical, hydrological, topographical, or other features imply differing objectives regarding the their use and future development. Each environment designation represents a particular emphasis in the type of uses and the extent of development that should occur within it. The environmental designation system is designed to encourage uses in each environment that enhance or are compatible with the character of the environment, while at the same time requiring reasonable standards and restrictions on development so that the character of the environment is not adversely impacted. (b) Names of environment designations. In order to accomplish the purpose of this title, environmental designations have been established as follows: (i) Shoreline residential. (ii) Urban conservancy. (iii) Natural. (c) Limits of environment designations. Each environment designation shall consist of: Page 24 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (i) The entire water body within city jurisdiction, including all water below the surface, the land below the water body, the space above the water body, and the shorelands associated with the rfrom then the ordinaryord nary high water mty's marine oaek to the line omfent designations shall extend waterward extreme low tide. (ii) The shoreline areas within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark and additional upland areas where associated wetlands and floodplains extend beyond 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. (d) Establishment of designations. (i) The written descriptions of the boundaries of the shoreline environment designations as adopted by ordinance shall constitute the official legal descriptions of the boundaries of those environment designations. (ii) The official maps prepared by the city pursuant to Chapter 173-26 WAC shall constitute the official descriptions of the limits of all shorelands in the city of Federal Way as defined by RCW 90.58.030 and FWRC 15. 5.030. (iii) The department may, from time to time or improved information becomes available, modify the official maps des ib n bsection (1)(d)(ii). of this section consistent with state guidelines to c e represent, clarify, or interpret the true limits of the shorelines defin (e) Location of boundaries. (i) Boundaries indicated as streets, highways, roads, and bridges shall be deemed to follow the centerli o such facilities unless otherwise specified. (ii) Boundaries indicated as following railroad lines and transmission lines shall be deemed to follow the centerline of such rights-of-way or easements unless otherwise specified. (iii) Where different environmental designations have been given to a tributary and the main stream at the point of confluence, the environmental designation given to the main stream shall extend for a distance of 200 feet up the tributary. (iv) In case of uncertainty as to a wetland or environment boundary, the director of community development services shall determine its exact location pursuant to the criteria of WAC 173-22-040 and RCW 90.58.030, and the provisions of this title. (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98. Code 2001 § 18-164.) 15.05.070 Summary of Uses, Approval Criteria, and Process QeF 0`ted tab - 1 Uses not addressed in the program shall be conditional uses. (2) Specific regulations for each use/development are provided in subsequent sections for Shoreline Residential (FWRC 15.05.080) Urban Conservancy jFWRC 15.05.090), and Natural (FWRC 15.05.100) environments. All permitted and conditional uses may not appear in the Permitted Use Table (FWRC 15.05.070(5)). In cases where uses are not listed or conflicts exist with other section(s) of the Program the text provisions shall control. (3) Prohibited uses. a The followin uses are rohibited in all shoreline environments: (i) Commercial agriculture. (ii) Aquaculture. (iii) Forest practices. page 25 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (iv) Industrial uses. v Mining. (b) Additional uses are prohibited in specific shoreline environmentsas detailed by the ^permitted use table and FWRC 15.05.080 15.05.090 and 15.05.100. (4) Prohibited shoreline modifications (a) The following shoreline modifications are prohibited in all shoreline environments: i Jetties. (ii) Groins. (b) Additional shoreline modifications are prohibited in specific shoreline environments as detailed by the permitted use table and FWRC 15.05.080 15.05.090 and 15.05.100. (5) Permitted use table The table summarizes the permitted, conditional. and prohibited uses for each shoreline environment. P = Allowed as exempt from permitting or permitted with substantial development permit C = May be allowed with shoreline conditional use permit X = Prohibited 1. Includes bulkheads, bio -engineered erosion control projects, and other shoreline stabilization activities. Pace 26 of 84 n era X Shoreline Stabilization' PP1C! Piers, and Docks, Moorage and-Fleats p/C14 X Mooring Buoys and Floats P P X C P4C34 X Boating facilities F Iloati ng C GX X Breakwaters4greak atem X X X Dredging and Filling P/C14 P/C44 X ® 5 aFL l i11 -,ZiZ � Office and Commercial X C X Development Recreational Development P P P/X Residential Development P P C44 Accessory Structures P P C Utilities P P C Transportation / Parking P p C Facilities`! Aguasu}tfe X X X P = Allowed as exempt from permitting or permitted with substantial development permit C = May be allowed with shoreline conditional use permit X = Prohibited 1. Includes bulkheads, bio -engineered erosion control projects, and other shoreline stabilization activities. Pace 26 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments 2. Snft chore stahOIwzati^n is permitted and hard armoring (e.g bulkhparlc rip rani is sub�m shoreflne conditional use permit PRublic piers and docks are allowed as with a CUP. VVeuld be permitted with subs intial development peFm - 6 4. Floating breakwaters are allowed with a shoreline conditional use permit and only when used to protect a public boat launch Non -floating breakwaters are prohibited. 5. Dredging and all fill waterward of the OHWM requires a conditional use permit. 6. Solid waste transfer stations and cellular towers are prohibited in all shoreline environments. 7. Parking as a primary use is prohibited in all shoreline environments, but allowed if serving an allowed shoreline use. 8. Multifamilyresidential development is rohibited within the Natural environment. 9. Non -water oriented recreational development is prohibited in the Natural environment modifications and shoreline uses. Page 27 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Page 28 of 84 m. Multifamily: 75 feet from OHWM or as required for (no multifamily zoning in this environment)rg areas, whichever is eater protection of critical areas whichever is grreate Density Subject to underlying zoning (typically 7,000 to 10,000 -sq ft minimum lot Subject to underlying zoning (7,000 to 10,000-sg Subject to underlying zoning (5 -acre minimum lot size size: limited areas of multi- family residential zoning, ft minimum lot size:) 1,800 -sq ft minimum lot size Height 8 feet 8 feet 8 feet Maximum 150 sf per structure: 150 sf Der structure: 150 sf per structure: footprint__ 300 sf total er lot 300 sf total er lot 300 sf total per lot Shoreline Modifications Design • Nonstructural alternatives Drio requirements . Creation of new land r • Located at or landward o i h water • Marine: creosote Prohibi N/A (Prohibited) • Freshwater chemically Bated wood Prohibited • Re -vegetation with native plants required • Maximum height is 1 foot above elevation of mean 19 her high water tidal / ordina hi h water lakes Sideyard Consistent w/ underlying zoning except none when setbacks joint use Maximum height Above water surface level: 5 feet Siting and Design requirements • Dwelling units prohibited on piers and docks • Covered overwater structures Prohibited • Piers and docks oriented perpendicular to the shoreline • Piers and docks: must be constructed from materials N/A (Prohibited) that allow light penetration through the structure • Marine: creosote prohibited • Freshwater: chemically treated wood Prohibited • Public dock moorage limited to recreational uses • 1 dock per existing residential lot. • 1 shared dock per new multifamily development, subdivision or short subdivision (additional limitations on number of moorage spaces) • 1 float per existing residence / 1 shared dock 2er new Page 28 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments 1. Maximum heights may be increased pursuant to the Shoreline Environment -specific regulations of this Program (FWRC 15.05.080(3), 15.05.090(3), and 15.05.100(3)). 2. Please refer to the Shoreline Environment -specific regulations of this Program for additional detail related to residential setbacks includina exceptions or modifications to the standard minimum setback (FWRC 15.05.080(3), 15.05.090(3), and 15.05.100(3)). 3. See additional review and approval criteria and design requirements in FWRC 15.05.050(1) Paae 29 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments 15.05.080 Shoreline residential environment. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the "shoreline residential" environment is to accommodate residential development and appurtenant structures that are consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. (2) Designation criteria. Designation criteria for the shoreline residential environment are provided in the city's shoreline master program. (3) General requirements. (a) Development water ward of the ordinary high water mark is prohibited except water dependent recreational uses, permitted shoreline modifications, and public utilities. (b) No structure shall exceed a the height allowed by the underlying zoning or of 35 feet above average grade level whichever is less. (i) This requirement may be modified if the view of any neighboring residences will not be obstructed, and if permitted the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed dev I is water -related or water - dependent. For any proposed structure wit h c din 35 feet a view analysis (c) All development shall be re Wrovide adequate surface water retention, erosion control, and sedim tion facilities during the construction period. (d) Setbacks. Development shall maintain a minimum shoreline setback of the first 50 feet of property landward from the ordinary high water mark or other designated minimum setback necessary to protect designated critical areas per FWRC 15.05.040(4), whichever is greater. This minimum setback area shall be retained as a vegetation conservation area, subject to provisions referenced in subsection (e) Vegetation conservation area. The required setback area shall be considered a vegetation conservation area. Within the vegetation conservation area, no more than 50 percent of the area with native shoreline vegetation shall be cleared, and a minimum of 60 percent of existing native trees shall be retained. Trees determined by the city to be hazardous or diseased may be removed. Additionally, the director may allow removal of vegetation exceeding that described above where an applicant agrees to replacement plantings that are demonstrated to provide greater benefit to shoreline ecological processes than would be provided by strict application of this section. (f) Impact mitigation All developments and uses shall result in no net loss of ecological functions and shall be consistent with the impact mitigation requirements of 15.05.040(1). LqJ Collection facilities to control and separate contaminants shall be required where stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would degrade or add to the pollution of recipient waters of adjacent properties. (gb) All development in the shoreline residential area must comply with applicable regulations identified within the general development standards, shoreline modifications, and all other applicable sections of this chapter. (4) Shoreline modifications. Page 30 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (a) Allowed modifications to the shoreline within Shoreline Residential designated areas include the following: (i) Shoreline stabilization. Allowed within the shoreline residential designated areas under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(1). (ii) Piers and docks. Allowed within shoreline residential designated areas with a sheFeline r.enditional use permit. under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.860 040 and 15.05.989050(2). (iii) Mooring buoys, and floats. All within shoreline residential designated areas under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(2). div) Boating Facilities - launching ramps rails and lift stations. Permitted with a conditional use permit in parks and public access areas within the residential environment under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15 05 040 and 15.05.050(3). (v) Breakwaters. Floatinq bpop; within the shoreline residential areas with a shoreline conthe requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15 (vi) Dredging and filling. Allidential designated areas with a shoreline conditional use perm imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(5). (b) Prohibited modifications to the shoreline within shoreline residential designated areas include the following: (i) Jetties and groins. (5) Shoreline uses. (a) Allowed uses within shoreline residential designated areas include the following: (i) Residential development. Single-family residential use shall be a priority use in the shoreline environment. Single-family and multiple -family residential development, accessory dwelling units, and home occupations may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment subject to the following: (A) The proposed use is permitted in the underlying zone classification. (B) Residential development is prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark. (C) Setbacks. (1) Single-family residential development shall maintain a minimum shoreline setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark. If the site contains one or more designated critical areas the setback shall be the minimum necessary to protect such designated critical areas per FWRC 15.05.040(4), or 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater. Where critical area setbacks do not apply, the standard 50 foot minimum setback may be modified pursuant to the following exception: (a) If single-family residential development is proposed on a lot where properties on at least one side of the lot are developed in single-family residences located less than 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark, then the Page 31 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments proposed residential development may be located the same distance from the ordinary high water mark as the adjacent residences (using the stringline setback method as defined in FWRC 15.05.030), but shall in no case be closer than 30 feet from the ordinary high water mark. (II) Multifamily residential development shall maintain a minimum setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. If the site contains one or more designated critical areas the setback shall be the minimum necessary to protect such designated critical areas per FWRC 15.05.040(4), or 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater. Where critical area setbacks do not apply, the standard 75 foot minimum setback may be modified pursuant to the following exception: (a) If multi -family residential development is proposed on a lot where properties on at least one side of the lot are developed in multi -family residential uses located less than 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark then the proposed residential development may be located the same distance from the ordinary high water (1) Prevent the loss of ecological functions at full build -out by proviaing adequate developable space outside of setbacks, and (11) Avoid the need for new shoreline stabilization and flood hazard Page 32 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (ii) Accessory structures. Residential accessory structures may be placed within the required shoreline setback, provided: (A) No accessory structure shall cover more than 150 square feet. (B) No more than 300 feet of accessory structures shall be allowed. (C) No accessory structure shall exceed eight feet in height. (D) Existing native shoreline vegetation within the shoreline setback is conserved to the maximum extent possible as per general requirements (3)(d) and (e). (iii) Recreational development. Recreational development may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment subject to the general requirements of this chapter, provided: (A) The recreational development is permitted in the underlying zone. (B) The facilities are located designed and operated in a manner consistent with the purpose of the residential environment. (C€) Recreational development that provides public access to and use of the water shall be given priority. al functions. €E) Swimming areas sd fr boat launch areas. (G) The constri mts of this ehapteF. PV (BF) PubliG bBoat launching facilities may be developed, subject to a shoreline conditional use permit, provided: (1) The parking and traffic generated by such a facility can be safely and conveniently handled by the streets and areas serving the proposed facility. (II) The facility will not be located on a beach area or cause net loss in shoreline function. (€G) Upland facilities constructed in conjunction with a recreational development shall be set back and/or sited to avoid adverse impacts to the functions of the shorelines of the city. (H) Public pedestrian and bicycle pathways shall be permitted adjacent to water bodies. Such trails and pathways must be made of pervious materials, if feasible. (GI) Public contact with unique and fragile areas shall be permitted where it is possible without destroying the natural character of the area. (MJ) Water viewing, nature study, recording, and viewing shall be accommodated by space, platforms, benches, or shelter consistent with public safety and security. (iv) Utilities. Utility facilities, with the exception of cellular towers, aed solid waste transfer stations and production and processing facilities, may be permitted in the shoreline residential environment subject to the requirements of this chapter, provided: (A) No other practicable alternative location outside of the shoreline Jurisdiction with less impact to the environment is available for the facility. (B) Utility and transmission facilities shall: (1) Avoid disturbance of unique and fragile areas. Page 33 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (II) Avoid disturbance of wildlife spawning, nesting, and rearing areas. (111) Conserve native shoreline vegetation, particularly forested areas, to the maximum extent possible. (IV) Overhead utility facilities shall not be permitted in public parks, monuments, scenic, recreation, or historic areas. (V) Minimize visual impact. (VI) Harmonize with or enhance the surroundings. (VII) Not create a need for shoreline protection. (VIII) Utilize to the greatest extent possible natural screening. (IX) Mitigate for unavoidable impacts to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. W Be located in existing utility and transportation rights of way whenever feasible. (C) The construction and maintenance of utility facilities shall be done in such a way so as to: (1) Maximize the preservation of natu uty and the conservation of resources. (11) Minimize scarring of t (III) Minimize siltatio (IV) Protect trees, s , natural features, and topsoil. (V) Avoid disruption Aaquatic and wildlife stages. (D) Rehabilitation of ar disturbed by the construction and/or maintenance of utility facilities shall: (1) Be accomplished as rapidly as possible to minimize soil erosion and to maintain plant and wildlife habitats. (11) Utilize native trees and shrubs. (E) Solid waste transfer stations are prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction. (F) Cellular or wireless towers are prohibited within shoreline jurisdiction. (v) Transportation and parking facilities. Transportation and parking, except parking facilities associated with detached single-family development, shall conform to the following minimum requirements: (A) Transportation corridors shall be developed consistent with the Transportation Element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) and_designed to provide the best service with the least possible impact on shoreline ecological function. Impacts to functions shall be mitigated to achieve no net loss of ecological functions. (B) New road construction shall be the minimum necessary to serve a permitted shoreline use. (C) New public transportation facilities shall provide turnout areas for scenic stops where feasible. (D) Parking facilities serving individual buildings on the shoreline shall be located landward from the principal building being served, except when the parking facility is within or beneath the structure and adequately screened, or in cases when an alternate location would have less environmental impact on the shoreline. (E) New surface transportation facilities not related to and necessary for the support of shoreline activities shall be located outside the shoreline jurisdiction if Page 34 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments possible, or set back from the ordinary high water mark far enough to make protective measures such as riprap or other bank stabilization, landfill, or substantial site regrade unnecessary. (F) Maintenance, repair, replacement, or other roadway improvements (including but not limited to widening to serve existing or projected volumes, installation of curb and gutter, sidewalks, illumination, signals) to existing surface transportation facilities shall be allowed within shoreline residential designated areas. Improvements that create a need for protective measures such as riprap or other bank stabilization, landfill, or substantial site regrade shall not be permitted unless no alternative exists and impacts to shoreline ecological functions are mitigated. (G) Any new development or expansion of existing development creating greater than six total parking stalls must meet the water quality standards required by the King County Surface Water Manual for "high use" sites and "resource stream protection" (see Seetiens 1.3.4 speQial FeqUiFement eil n#01, 6.1.5 high use Menu, and• (H) Outdoor parking area perimeter, exc entrances and exits, must be maintained as a planting area with a minimu w ive feet. (1) One live tree with a mi t four feet shall be required for each 30 linear feet of planting area. (11) One live shrub o ainer size, or larger, for each 60 linear inches of planting area shall b (III) Additional perim and interior landscaping of parking areas may be required, at the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen parking areas or when large parking areas are proposed. (1) Parking as a primary use in shoreline jurisdiction shall be prohibited. (J) Parking in the shoreline jurisdiction shall directly serve a permitted shoreline use and environmental and visual impacts shall be minimized. (K) Transportation and parking facilities for subdivision, multi -family residential, and commercial uses shall incorporate low impact development (LID) designs to minimize stormwater runoff. (L) Transportation facilities shall not adversely impact existing or planned water dependent uses. (b) In addition to those uses prohibited in all shoreline environments by FWRC 15.05.070(3) of this chapter, the following uses are pi2rohibited uses to the sh '�.:^e within shoreline residential designated areas #w4ude: (i) Office and commercial development. (am) AquaGultuFe. 15.05.090 Urban conservancy environment. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the "urban conservancy" environment is to protect and restore ecological functions of open space, flood plain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and developed settings, while allowing a variety of compatible uses. Priority should be given to water -oriented uses over non -water oriented uses in the urban conservancy environment Residential development and appurtenant structures should be accommodated in the urban conservancy environment when consistent with Page 35 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Commenfs existing land use and zoning and when consistent with this chapter. An additional purpose is to provide appropriate public access and recreational uses. (2) Designation criteria. Designation criteria for the urban conservancy environment are provided in the city's shoreline master program. (3) General requirements. (a) Development water ward of the ordinary high water mark is prohibited except water dependent recreational uses, permitted shoreline modifications, and public utilities. (b) No structure shall exceed the height allowed by the underlying zoning or a height a 35 feet above average grade level whichever is less. This requirement may be modified if the view of any neighboring residences will not be obstructed, if permitted eut by the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is water -related or water -dependent. For any proposed structure with a height exceeding 35 feet a view analysis shall be completed and approved by the City to ensure that visual public access is not affected consistent with FWRC 15.05.040(7). (c) All development shall be required to provid ate surface water retention and sedimentation facilities during the constructi o (d) Setbacks. Development shall m i shoreline setback of the first 50 feet of property landward fron h Ater mark as a Fequi setback a or other designate mini cessary to protect designated critical areas per FWRC 15.04.040 (4 &Xer is greater. This minimum setback area shall be retained as a-ve-qetatiorMniervation area, subject to provisions referenced in subsection (e) Vegetation conservation area. The required setback area shall be considered a vegetation conservation area. Within the vegetation conservation area, no more than 30 percent of the area with native shoreline vegetation shall be cleared, and a minimum of 70 percent of existing native trees shall be retained. Trees determined by the city to be hazardous or diseased may be removed. Additionally, the director may allow removal of vegetation exceeding that described above where an applicant agrees to replacement plantings that are demonstrated to provide greater benefit to shoreline ecological processes than would be provided by strict application of this section. (f) Impact mitigation All developments and uses shall result in no net loss of ecological functions and shall be consistent with the impact mitigation requirements of 15.05.040(1). (4) Shoreline modifications. (a) Allowed modifications to the shoreline within urban conservancy designated areas include the following: (i) Shoreline Stabilization. Allowed within urban conservancy designated areas and the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(1). (ii) Piers and docks. Allowed within urban conservancy designated areas with cheFel;ne conditional use po.under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(2). (iii) Deeks, moorage, Moorin buoys, and floats. Allowed within urban conservancy designated areas under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(2). Page 36 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (iv) Boating Facilities - launching ramps, rails and lift stations. Permitted with a shoreline conditional use permit in parks and public access areas within the urban conservancy environment anal use permi under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(3), exGept un ion-_ (v) Breakwaters. Floating breakwaters are aAllowed within the urban conservancy designated areas with a shoreline conditional use permit under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(4). (vi) Dredging and filling. Allowed within urban conservancy designated areas with a shoreline conditional use permit under the requirements imposed by FWRC 15.05.040 and 15.05.050(5). (b) Prohibited modifications to the shoreline within urban conservancy designated areas include the following: (i) Jetties and groins. (5) Shoreline Uses. (a) Allowed uses within urban cons$npnd areas include the following: conservanc desi nated (i) Residential developmen y gareas under the requirements impos C 15.05.080(5)(aai), with the following additional restrictions: (A) Setbacks. Residential development shall maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark, or 25 feet fre or other established minimum setback necessary to protect designated critical areas per FWRC 15.05.040(4), whichever is greater . Exceptions to minimum setback requirements included in FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(i)(C), for both single- family and multi -family development, shall apply, but -shall the -e+k-be lessthan 75 fee+ rem tGp-ef bluffs. (B) Accessory structures. Allowed within urban conservancy designated areas under the requirements imposed within by 15.05.080(5)(a)(ii). (ii) Recreational development. Recreational development may be permitted in the Allowedurban conservancy environment subiect to the general requirements of this chapter and designated areas under the requirements imposed within k y FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(iii). (iii) Utilities. Allowed within urban conservancy designated areas under the requirements and restrictions imposed withir��FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(iv). (iv) Transportation and parking facilities. Allowed within urban conservancy designated areas under the requirements imposed within �LFWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(v). (v) Office and commercial development. Office and commercial development may be allowed with conditional use approval in the urban conservancy environment subject to the requirements of this chapter, provided: (A) The office or commercial use or activity is permitted in the underlying zoning classification. (13) Public access is provided consistent with the requirements of FWRC 15.05.040(7). Page 37 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (C) Non -water -oriented office and commercial uses are prohibited uses unless they meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water - dependent uses and provides a significant public benefit such as providing public access and/or ecological restoration; or navigability is severely limited at the proposed site. (II) In areas designated for commercial use non -water -oriented commercial development may be allowed if the site is physically separated from the shoreline by another property or public right of way. (III) Office and commercial development will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or have significant adverse impact to other shoreline uses resources and values provided for in RCW 90 58 020 such as navigation, recreation and public access. (ED) Office and commercial development shall maintain a setback of 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark, or other established minimum setback necessa to protect designated critical areas per FW .05.040 4 or 50 25 feet from the top of marine bluffs, whichever is great imum setback may be reduced using the stringline method, when fi n no case shall the minimum setback be less than 50 feet from ord- ma , or 50 25 feet from the top of marine bluffs, whichever is greater. (GE) Piers, docks, moo ys, floats, and launching facilities will not be permitted in conjunction with offic commercial development; unless they are developed as part of on-site public access to the shoreline. (DF) Additional water quality standard must be met as per FWRC 15.05.040(3). 15.05.100 Natural environment. (1) Purpose. The purpose of the "natural" environment" is to protect those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence, or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions intolerant of human use. These systems require that only very low intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and ecosystem -wide processes. Consistent with the policies of the designation, the city shall plan for restoration of degraded shorelines within this environment. (2) Designation criteria. Designation criteria for the natural environment are provided in the city's shoreline master program. (3) General requirements. (a) Development water ward of the ordinary high water mark is prohibited except water dependent recreational uses and public utilities. (b) No structure shall exceed the height allowed by the underlying zoning or a heig#t-ef 35 feet above average grade level, whichever is less. This requirement may be modified if the view of any neighboring residences will not be obstructed, if permitted sufr+ght by the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if the proposed development is water -related or water -dependent. For any proposed structure with a Page 38 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments nei nt exceeun� .7J a to ensure that visual iccess is not affected con§1stent with FWVR(C; 11 _55.yO55.O0,44QU)- (c) All developmentmeat shall be required to provide adequate surface water retention and sedimentation facilities during the construction period. (d) Setbacks. Development shall maintain a minimum shoreline setback of the first 100 feet of property landward from the ordinary high water marks or other established minimum setback necessary to protect designated critical areas per FWRC 15.05.0400 whi ever is the greater setback as a vegetation conservation ��*h �k zh^�� hn subject to — � — provisions referenced in subsection (ae), (e) Vegetation conservation area. The required setback area shall be considered a vegetation conservation area. Within the vegetation conservation area, no native Trees determined by the city to be hazardous or diseased may be removed. Additionally, the director may allow removal of ve9�1 ceeding that described above where an applicant agrees to replacementhat are demonstrated to provide greater benefit to shoreline ecological prn would be provided by strict application of this section. rAQ„it .n no net loss of 15.05.040(1). IF " (4) Shoreline modifications. The Owing shoreline modifications are prohibited within the natural designated shoreline areas: (a) Shoreline stabilization; (b) Piers, docks, moorages, buoys, and floats; (c) Boating facilities - Launching ramp, rails, and lift stations; (d) Breakwaters, jetties, and groins; and (e) Dredging and filling. (5) Shoreline Uses. (a) Allowed uses within natural designated areas include: (i) Residential development. Multi -family residential uses are prohibited in the natural environment. Single-family residential development and residential accessory structures may be permitted in the natural environment with a shoreline conditional use permits with the following additional restrictions (A) Allowed onwhere single-family residential development is permitt lyed in the underlying zone classification. (B) Single-family residential development is prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Gen 3ervaliGn-afea, (ii) Recreational development. Allowed within the natural designated areas subject to the limitations of FWRC _15.05.1 UO(4) and provided: The recreational development is permittedin the underlvina zone. Pape 39 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (B) Non -water -oriented recreational uses and development are prohibited within the natural designated areas. (C) The recreational development is located designed and operated in a manner consistent with the purpose of the natural environment with a focus on passive recreation. (D) Recreation development shall provide mitigation consistent with the general requirements of this chapter and shall lead to no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (E) The parking and traffic generated by such a facility can be safely and conveniently handled by the streets and areas serving the proposed development. (F) Upland facilities constructed in conjunction with a recreational development shall be set back and/or sited to avoid adverse impacts to the functions of the shorelines of the city. (G) Public pedestrian and bicycle pathways shall be made of pervious materials. (iii) Utilities. Allowed within the natural e a areas with a shoreline conditional use permit under the requirem i ns imposed within FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(iv). (iv) Transportation and pa owed in the natural environment onlywhen necessa to serve an allo nd subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Approved faci s must at a minimum meet tomer the requirements and restrictions imposed within FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(v). (v) Low intensity public uses. Low intensity public uses including scientific, historical cultural and educational research uses are allowed under the general requirements for the natural environment (FWRC 15 05 100(3)) and provided that ecological impacts are avoided. (b) In addition to those uses prohibited in all shoreline environments by FWRC 15 05 070(3) of this chapter, the following uses are prohibited uses within natural designated areas: Dre - ibited uses within n +k it l designated areas ,nn�, r:e• (i) Boating facilities ii Multifamily residential development; fia Office and commercial development; (iii) AquaGultuFe. Article III. Administrative Procedures 15.05.110 Shoreline management permit and enforcement procedures, adoption by reference. The city of Federal Way hereby adopts by reference the following sections or subsections of Chapter 173-27, as amended, of the Washington Administrative Code ("WAC') entitled Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures. WAC: (1) 173-27-020 Purpose (2) 173-27-040 Developments exempt from substantial development permit requirement Page 40 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP - Title 15. Shoreline Management - Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (3) 173-27-130 Filing with department (4) 173-27-270 Order to cease and desist (5) 173-27-280 GW Civil penalty (6) 173-27-290 Appeal of civil penalty (7) 173-27-300 Criminal penalty 15.05.120 Permit processing and public notice. An application for a substantial shoreline development permit shall be made to the department of community development on forms prescribed by the department. UPGR ,-,1kM6ttn1 Mf:; and FeClUiFed- fee--, the depar-tlqp�ent ni+.. - �.,.,.w ... r.. ... Public Notice shall be provided as follows: (1) An application Tor a supstanvai gevewprne� n prescribed in Process III, Chapter 19.65 FW (2) (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord., 1-97; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.40), 2-2; hs*l, Cha ter 19.70 FWRC- 1A-98; WRC.1 -98; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4- § 18-169.) 15.05.13-40 Shoreline exemption. (1) The purpose of a shoreline exemption is to provide an approval process for uses and activities which do not trigger the need for a substantial development permit, but require compliance with the shoreline guidelines and the goals, policies and other provisions of the city's shoreline master program. A use or activity that qualifies for an exemption may require a Shoreline Variance (FWRC 15.05.160). or a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (FWRC 15.05.170). An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with any other applicable regulatory requirements. (2) To qualify for an exemption, the proposed use, activity, or development must meet the requirements for an exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040. (3) If the proposed development meets the requirements for an exemption, the applicant shall submit a request for an exemption to the director of community development services for review and approval. The request shall indicate the specific exemption provision from WAC 173-27-040 that is being applied to the development. The city shall review the request and provide a summary of the analysis demonstrating Paqe 41 of 84 All 15.05.13-40 Shoreline exemption. (1) The purpose of a shoreline exemption is to provide an approval process for uses and activities which do not trigger the need for a substantial development permit, but require compliance with the shoreline guidelines and the goals, policies and other provisions of the city's shoreline master program. A use or activity that qualifies for an exemption may require a Shoreline Variance (FWRC 15.05.160). or a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (FWRC 15.05.170). An exemption from the substantial development permit process is not an exemption from compliance with any other applicable regulatory requirements. (2) To qualify for an exemption, the proposed use, activity, or development must meet the requirements for an exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040. (3) If the proposed development meets the requirements for an exemption, the applicant shall submit a request for an exemption to the director of community development services for review and approval. The request shall indicate the specific exemption provision from WAC 173-27-040 that is being applied to the development. The city shall review the request and provide a summary of the analysis demonstrating Paqe 41 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments consistency of the project with the Federal Way shoreline master program and the shoreline management act. The city shall prepare a statement of exemption, provided the proposal meets exemption criteria. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant. If any part of the development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development. (a) The director may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the shoreline management act and the Federal Way shoreline master program, per WAC 173-27- 040(e). For example, in the case of development subject to a building permit, but exempt from the shoreline permit process, the building official or other permit authorizing official, through consultation with the director, may attach shoreline management terms and conditions to building permits and other permit approvals pursuant to RCW 90.58.140. approval, and (b) Where shoreline development proposals are sub ct to review, permitting by a federal or state agency, the director s pare a statement of exemption, addressed to the applicant, the feder a permitting agency, and ecology. go 15.05.1460 Application requiremen Complete application. A complete I fora substantial development, shoreline conditional use, or shorelin r ance permit shall contain, as a minimum, the following information: (1) The name, address, and phone number of the applicant. The applicant should be the owner of the property or the primary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner or primary proponent. (2) The name, address, and phone number of the applicant's representative if other than the applicant. (3) The name, address, and phone number of the property owner, if other than the applicant. (4) Location of the property. This shall, at a minimum, include the property address, parcel number, and identification of the section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section, or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location. (5) Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) that the site of the proposal is associated with. This should be the water body from which jurisdiction of the act over the project is derived. (6) A general description of the proposed project that includes the proposed use or uses and the activities necessary to accomplish the project. (7) A general description of the property as it now exists, including its physical characteristics and improvements and structures. (8) A general description of the vicinity of the proposed project, including identification of the adjacent uses, structures, and improvements, intensity of development, and physical characteristics. Page 42 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (9) A site development plan consisting of maps and elevation drawings, drawn to an appropriate scale to depict clearly all required information, photographs, and text which shall include: (a) The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed. (b) The ordinary high water mark of all water bodies located adjacent to or within the boundary of the project. This may be an approximate location provided, that for any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the ordinary high water mark the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be included in the development plan. Where the ordinary high water mark is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest ordinary high water mark of a shoreline. (c) Existing and proposed land contours. The contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of t e property and the extent of proposed change to the land that is necessary for the pment. Areas within the boundary that will not be altered by the develop a e indicated as such and contours approximated for that area. (d) A delineation of all wetland I e a red or used as a part of the development. (e) A general indication of the t of vegetation found on the site. (f) The dimensions and locatio all existing and proposed structures and improvements including but not limited to; buildings, paved or graveled areas, roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management facilities. (g) Where applicable, a landscaping plan for the project. (h) Where applicable, plans for development of areas on- or off-site as mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain information consistent with the requirements of this section. (i) Quantity, source, and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether temporary or permanent. 0) Quantity, composition, and destination of any excavated or dredged material. (k) A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads, utilities, existing developments, and uses on adjacent properties. (1) Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and public areas. (m) On all variance applications the plans shall clearly indicate where development could occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and uses. (n) Summary of how the proposal meets relevant decisional criteria. (o) Additional information as requested by the city. (10) Where applicable, aA shoreline assessment and mitigation report prepared by a qualified professional, which at a minimum, includes the following: Page 43 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (a) Site plan and cross-sections of development and critical areas and critical salmonid habitat identified. (b) A detailed description of proposed development. (c) Identification of any species of local importance, priority species, or endangered, threatened, or sensitive species that have documented or observed habitat on or adjacent to the project area. (d) An assessment of potential impacts the proposal may have on fish and wildlife species, critical areas, and critical salmonid habitats. (e) A discussion of any federal, state or local management recommendations, including Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat management recommendations, that have been developed for species or habitats located on or adjacent to project area. (f) A discussion of mitigation measures that have been implemented to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife species and habitats, critical areas, and critical salmonid habitat. The mitigation must also include a itigation plan showing the area of mitigation and detailed mitigation measures, s habitat features and planting of native vegetation. (g) A discussion of monitoring, main ntingency measures to accompany the mitigation plan. IffA 15.05.1560 Shoreline substantial d Wt permit. (1) The purpose of a substantial d "Ipment permit is to provide an approval process for any development with a total cost or fair market value exceeding $5,718988, or any development which materially -interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state, except those exempted developments set forth in the preceding section, consistent with WAC 173-27-040. The substantial development dollar threshold on the adoption date of this Program is five -thousand seven -hundred and eighteen dollars ($5,718). Under current law, the substantial development dollar threshold will be recalculated every five years by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). OFM posts updated dollar thresholds in the Washington State Register. (2) When a substantial development permit is requested, the permit shall be reviewed under the provisions of process III, Chapter 19.65 FWRC, and the director of community development shall be the final approval authority for the city of Federal Way. (3) A substantial development permit shall be granted by the director only when the development proposed is consistent with the following: (a) Goals, objectives, policies and use regulations of the Federal Way shoreline master program; (b) Federal Way comprehensive plan and city code; and (c) The policies, guidelines, and regulations of the shoreline management act (RCW 90.58, WAC 173-26, and WAC 173-27). (3) The director may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the proposal with the above criteria. 15.05.1670 Shoreline variance. Page 44 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 __ Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (1) The purpose of a shoreline variance is to grant relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the shoreline master program, a where there is an extraordinary or unique circumstance relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the shoreline master program would impose unnecessary hardship on the applicant or thwart the policies of the shoreline management act. (2) When a variance is requested, the substantial development permit, if required, and the variance shall be reviewed under the provisions of process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be final be the final alauthority for pproval authority under e city of Federal Way. The department of ecology shall WAC 173-27-200. (3) A variance from the standards of the master program may be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that all the following conditions will apply: (a) That the strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by a master program; (b) That the hardship described above is sped elated to the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular t p size, or natural features, and the application of the master program, and f ,from deed restriction or the applicant's own actions; (c) That the design of the prof i atible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause advers adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; (e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; (f) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance when the proposal is for development located waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or within wetlands, estuaries, marshes, bogs, or swamps; and (g) That consideration has been given to the cumulative effect of like actions in an area where similar circumstances exist, and whether this cumulative effect would be consistent with shoreline policies or would have substantial adverse effects on the shoreline. (4) Shoreline variances may not be used to permit a use that is specifically prohibited in an environment, or to vary uses permitted within an environmental designation. (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 97-291, § 3, 4- 1-97; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.60.10 — 24.60.40), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 18-171.) 15.05.1790 Conditional uses. (1) The purpose of the conditional use permit is to provide greater flexibility in varying the application of the use regulations of the shoreline master programer particularly manner which will be consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW, p y where denial of the application would thwart the policies of the shoreline management act. Page 45 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (2) When a conditional use is requested, the substantial development permit, if required, and the conditional use shall be reviewed under the provisions of process IV, Chapter 19.70 FWRC, and the hearing examiner shall be the final approval authority for the city of Federal Way. The department of ecology shall be the final approval authority under WAC 173-27-200. (3) Conditional uses have unique and special characteristics which require a special degree of control to make the uses compatible with other existing or permitted uses in the same environment, and to assure that the use is in the public interest. In authorizing a conditional use permit, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the hearing examiner to prevent undesirable effects or mitigate environmental impacts of the proposed use. (4) Conditional use permits shall be authorized only when they are consistent with the following criteria: (a) The proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the policies of the shoreline master program; (b) The use will not interfere with normal use of shorelines; (c) The use will cause no unreasonable a e e cts on the shoreline or surrounding properties or uses, and is co i t r permitted uses in the area; (d) The public interest will suff i de mental effect; (e) Consideration has been gi a impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. (5) Other uses not set forth in the reline master program may be authorized through a conditional use permit if the applicant can demonstrate that other uses are consistent with the purpose of the shoreline environmental designation and compatible with existing shoreline improvements, or that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property; however, uses specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized. (Ord. No. 00-375, § 2, 10-3-00; Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.70.10 – 24.70.50), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 18.172.) 15.051890 Final approval of shoreline permits. (1) The director of community development shall notify the following agencies or persons within five days of the final approval of a shoreline permit and any shoreline variances or conditional uses granted: (a) The applicant; (b) The state department of ecology; (c) Any person who has submitted written comments on the application; (d) Any person who has requested notification in writing prior to final approval of the permit. (2) No work may commence on a site requiring a shoreline substantial development, shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit until 21 days following the "date of filing" I— inel Ft at has been ;.,;+;.,+e Mi or until all review proceedings before the Shoreline Hearinas Board have terminated. page 46 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (a) "Date of filing" for a substantial development permit is the date of actual receipt of the decision by the Department of Ecologv. (b) "Date of filing" for a shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit shall mean the date the permit decision rendered by the Department of Ecology is transmitted by the department to the City and the applicant/proponent. (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.80.10, 24.80.20), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 18.168.) 15.05.190200 -Combined hearing authority. In those cases when development proposed in the shorelines may require a public hearing under the authority of other chapters of this Code, the hearings may be combined. (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3,11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.90), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 18-174.) 15.05.2040 Appeals. All appeals of any final permit decision are go a the procedures established in RCW 90.58.180, RCW 90.58.140(6), and he rules and procedures of the shorelines hearing board. All appe per t decision must be made to the shorelines hearing board within 2 e of filing of after the city's final decision concerning the substantial d t permit, or formal approval to revisions of the permit. 15.05.2120 Permit revisions. (1) A permit revision is required whenever an applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms, or conditions of a project from that which was approved in the permit. When a revision of a shoreline permit is sought, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes in the permit and demonstrating compliance with the minimum standards pursuant to WAC 173-27-100. (2) If the proposed changes are determined by the director to be within the scope and intent of the original permit, and are consistent with the shoreline management act (RCW 90.58), the guidelines in WAC 173-26, and the Federal Way shoreline master program, the revision shall be approved. (3) A new permit shall be required if the proposed revision would constitute development that is beyond the scope and intent of the original approval. 'Within the scope and intent of the original approval" means all of the following: (a) No additional over water construction is involved except that a pier, dock or floating structure may be increased by ten percent (10%) over that approved under the original approval,• provided that the revision does not exceed the maximum size requirements of this chapter except as authorized under a variance granted for the original development; (b) Ground area coverage and/or height may be increased a maximum of ten (10%) over that approved under the original approval; provided that the revised approval does not authorize development to exceed the height impervious surface, setback or any other requirements of this chapter except as authorized under a variance granted for the original development; Page 47 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (c) Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original approval and with the Federal Way shoreline master program; (d) The use authorized pursuant to the original approval is not changed; and (e) The revision will not cause adverse environmental impacts beyond those originally authorized in the approval. 15.05.2230 Replacement, alteration, or reconstruction of nonconforming use or development. (1) Applications for substantial development or building permits to modify a nonconforming use or development as defined in this chapter, may be approved only if: (a) The modifications will make the use or development less nonconforming; or (b) The modifications will not make the use or development more nonconforming;. and (c) Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but which are nonconformina with reaard to setbacks buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or (2) An existing use or developme g to existing regulations, which is destroyed, may be replaced er "re tru(c re" as defined in this chapter) in as it existed prior to destruction, prov application for required permits is made within one year of destruction. (3) If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months or for twelve months during any two-year period the nonconforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall be conforming. (4) An undeveloped lot tract parcel site or division of land located landward of the ordinary high water mark which was established in accordance with local and state subdivision requirements prior to the effective date of the act or the Federal Way shoreline master program but which does not conform to the present lot size standards may be developed if permitted by other land use regulations of the FWRC and so long as such development conforms to all other requirements of the Federal Way shoreline master program and the act. .(531 An existing mechanical improvement, not conforming to existing regulations, which breaks and cannot be repaired may be replaced, provided the replacement is no more nonconforming and application for required permits is made within one year of failure. (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98; Ord. No. 90-38, § 1(24.100), 2-27-90. Code 2001 § 18-175.) 15.05.2340 Shoreline environment redesignation. Shoreline environments designated by the master program may be redesignated by the city council upon finding that such redesignation will be consistent with: (1) The policies of Section 2 of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. (2) The goals, objectives, and policies of the shoreline master program. (3) The designation criteria of the shoreline environment designation requested. Page 48 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (Ord. No. 99-355, § 3, 11-16-99; Ord. No. 98-323, § 3, 12-1-98. Code 2001 § 18-176.) 15.05.2460 Amendments to this chapter. Amendments to this chapter shall be pursuant to state review and approval as per WAC 176-26- 110 and WAC 176-26-120. pane 49 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Chapter 15.10 CRITICAL AREAS Article 1. Generally A. 15.10.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter appendix is to protect the environment, human life and property from harm and degradation within the shoreline jurisdiction in the City of Federal Way. This is to be achieved by precluding or limiting development in areas where development poses serious or special hazards; by preserving and protecting the quality of surface water; and by preserving important ecological areas such as steep slopes, streams, and wetlands. The public purposes to be achieved by this chapter appendix include protection of water K roundwater recharge, shoreline stabilization, stream flowance, stability of slope areas, wildlife and fisheries habitat ai, protection of human life and property and mainte c formwater storage systems. go 15.10.020 Applicable proVVper (1) The provisions of this appendix apply throughout designated shoreline areas uShoreline Master Plan and must be complied with regardless of any other conflicting provisions of Title 14 and 19, FWRC. (2) Any conflict between the standards outlined in this chapter appendix and Chapter 15.05 Title 15 shall be resolved in favor of the standard that is most protective of the shoreline ecological functions. In addition to the development standards outlined in this chapter appendix, the following minimum requirements shall apply with regard to activities and development in critical areas located within shoreline jurisdiction: (a) Minimum setbacks from the top of marine bluffs specified in 16.06.090, and . FWRC 15.05.040((4)(b)(iii) shall be maintained in all cases unless a shoreline variance is granted. (b) Minimum setbacks from the OHWM established in FWRC 15.05.080, 15.05.090, and 15.05.100 shall be maintained in all cases unless a shoreline variance is granted. G 15.10.030 Jurisdiction. This chapter appendix applies to the subject property if it: (1) Contains or is within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area; (2) Contains or is within 100 feet of a wellhead; (3) Contains or is within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a major stream; (4) Contains or is within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a minor stream; Paan 50 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (5) Contains or is within 200 feet of the edge of any regulated wetland, including regulated wetlands associated with any major stream, minor stream, or regulated lake; or (6) Is located within a critical recharge area or a wellhead protection area (one-, five-, or 10 -year wellhead capture zone). 0: 15.10_040 Other authority and jurisdiction. Nothing in this cha ter apper in any way limits, or may be construed to limit, the authority of the city under any other applicable law, nor in any way decreases the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. €15.10.050 Liability. (1) Prior to issuance of any building permit or other permit by the building official, the applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the city, in a form acceptable to the city alto releasing and indemnifying the city from and for any dama bility resulting from any development activity on the subj ich is related to the physical condition of the steep r r r ulated wetland. This agreement shall be recorded i he applicant's expense, and shall run with the property (2) The city may also requi applicant to obtain insurance coverage for damage to city o private property and/or city liability related to any such development activity. Article II. Administration A. 15.10.060 Administration. Except as otherwise established in this cha ter append, this cha ter appe Aix will be implemented and enforced as part of the city's review of any development activity on the subject property. If the development activity requires approval through process I, II or III, or IV the provisions of this chapter appendix will be implemented as part of these processes. If the development activity does not require approval through process I, II or III, the provisions of this chapter appeA* will be implemented through site plan review under Chapter 19.60 FWRC. W. 15.10.070 Maps adopted. The city hereby adopts the June 19, 1999, city of Federal Way final wetland inventory report, to show the locations of certain regulated wetlands in the designated shoreline areas of the Shoreline Master Plan. The city hereby adopts the Lakehaven Utility District wellhead one-, five-, and 10 -year capture zone maps, as now existing or amended. G 15.10.080 Basis for determination. The determinations regarding whether the subject property is regulated under this chapter appendix, as well as the extent and nature of the Page 51 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments regulations that will apply to the subject property, will be determined based on environmental information and mapping possessed by the city as well as other information and mapping provided by or through the applicant. The city may require the applicant, at the applicant's expense, to provide any information, mapping, studies, materials, inspections or reviews that are reasonably necessary to implement this chapter appendix and to require that such information, studies, mapping, materials, inspections and reviews be provided or performed by a qualified professional acceptable to the city. Other provisions of this chapter appe Aix -detail other information and inspections that may be required in some instances. 15.10.090 Bonds. The city may require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure compliance with any aspect of this chapter append 15.10.100 Dedication. The city may require the applicant to dedi velopment rights or an open space easement to the cityWttoeuc n of steep slopes, wells, streams, and regulated4w con within the jurisdiction of this chapter 15.10.110 Exemptions frodWeFUn activities not sub'ect to critical area standards. (1) The following activities are not subiect to exempt frern the provisions of this chapter appendix: (a) Emergencies that, in the opinion of the shoreline administrator, threaten the public health, safety and welfare, where impacts to critical areas and their buffers are mitigated to the extent feasible following the emergency actions; (b) Normal and routine maintenance and repair of the following facilities, for which a maintenance plan has been approved by the public works director, provided that impacts to critical areas and their buffers are mitigated to the extent feasible: (i) Existing drainage ditches provided, however, that this exception shall not apply to any ditches used by salmonids other than to permit free migration of salmonids to their spawning grounds; (ii) Surface water facilities, provided that such activities shall not involve conversion of any regulated wetland not currently being used for such activity; (iii) Existing public facilities and utility structures or rights- of-way. The maintenance plan may be designed to address individual facilities or facility components, area -wide facilities or city-wide systems. The maintenance plan shall identify the nature of the potential maintenance or repair activities, specifications for work which may occur within potential sensitive areas, specifications for restoring and/or mitigating impacts, specifications for timing of maintenance or repair activities, and process Page 52 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Reg �a200s Response to EcologyComments Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments for contacting or notifying the city of pending maintenance or repair activities to ensure compliance with the approved plan. The public works director may require that an appropriate bond or security be maintained with the city to ensure restoration of disturbed areas. (2) Any activities not subject to the provisions of th�s chapter are still subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.05 FWRC. Awexeffl► ••gym FF Article III General Site Design Requirements 15.10.120 Responsibility of applicant. The applicant shall locate all improvementsject property to minimize adverse impacts to geologically ha frharge reas, wells, streams, regulated wetlands, and cri ' I u and wellhead protection areas. W. 15.10.130 Vehicle circulat The applicant shall locate ing and vehicle circulation areas as far as possible from any geolo scally hazardous area, wellhead, stream, and regulated wetland. C- 15.10.140 Time limitation. The city may limit development activities which involve any clearin and grading activity to specific months of the year and to a maximum number of continuous days or hours in order to minimize adverse impacts. 15.10.150 Other requirements. The city may require other construction techniques, conditions and restrictions on development in order to minimize adverse impacts on geologically hazardous areas, wells, critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas, streams, or regulated wetlands. 4. Article IV. Geologically Hazardous Areas Development x-15.10.160 Limitations. (1) This section regulates development activities and clearing -and radin on or within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area. (2) Development activities, clearing and grading. or the installation and maintenance of landscaping normally associated with residential, commercial or park use may not occur on or within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area unless no reasonable Page 53 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments alternative exists and then only if the development activity or clearing and radin will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic or erosion hazard. (3) Before approving any development activity or clearing and grading under this section, the city may require the applicant to submit the following information: (a) A soils report prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the state which describes how the proposed development will impact each of the following on the subject property and nearby properties: (i) Slope stability, landslide hazard and sloughing. (ii) Seismic hazards. (iii) Groundwater. (iv) Seeps, springs and other surface waters. v Existin vegetation. () g (b) Recommended foundation desi optimal location for roadway improvements. (c) Recommended a description of how these identified impacts and may impact adjacent properties. (d) Any other infor a city determines is reasonably necessary to evaluate the pro I. (4) If the city approves any development activity or clearing and radin under this section, it may, among other appropriate conditions, impose the following conditions of approval: (a) That the recommendations of the soils report be followed. (b) That the applicant must pay for the services of a qualified professional engineer selected and retained by the city to review the soils report and other relevant information. (c) That a qualified professional engineer be present on-site during all clearing and grading land 5u4aGe rnedifiGat activities. (d) That trees, shrubs and groundcover be retained except where necessary for approved development activities on the subject property. (e) That additional vegetation be planted in disturbed areas. Page 54 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments 5-. Article V: Streams 15.10.170 Stream setbacks. (1) No land suFfaoe madefieatiGn clearing and grading or improvements may take place or be located in a stream or within the following stream setback areas except as allowed within this chapter appendiw: (a) The stream setback area for a major stream includes all areas within 100 feet outward from the ordinary high water mark of a major stream. (b) The stream setback area for a minor stream includes all areas within 50 feet outward from the ordinary high water mark of a minor stream. (2) The stream setback areas established by this section do not apply to any segment of a stream that is presently within a culvert, unless that stream will be taken out of the culvert as part of.Agpopment of the subject property. 111- 15.10.180 Relocation. Op (1) Relocation of a stream loperty is permitted subject to all of the conditions and res his section. (2) A proposal to relocate m will be reviewed and decided upon using process IV per Chapter 9.70 FWRC. (3) As part of any request under this section, the applicant must submit a stream relocation plan, prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city that shows the following: (a) The creation of a natural meander pattern. (b) The formation of gentle side slopes, at least two feet horizontally to one foot vertically, and the installation of erosion control features for stream side slopes. (c) The creation of a narrow subchannel, where feasible, against the south or west bank. (d) The utilization of natural materials, wherever possible. (e) The use of vegetation normally associated with streams, including primarily native riparian vegetation. (f) The creation of spawning and nesting areas, wherever appropriate. (g) The re-establishment of the fish population, wherever feasible. (h) The restoration of water flow characteristics compatible with fish habitat areas, wherever feasible. (i) The filling and revegetation of the prior channel. 0) A proposed phasing plan specifying time of year for all project phases. (4) The city will allow a stream to be relocated only if water quality, habitat and stormwater retention capability of the streams will be Page 55 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments significantly improved by the relocation. Convenience to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design may not be considered. (5) Prior to diverting water into the new channel, a qualified professional approved by the city shall inspect the new channel following its completion and issue a written report to the shoreline administrator stating that the channel complies with the requirements of this section. (6) The amount of flow and velocity of the stream may not be increased or decreased as the stream enters or leaves the subject property. 15.10.190 Culverts. (1) Culverts are permitted in streams within the shoreline jurisdiction of the City only if approved under this section. (2) The city will review and decide upon applications under this chapter using process III per Chapter 19.65 FWRC. (3) The city will allow a stream to be put in a rt only if: (a) No significant habitat area w' I oyed; and (b) No other feasible site i e exists, which allows the stream to remain in an op i on ience to the applicant in order to facilitate general sit be considered. (4) The culvert must be de installed to allow passage of fish inhabiting or using the stream. culvert must be large enough to accommodate a 100 -year storm. (5) The applicant shall, at all times, keep all culverts on the subject property free of debris and sediment so as to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. The city shall require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure maintenance of the culvert approved under this section. 15.10.200 Removal of streams from culverts. If development of the subject property requires approval through process I, II or III of Title 19 FWRC, the city may require the stream to be taken out of the culvert and restored to a natural channel configuration as part of the city's approval of development of the subject property. 15.10.210 Rehabilitation. The shoreline administrator may permit or require the applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a stream by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sediment and invasive, non-native vegetation. Approval of stream rehabilitation shall be based on a review of a plan containing, at a minimum, an analysis of existing conditions, identification of the source, if possible, of the degradation of the stream or riparian zone, proposed corrective actions, including installation of native species within the riparian corridor, performance standards, monitoring schedule, planting plans, erosion and sedimentation control plans, and grading plans as necessary. The shoreline administrator shall require an applicant to retain the services of a qualified professional in preparing the restoration plan. These actions may be permitted or required at any time that a Page 56 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments condition detrimental to water quality, stability of stream banks, degradation of existing naturally vegetated buffers, or in stream habitat exists. Intrusions into regulated steep slopes and associated setbacks will be allowed for purposes of approved stream rehabilitation projects. F—. 15.10.220 Intrusion into stream setbacks. (1) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public improvements. The shoreline administrator may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements in a setback from a stream if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the setback area because no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the setback area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. "Public utility and other public improvements" shall not include improvements primary purpose is to benefit a private development, includin w' mitation interior roads or privately owned detention facilitie s it or during the construction of a residential su i g si plan, or other commercial development. '" (2) Minor improvements. M r ents such as footbridges d encrossing the stream, walkway chesmay be located within the setback area if approved through process III per Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property nor to the city as a whole; and (f) It is necessary to correct any one of the adverse conditions specified in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(e) of this subsection. (3) Other intrusions. Other than as specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in clearing and grading activities within stream setback areas only through process IV per Chapter 19.70 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; Paae 57 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space; and (f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property not otherwise prohibited the Shoreline Master Program. G-. 15.10.230 Additional requirements for clearing and grading ' If any clearing and grading is permitted within the stream or stream setback area, the applicant shall comply with the following additional requirements: (1) All fill material used must be nondissolving and nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that would be detrimental to water quality or the existingOh(2) The applicant may deposit dredg s the subject property only if part of an approved developm t tct property. (3) The applicant shall stabi " sed after clearing and radin vegetation normally associated with the stream or a. Page 58 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Article VI Regulated Wetlands X 15.10.240 Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. (1) Generally. The March 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology Publication No 96-94) as set forth in WAC 173-22-080 as it exists as of November 1. 1999 or a subsequently amended will be used for identification and delineation of wetlands within the city. Although a site-specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that mets the criteria Where vegetation has been removed a wetland may be determined by the presence of hydric soils as well as other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. (2) Evaluation. If the city determi t t nd may exist on or within 200 feet of the subject pr eli administrator shall require the applicant to submit , prepared by a qualified professional approved by the cludes the information set forth in subsections (2)(a) through (2) nd (3) of this section. The shoreline administrator shall use the information required by subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) to determine if the area is a regulated wetland and, if so, shall use the information required by subsections (2)(c) through (2)(g) and (3) to determine the category and the precise boundaries of that regulated wetland. (a) An evaluation of whether the area in question is a regulated wetland based upon the definition of wetland and the size thresholds, outlined in FWRC 15.10.250 ` eetio" Q of the (b) An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study. (c) A description of the wetland and plant communities found therein, a map delineating the edge of the wetland and location of plant communities, and a detailed description of the method used to identify the wetland edge. (d) The wetland classification, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the U.S." (e) A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and common names, and a description of their relative abundance. (f) A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observation. (g) An evaluation and assessment of the existing or potential functions and values of the wetland based on the following factors: surface water control; wildlife habitat; pollution and erosion control; groundwater Pape 59 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments exchange; open space and recreation; and educational and cultural opportunities. (3) Drainage facilities. Surface water ponds, drainage ditches, and other such facilities which were designed to impound or convey water for an engineered purpose are not considered regulated wetlands under this cha ter appendix provided they meet all of the following criteria: (a) The drainage facility must have been intentionally human created. This is to differentiate from those wetland sites that are accidental consequences of development actions, such as road construction or culvert placement. Such sites may be considered regulated wetlands by the director upon a review, under subsection (2)(g) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the site. (b) The drainage facility must have been originally constructed on uplands (nonwetland areas). If the drainage facility is located within a straightened, channelized, or otherwise disturbed natural watercourse, it may be considered a regulated wetland by t ctor upon a review, under subsection (2)(g) of this section, f ological functions and values of the site. (c) The facility mus era d as a surface water drainage facility. Abandone ilities may be considered regulated wetlands by the dir a review, under subsection (2)(g) of this section, of the ecologic nctions and values of the site. (d) Wetland conditions have not expanded beyond the originally constructed drainage facility boundary. In such a case the expanded area may be considered a regulated wetland by the director upon review, under subsection (2)(g) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the site. (e) The drainage facility was not designed or constructed as a requirement to mitigate previous wetland impacts. (f) The director finds that limited ecological functions and values do not warrant application of the city's wetland regulations. W. 15.10.250 Wetland categories and standard buffers. (1) Wetlands are classified into the following categories: (a) Category 1 wetlands meet one of the following criteria: (i) Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or (ii) Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or unique educational sites; or (iii) Have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water. Page 6C of 84 City of Federal Way SMP - Title 15. Shoreline Management - Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (b) Category 11 wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area, do not exhibit the characteristics of Category I wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria: (i) Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances contain or support a fish population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or (ii) Are greater than one acre in size in its entirety; or (iii) Are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have two or more wetland classes, with neither class dominated by non-native invasive species. (c) Category 111 wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area and do not exhibit those characteristics of Category I or II wetlands. (2) Standard buffer widths for regulated wetlands are established as follows: (a) Category I wetlands shall have ast dard buffer width of 200 feet. (b) Category II wetlands shall ndard buffer width of 100 feet. (c) Category III wetl a andard buffer width of 50 feet for wetlands that are 00 square feet in area, and shall have a standard buffer w t eet for wetlands that are between 2,500 to 10,000 square feet in a. Cgradings, hand15.10.260 Structures, improvements and clearing and d suit Ge medaficM-tion within regulated wetlands. r. v..v (1) Generally. No clearing and grading m may take place and no structure or improvement may be located in a regulated wetland except as provided in this section. (2) Public park. The city may allow pedestrian access through a regulated wetland in conjunction with a public park. The access, if approved, must be designed to the maximum extent feasible to protect the wetland from any adverse effects or impacts of the access and to limit the access to the defined access area. (3) Rehabilitation. The shoreline administrator may permit or require an applicant to rehabilitate and maintain a regulated wetland by removing detrimental material such as debris and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring that native vegetation be planted. These actions may be required at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality or habitat exists. (4) Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in clearing and grading ' ' within a regulated wetland using process IV per Chapter 19.70 FWRC. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the regulated wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment. Approval of a request for improvements or clearing and grafi Page 61 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments medofffirsation within a regulated wetland through process IV of FWCC Chapter 19 shall be based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality. (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. (f) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value. (g) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare. (h) The applicant has demonstrated nt scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out th r (i) The applicant is com d it ing the project and to making corrections if the proje i t roj ted goals. (5) Required information. quest under this section, the applicant shall submit a report y a qualified professional approved by the city that inclu the following information: (a) Mitigation plan. A mitigation plan shall include the following elements: (i) Environmental goals and objectives. (ii) Performance standards. (iii) Detailed construction plans. (iv) Timing. (v) Monitoring program for a minimum of five years. (vi) Contingency plan. (vii) Subject to the applicant's election of timing alternatives provided in subsection (5)(d) of this section, a performance and maintenance bond in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing the mitigation plan or the contingency plan, whichever is greater. (b) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to restoration, creation or enhancement, within the same basin, of in-kind wetland type which results in no net loss of wetland area, function or value. Where feasible, mitigation measures shall be designed to improve the functions and values of the impacted wetland. (c) Minimum acreage mitigation ratio. The following are ratios for providing restoration, creation or enhancement of impacted wetland areas. The first number of the ratio specifies the acreage of wetland requiring restoration, creation or replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands impacted. Page 62 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Wetland Category Creation and Restoration Enhancement Category 1 (all types) 6:1 12:1 Category II: Forested 3:1 6:1 Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1 Emergent 2:1 4:1 Category III: Forested 2:1 4:1 Scrub/Shrub 1.5:1 3:1 Emergent 1.25:1 2.5:1 The director may permit or require the b lacement ratios to be increased or decreased based on the II i n ria: (1) Probable succ se itigation. (11) Projected los r value. (111) Findings of I dies coordinated with agencies with expertise which demons at no net loss of wetland function or value is attained under an alternative ratio. (IV) In no case shall the minimum acreage replacement ratio be less than 1.25:1. (d) Timing. All required wetland mitigation improvements, including monitoring, shall be completed and accepted by the shoreline administrator prior to beginning activities that will disturb regulated wetlands, or the applicant shall provide the performance and maintenance bond specified in subsection (5)(a)(vii) of this section. In either event, the applicant may not take any action that disturbs a regulated wetland or its buffer until the director has reviewed and approved the mitigation plan. All wetland- or buffer -disturbing activities, and all mitigation, shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing plants and animals. (e) Inspections. The applicant shall pay for services of a qualified professional selected and retained by the city to review the wetland mitigation report and other relevant information, conduct periodic inspections, issue a written report to the shoreline administrator stating that the project complies with requirements of the mitigation plan, and to conduct and report to the director on the status of the monitoring program. 15.10.270 Structures, improvements and clearing and grading laod surfar.e modification within regulated wetland buffers. (1) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no clearing and grading may take place and no structure or improvement may be located within a regulated wetland buffer. Page 63 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (2) Wetland buffer averaging. Wetland buffers may be averaged only when the wetland or the buffer which is proposed to be reduced contains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. Through process III per Chapter 19.65 FWRC, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the shoreline administrator that the proposed buffer averaging will meet all of the following criteria: (a) Reduced buffers will not affect the water quality entering a wetland or stream; (b) Reduced buffers will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the wetland or the buffer; (c) Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (d) Reduced buffers will not be detrimental to any other public or private properties, including the loss of open space. At no point shall the buffer width be r to less than 50 percent of the required standard buffer wi h e the buffer, in existing conditions, has already been perma tl Ii a by previous, legally permitted actions. The total ar in a buffer after averaging shall be equal to th or standard buffer dimensions. (3) Essential public facilitie u lic utilities and other public improvements. The shoreline administrator may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements in a regulated wetland buffer if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the buffer because no feasible or alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the buffer must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. (4) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as footbridges, walkways and benches may be located within the buffer from a regulated wetland if approved through process III per Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. (5) Wetland buffer reduction. Through process III per Chapter 19.65 FWRC, the shoreline administrator may reduce the standard wetland buffer width by up to 50 percent, but in no case to less than 25 feet, on a Page 64 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments case-by-case basis, if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan which utilizes appropriate native vegetation and clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values, and where one of the following conditions can be demonstrated: (a) Existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer exists in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) which does not provide any buffer function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the intrusions are existing. (b) Except for Category I wetlands, existing conditions are such that the wetland has been permanently impacted by adjacent development activities, as evidenced by such things as persistent human alterations or the dominance of non-native invasive species. . 1-4. ..i -"-A rwinr fn +he The director shall have the auth t�fa i if buffer averaging is warranted on the subject prop if quire additional buffer area on other portions of the p i sensitive area. (6) Modification. Other tha ied in subsections (2b) and (3e) of this section, the city may appr any request to locate an improvement or engage in clearing and grading within the buffer from a regulated wetland through process IV per Chapter 19.70 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. Any modification under this subsection shall not reduce the standard buffer by more than 50 percent, and in no case shall the remaining buffer be less than 25 feet. The city may require, as a condition to any modification granted under this subsection, preparation and implementation of a wetland buffer enhancement plan to protect wetland and buffer functions and values. (7) Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after clearing and gradin q land with native vegetation normally associated with the buffer. (8) Wetland buffer increases. The director shall require increased environmentally sensitive area buffer widths on a case-by-case basis Page 65 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments when the director determines that a larger buffer is necessary to protect environmentally sensitive area functions, values or hazards based on site- specific conditions. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related to protection of environmentally sensitive area functions and values, or protection of public health, safety and welfare. Such determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination shall demonstrate that at least one of the following factors are met: (a) There is habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies present within the sensitive area and/or its buffer, and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat; (b) There are conditions or features adjacent to the buffer, such as steep slopes or erosion hazard areas, which over time may pose an additional threat to the viability of the buffer and/or the sensitive area. In such circumstances the city may choose to i those buffers, if any, associated with the condition or fea0 tOer hreat in addition to, or to a maximum, beyond the buffer re bject sensitive area. Page 66 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Article VII: Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection Areas A: 15.10 280 Limitations. This division regulates any development activity, or division of land which requires review under Title 14 FWRC, Environmental' Policy, and which is located within designated wellhead capture zones. Wellhead Capture Zones 1, 2, and 3 are designated as critical aquifer recharge areas under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and are established based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to the city's public water source wells. This division shall not apply to projects that have received a letter of completeness prior to the effective date of the amendments. i 15.10.290 Classification of wellhead capt nes. The Lakehaven Utility District (LUD) h g ted three wellhead capture zones based on proximity t d i of groundwater to the city's public water source well (1) Wellhead Capture Zon he land area overlaying the one-year time -of -travel zone lic water source well owned by LUD. (2) Wellhead Capture Zone 2 represents the land area overlaying the five-year time -of -travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in Wellhead Capture Zone 1. (3) Wellhead Capture Zone 3 represents the land area overlaying the 10 -year time -of -travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in Wellhead Capture Zones 1 or 2. C- 15.10.300 General requirements. (1) Activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area and wellhead protection area if the applicant can show that the proposed activity will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer. (2) The city shall impose development conditions to prevent degradation of the critical aquifer recharge and wellhead protection areas. All conditions to permits shall be based on known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment (AKART). (3) The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and recommendations of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, State Department of Ecology, State Department of Health, and the King County health department. (4) The proposed activity must be designed and constructed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), the Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM, and the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual (BMP manual). Page 67 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments 0-. 15.10.310 Prohibited activities in Wellhead Capture Zone 1. (1) Land uses or activities for development that pose a significant hazard to the city's groundwater resources resulting from storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall be prohibited in Wellhead Capture Zone 1, except as specified in FWRC 19.30.170. These land uses and activities include, but are not limited to: (a) On-site community sewage disposal systems as defined in Chapter 248-272 WAC; (b) Hazardous liquid pipelines as defined in Chapter 81.88 RCW; (c) Solid waste landfills; (d) Solid waste transfer stations; (e) Liquid petroleum refining, reprocessing, and storage; (f) The storage or distribution of gaso the treated with the additive MTBE; (g) Hazardous waste treatmenV,fT,, and disposal facilities (except those defined under per bndustrial wastewater treatment processes per WAC , (h) Chemical manuf but not limited to organic and inorganic chemicals, pla resins, pharmaceuticals, cleaning compounds, paints and lacqu , and agricultural chemicals; (i) Dry cleaning establishments using the solvent perchloroethylene; 0) Primary and secondary metal industries that manufacture, produce, smelt, or refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from molten materials; (k) Wood treatment facilities, including wood preserving and wood products preserving; (1) Mobile fleet fueling operations; (m) Mining (metal, sand, and gravel); and (n) Other land uses and activities that the city determines would pose a significant groundwater hazard to the city's groundwater supply. (2) The uses listed in subsection 1 of this section FWRG 19. 185.040 represent the state of present knowledge and most common description of said uses. As other polluting uses are discovered, or other terms of description become necessary, they will be added to the list of uses prohibited within this zone. lL 15.10.320 Regulation of facilities handling and storing hazardous materials. (1) Any development activity or division of land which requires review under Title 14 FWRC, Environmental Policy, located in critical aquifer recharge areas (Wellhead Capture Zones 1, 2, and 3) shall submit a hazardous materials inventory statement with a development permit Page 68 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments application. Ongoing operation and maintenance activities of public wells by public water providers are exempt from these requirements. (2) The development review committee will review the hazardous materials inventory statement along with the land use application, to determine whether hazardous materials meeting the definition of Chapter 19.05 FWRC will be used, stored, transported or disposed of in connection with the proposed activity. The development review committee shall make the following determination: (a) No hazardous materials are involved. (b) Hazardous materials are involved; however, existing laws or regulations adequately mitigate any potential impact, and documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance. (c) Hazardous materials are involved and the proposal has the potential to significantly impact critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead capture zones; however, sufficient informs ion is not available to evaluate the potential impact of contaminate city may require a hydrogeologic critical area assessmen r o be prepared by a qualified groundwater scientist in or t the potential impacts of contamination on the aqui fe II i lude the following site - and proposal -related informati , (i) Information geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site, in ng the surface location of the wellhead capture zone in which it is located and the type of infiltration of the site. (ii) Groundwater depth, flow direction, and gradient. (iii) Location of other critical areas, including surface waters, within 200 feet of the site. (iv) Best management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management (IPM) proposed to be used, including: (A) Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects on nearby wells and surface water features; (B) Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to groundwater; and (C) Predictive evaluation of changes in the infiltration/recharge rate. (3) A spill containment and response plan may be required to identify equipment and/or structures that could fail, and shall include provisions for inspection as required by the applicable state regulations. (4) A groundwater monitoring plan may be required to monitor quality and quantity of groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or site soils. The city may require the owner of a facility to install one or more groundwater monitoring wells to accommodate the required groundwater monitoring. Criteria used to determine the need for site monitoring shall include, but not be limited to, the proximity of the facility to production or monitoring wells, the type and quantity of hazardous materials on-site, and whether or not the hazardous materials are stored in underground vessels. Page 69 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (5) The city may employ an outside consultant at the applicant's expense for third -party review of the hydrogeologic critical area assessment report, the spill containment and response plan, and the groundwater monitoring plan. 15.10.330 Performance standards. (1) Any new or existing use applying for a development permit, or subdivision approval which requires review under Title 14 FWRC, Environmental Policy, within Wellhead Capture Zone 1, which involves storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances meeting the definition of Chapter 19.05 FWRC shall comply with the following standards: (a) Secondary containment. (i) The owner or operator of any f cility or activity shall provide secondary containment for hazar materials or other deleterious substances in quantities sp i i the International Fire Code. (ii) Hazardous in nks that are subject to regulation by the Washington nt of Ecology under Chapter 173-360 WAC (Underground nk Regulations) are exempt from the secondary containment r irements of this section; provided, that documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance with those regulations. (b) Design and construction of new stormwater infiltration systems must address site-specific risks of releases posed by all hazardous materials on-site. These risks may be mitigated by physical design means, or equivalent best management practices, in accordance with an approved hazardous materials management plan. Design and construction of said stormwater infiltration systems shall also be in accordance with the KCSWDM, as amended by the city of Federal Way, and shall be certified for compliance with the requirements of this section by a professional engineer or engineering geologist registered in the state of Washington. (c) The following standards shall apply to construction activities occurring where construction vehicles will be refueled on-site, and/or hazardous materials meeting the definition of Chapter 19.05 FWRC will be stored, dispensed, used, or handled on the construction site. As part of the city's project permitting process, the city may require any or all of the following items: (i) Detailed monitoring and construction standards; (ii) Designation of a person on-site during operating hours who is responsible for supervising the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials, and who has appropriate knowledge and training to take mitigating actions necessary in the event of a fire or spill; Page 70 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (iii) Hazardous material storage, dispensing, refueling areas, and use and handling areas shall be provided with secondary containment adequate to contain the maximum release from the largest volume container of hazardous materials stored at the construction site; (iv) Practices and procedures to ensure that hazardous materials left on-site when the site is unsupervised are' inaccessible to the public. Locked storage sheds, locked fencing, locked fuel tanks on construction vehicles, or other techniques may be used to preclude access; (v) Practices and procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and stationary equipment that are found to be leaking fuel, hydraulic fluid, and/or other hazardous materials will be removed immediately, or repaired on-site immediately. The vehicle or equipment may be repaired in place, provided the leakage is completely contained; (vi) Practices and procedures to en ure that storage and dispensing of flammable and combustible liq m tanks, containers, and tank trucks into the fuel and fluid res o onstruction vehicles or stationary equipment on the constr o i r n accordance with the International Fire Code; and (vii) Practices s, and/or on-site materials adequate to ensure the im ontainment and cleanup of any release of hazardous substa stored at the construction site. On-site cleanup materials may suffice for smaller spills, whereas cleanup of larger spills may require a subcontract with a qualified cleanup contractor. Releases shall immediately be contained, cleaned up, and reported according to state requirements. (2) Any development activity, or division of land which requires review under Title 1.4 FWRC, Environmental Policy, within all wellhead capture zones (1, 2, and 3), which involve storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials, or other deleterious substances, meeting the definition of Chapter 19.05 FWRC shall comply with the following standards: (a) Fleet and automotive service station fueling, equipment maintenance, and vehicle washing areas shall have a containment system for collecting and treating all runoff from such areas and preventing release of fuels, oils, lubricants, and other automotive fluids into the soil, surface water, or groundwater. Appropriate emergency response equipment shall be kept on-site during the transfer, handling, treatment, use, production, recycling, or disposal of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances. (b) Secondary containment or equivalent best management practices, as approved by the director of community development services, shall be required at loading and unloading areas that store, handle, treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of hazardous materials, or other deleterious substances, meeting the definition of Chapter 19.05 FWRC. Page 71 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (c) Fill material shall not contain concentration of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil as specified in the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA). An imported fill source statement is required for all projects where more than 100 cubic yards of fill will be imported to a site. The city may require analytical results to demonstrate that fill materials do not exceed cleanup standards. The imported fill source statement shall include: i. Source location of imported fill; ii. Previous land uses of the source location; and iii. Whether or not fill to be imported is native soil. (d) All development or redevelopment shall implement best management practices (BMPs) for water quality and quantity, as approved by the director of community development services. Such practices include biofiltration swales and use of oil -water separators, BMPs appropriate to the particular use proposed, cluster development, and limited impervious surfaces. 6. 15.10.340 Use of pesticides, he 'c ertilizers in critical aquifer recharge areas and w do reas. Proposed developments landscaped areas greater than 10,000 square feet in require review under Title 14 FWRC, Environmental Poli shall prepare an operations and management manual using est management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management (IPM) for fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide applications. The BMPs shall include recommendations on the quantity, timing, and type of fertilizers applied to lawns and gardens to protect groundwater quality. Page 72 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments Chapter 15.15 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION Article I: Generally A. 15.15.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter appendix to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed: (1) To protect human life and health; (2) To minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; (3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; (4) To minimize prolonged business interruptions; (5) To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; str nd bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; (6) To help maintain a stable t r iding for the sound use and development of areas of speci o a to minimize future flood blight areas; (7) To ensure that potenti re notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; (8) To ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. W. 15.15.020 Adoption of state and federal statutes and regulations. The following state statutes and administrative regulations as currently existing and hereafter amended are hereby adopted by this reference as if set forth in full: (1) Chapter 86.16 RCW, Floodplain Management. (2) 44 CFR 59.22(a). (3) 44 CFR 60.3(c)(1)(d)(2). (4) 44 CFR 60.3(b)(1). (5) 44 CFR 59.22(b)(1). (6) 44 CFR 60.3(a)(2). G-15.15.030 Methods of reducing flood losses. In order to accomplish its purposes, this cha ter a+x includes methods and provisions for: (1) Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; (2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; (3) Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters; Page 73 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and (5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers that unnaturally divert floodwaters or may increase flood hazards in other areas. ]1 15.15.040 Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this cha ter append* shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this chapter appendix, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Unless specifically defined below, terms or phrases used in this cha ter appendix shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter appendix its most reasonable application. Appeal means a request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of this chapter appenck or a request for a flood variance. Area of shallow flooding means designated or AH zone on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM). AO zon se flood depths that range from one to three feet above t n r o d; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the pat np dictable and indeterminate; and velocity flo t. AO is characterized as sheet flow; AH indicates pondi shown with standard base flood elevations. Area of special flood hazard means the land in the flood plain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on maps always includes the letters A or V. Base flood means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the "100 -year flood"). Designated on flood insurance rate maps by the letters A or V. Basement means any area of the building having its floor sub -grade (below ground level) on all sides. Breakaway wall means a wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces, without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. Coastal high hazard area means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as zone V1-30, VE or V. Critical facility means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include (but are not limited to) schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and installations which produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Development means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other Paqe 74 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. Director means the director of the city of Federal Way community development department or his or her designee. Elevated building means, for insurance purposes, a nonbasement building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns. Elevation certificate means the official form (FEMA Form 81-31) used to track development, provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management ordinances, and determine the proper insurance premium rate with Section B completed by Federal Way. Existing manufactured home park or subdivision means a. manufactured home park or subdivision for which theconstruction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the ma red homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum,Othein o tilities, the construction of streets, and either the pouring of concrete pads) is completed be d e of the adopted floodplain management regulaExpansion to an existingome park or subdivision means the preparation of addi the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). Flood or flooding means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: (1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters; and/or (2) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood insurance rate map (FIRM) means the official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Flood insurance study (FIS) means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the flood boundary-floodway map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. Flood -Vvariance means a grant of relief from the requirements of this cha ter appemk that permits construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this cha ter appeRd+(-. Floodway means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable Page 75 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non -elevation design requirements of this chapter appen4+x found at FWRC°-� ^- � 15.15.140, provided there are adequate flood ventilation openings). Manufactured home means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." Manufactured home park or subdivision means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. New construction means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of th ance codified in this cha ter appendix. New manufactured home park or b ans a manufactured home park or subdivision for w ' ctio of facilities for servicing the lots on which the omes are to be affixed (including at a minimum the in f utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site gr g or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of adopted floodplain management regulations. Recreational vehicle means a vehicle: (1) Built on a single chassis; (2) Four hundred square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; (3) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (4) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. Start of construction includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The "actual start" means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the Page 76 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments "actual start" of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. Structure means a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground. Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before -damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial improvement means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: (1) Before the improvement or repair is started; or (2) If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commence or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the struc The term can exclude: (3) Any project for impro cture to correct pre -cited existing violations of state or local he t ary, or safety code specifications which have been previously identifie the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or (4) Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. Water dependent means a structure for commerce or industry that cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Article II: Provisions 15.15.050 General provisions. (1) Application of chapter appendix. This chapter appen" shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of Federal Way. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for Federal Way" dated May 16, 1995, and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying flood insurance rate map (FIRM), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter append. The flood insurance study and the FIRM are on file at Federal Way City Hall. The best available information for flood hazard area identification as outlined in FWRC 15.15.070 '' °.''-�-�^ M shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under FWRC FWRC 15.15.070 1 °.1,� "�L M. (2) Penalties for noncompliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full Page 77 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments compliance with the terms of this chapter appendix and other applicable regulations. (3) Summary abatement. Whenever any violation of this chapter appendix causes or creates a condition, the continued existence of which constitutes or contributes to an immediate and emergent threat to the public health, safety or welfare or to the environment, the director may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement, including the reason for it, shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after abatement. The costs of such summary abatement shall be recoverable via procedures for recovery of abatement costs as set forth in Chapter 1.15 FWRC, Civil Enforcement of Code. (4) Abrogation and greater restrictions. This chapter appendix is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this cha ter appendix and another ordinance, easement, covenant, o restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stn e e ictions shall prevail. (5) Interpretation. In the interpre ' n pl ation of this chapter appen", all provisions shall b (a) Considered as i ents; (b) Liberally constru of the governing body; and (c) Deemed neither it nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. (6) Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter appendix is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter appendix does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter appendix shall not create liability on the part of Federal Way, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this cha ter appendix or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. B. 15.15.060 Permits. (1) Development permit required. A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in FWRC 15.15.050(1) °.1^'. Q(1 The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in FWRC 15.15.040 1 °-,�- ^ 040, and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in FWRC 15.15.040 19.142.040. (2) Application for development permit. Application for a development permit shall be made and will include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and Page 78 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution 4une 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments elevations of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required: (a) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures recorded on a current elevation certificate (FEMA Form 81-31) with Section B completed by the city of Federal Way building official; (b) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure, has been floodproofed; (c) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in FWRC 15.15.140(2) 1 °.�4G(2); (d) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. (3) Designation of the administrator. The director or designee is hereby appointed to administer and implement this cha ter by granting or denying development permit applications in ance with its provisions. The director shall: (a) Review all develo n ns to determine that the requirements of this chapter en tisfied; (b) Review all d plications to determine that all necessary permits have be ed from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from prior approval is required; and (c) Review all development applications to determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of FWRC 15.15.160(1) 19.142 9 ` are met. G 15.15.070 Use of other base flood data (in A and V zones). When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V zones) in accordance with FWRC 15.15.050(1) 10 1^'.0500 `, the director shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer FWRC 15.15.140 19.142.140, Specific standards, and FWRC 15.15.160 49442-A-60, Floodways. ID 15.15.080 Information to be obtained and maintained. (1) Where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or required as in FWRC 15.15.070 49442-.07-0, the applicant shall obtain and record the actual (as -built) elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement and provide such information to the director or designee on a current FEMA elevation certificate (FEMA Form 81-31). Section B will be completed by the city. (2) For all new or substantially improved floodproofed nonresidential structures where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or as required in FWRC 15.15.070 1°.1-� ^�M, the applicant shall p e 79 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments obtain and record the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed and provide such information to the city. The city shall maintain the floodproofing certifications required in FWRC 15.15.060(2)(c) 19.142.060(2)M; (3) The city shall maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter appendix. €- 15.15.090 Alteration of watercourses. The city shall notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration and shall require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished. 15.15.100 Conditions for flood varian e (1) Generally, flood variance requ t r p als located within the shoreline jurisdiction shall be pr e h t shoreline variance procedures in FWRC 15.05.1 dition under which a variance from the elevation st be issued is for new construction and substantial i ments to be erected on a small or irregularly shaped lot contiguo s to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. As the lot size increases the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. (2) Flood Wariances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (3) Flood Wariances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. (4) Flood Wariances shall only be issued upon: (a) A showing of good and sufficient cause; (b) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and (c) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with other existing laws or ordinances. (5) Flood Wariances as interpreted in the National Flood Insurance Program are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from flood elevations should be quite rare. Page 80 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management— DraftReg ay Regulations 200s Response to Ecology Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecolooy Comments (6) Flood vVariances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances to allow a lesser degree of floodproofing than watertight or dry floodproofing, where it can be determined that such action will have low damage potential, complies with all other variance criteria except subsection (a) of this section and otherwise complies with FWRC 15.15.110(11 and L3119.1424 4 (4 �, and 15.15.120 1 °°�20. (7) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the permitted structure will be built with its lowest floor below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk. 6. 15.15.110 Provisions for flood hazard reduction. In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required: (1) Anchoring. a. All new construction and substa is vements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral v f stru t r prevent flotation, b. All manufactured collapse, or lateral movement, I talled using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. ethods may include, but are not limited to, use of over -the -top or fram s o ground anchors. (2) Construction materials and methods. a. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. b. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. c. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Locating such equipment below the base flood elevation may cause annual flood insurance premiums to be increased. (3) Utilities. a. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; b. Water wells shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway; c. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters; d. Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. #: 15.15.120 Subdivision proposals. (1) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; Page 81 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (2) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; (3) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; (4) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or five acres (whichever is less). h 15.15.130 Review of building permits. Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (FWRC 15.15.070 '' Q.''�'' M), applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding as determined by the director. The test of reasonableness is a local j nt and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photo r past flooding, etc., where available. J-. 15.15.140 Specific standa PP The following provisions ar r n all areas of special flood hazards where base flood ele data has been provided as set forth in FWRC 15.15.050(1) or 15.15. 0 1° 142 060(i` OF 19.442.07-0. (1) Residential construction. (a) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation (BFE). (b) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: (i) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. (ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. (iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices; provided, that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Foundation vent standards required by the IBC/IRC outside the floodplain do not meet this standard and are often inadvertently permitted. Insurance rates reflect an "all or nothing" standard. Partially ventilated crawispaces may be subject to an additional loading fee of 20 to 25 percent attached to the annual insurance premium. Page 82 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments (2) Nonresidential construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: (a) Be floodproofed so that below one foot or more above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; (b). Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; (c) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the offi ial as set forth in FWRC 15.15.060(2) 49.142.060i2• (d) Nonresidential structures t t e ated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards for sp owest floor as described in subsection (1)(b) of this sectio Applicants who are floodp ential buildings should beware that flood insurance premiums wil d on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level (e.g., a bu g floodproofed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below). Floodproofing the building an additional foot will reduce insurance premiums significantly. (3) Manufactured homes. All manufactured homes in the floodplain to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. (4) Recreational vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required to either: (a) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; or (b) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on wheels or jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or (c) Meet the requirements of subsection (3) of this section and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. K-. 15.15.150 AE and Al -30 zones with base flood elevations but no floodways. In areas with base flood elevations (but a regulatory floodway has not been designated), no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within zones Al -30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all Page 83 of 84 City of Federal Way SMP — Title 15. Shoreline Management — Draft Regulations Response to Ecology Comments - May 15, 2007 Passed by Resolution June 5, 2007 June 2010 response to Ecology Comments other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. iL. 15.15.160 Floodways. Located within areas of special flood hazard established in FWRC 15.15.050(1) 19.142.050(-l-) are areas designated as floodways. Chapter 86.16 RCW will need to be consulted in addition to this code. The more restrictive provisions shall apply. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters that can carry debris, and increase erosion potential, the following provisions apply: (1) Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development shall be prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not res any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood di (2) Construction or reconstructio f i ti structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except ( ec struction, or improvements to a structure which do not i and floor area; and (b) repairs, reconstruction or improvemen cture, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market val the structure either (1) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (2 if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent. (3) If subsection (1) of this section is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of FWRC 15.15.110 19.''^�0, Provisions for flood hazard reduction. W.15.115.1170 Critical facility. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the special flood hazard area (SFHA) (100 - year floodplain). Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE or to the height of the 500 -year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. Page 84 of 84 Section 6 Restoration Plan Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions based on Department of Ecology review and comment are indicated as follows: Additions are indicated with underline and deletions are indicated with stfikethfou text. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update Restoration Plan SMA Grant No. G0600119 December 2006 Revised May 2007 Revised August 2009 Revised October 2009 Revised November 2009 Last Revised June 2010 Prepared For: City of Federal Way Federal Way, WA PREPARED BY: ESA Adolfson 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Ste 200 Seattle, Washington 98107 206.789.9658 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................2 REGULATORYBACKGROUND....................................................................................................................3 DEFININGRESTORATION...........................................................................................................................4 KEY ELEMENTS OF RESTORATION PLANNING IN THE SMP UPDATE PROCESS.........................................5 2.0 ASSESSMENT OF SHORELINE FUNCTIONS...............................................................................6 WATERSHEDCONTEXT.............................................................................................................................6 PHYSICAL& BIOLOGICAL.........................................................................................................................6 HABITATAND SPECIES..............................................................................................................................9 LANDUSE AND PUBLIC ACCESS...............................................................................................................9 RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES...............................................................................................................10 3.0 DEVELOPING RESTORATION GOALS AND POLICIES.........................................................11 FEDERAL WAY SMP UPDATE — RESTORATION GOALS AND POLICIES ................................................... 11 4.0 EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS............................................................................................13 REGIONALPROGRAMS............................................................................................................................14 Puget Sound Partnership ..............14 Puget Sound Action Team: 2005-2007 Puget Sound Conservation & Recovery Plan.......................................15 Puget Sound Nearshore Project(PSNP)............................................................................................................16 Shared Strategy for Puget Sound: Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan..................................................16 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Forum: Salmon Habitat Plan.........................................................17 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9: Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration...................................................................................................17 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 Forum: Salmon Habitat Plan........................................................18 CascadeLand Conservancy... ............................................................................................................................ 18 COUNTYAND CITY PROGRAMS...............................................................................................................18 King County Shoreline Master Program............................................................................................................18 King County Lake Stewardship Program...........................................................................................................19 City of Federal Way Surface Water Management Division...............................................................................19 ADDITIONALOR NEEDED PROGRAMS.....................................................................................................20 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................................20 IDENTIFY RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES............................................................20 PROGRAMMATICRESTORATION..............................................................................................................21 City of Federal Way Restoration Program........................................................................................................21 WRIA9 Habitat Planning..................................................................................................................................22 SITE-SPECIFIC RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION...............................................................................24 PugetSound Marine Shorelines.........................................................................................................................24 FreshwaterLake Shorelines...............................................................................................................................28 FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES........................................................................................29 PugetSound Action Team..................................................................................................................................29 Puget Sound Watershed Protection & Restoration Grant Program..................................................................30 Salmon Recovery Funding Board(SRFB)..........................................................................................................30 KingCounty Conservation District....................................................................................................................30 NOAA Community -Based Restoration Program................................................................................................31 Federal Way Surface Water Management CIP.................................................................................................. 31 OtherPossible Funding Sources........................................................................................................................31 TIMELINESAND BENCHMARKS...............................................................................................................32 MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................2 6.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................................... 1, REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................4 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan 1.0 Introduction Incorporated in 1990, the City of Federal Way is the si-Ah eighth largest city in the State of Washington. The City is located 25 miles south of downtown Seattle and eight miles north of downtown Tacoma. The City of Federal Way is located in the southwestern corner of King County, and occupies approximately 22.5 square miles of area, including Puget Sound waterfront to the west (Rig�Map 1, Vieinity Map). The City is bordered to the north by the City of Des Moines, to the east by King County, and to the south by the City of Rife Tacoma and Pierce County. The City (and its Potential Annexation Area to the east) includes nearly 17 miles of marine and freshwater lake shorelines subject to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA or the Act) as "shorelines of the state." The SMA (RCW 90.58) is charged with balancing how shorelines should be developed, protected, and restored. The Act has three broad policies or mandates; it strives to: 1) encourage water -dependent uses, 2) protect shoreline natural resources, and 3) promote public access. In addition, restoration planning is an important component of the environmental protection policy of the Act. The City has two main types of water bodies that are regulated under the SMA and the City's SMP: marine coastal, and freshwater lakes. The City's shorelines include the lower Puget Sound marine coastal shoreline, which is designated a "shoreline of statewide significance." Several freshwater lakes also fall under SMA regulation within the City limits. These are Steel Lake, North Lake and the northwestern shore of Lake Killarney (Rigufe-Map 2, Sher-efille P! Afeas). Further, the City of Federal Way has identified an area largely to the east of the City and the Interstate 5 corridor for future annexation. This area is referred to as the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The city's SMP will cover the PAA, but will not be effective in the area tHrtil unless it annexes to the city. Lakes subject to SMA regulation located within the City's PAA include Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake Geneva, Five Mile Lake and the remaining portions of Lake Killarney. The freshwater lakes are all designated as "shorelines of the state." Lakes or portions thereof in the PAA are currently regulated under the King County SMP. There are no rivers or streams in Federal Way regulated under the SMA. This repert restoration plan supports the development of a restoration element to the City of Federal Way's Shoreline Master Program (SMP), originally adopted in 1999. The SMP is being updated to comply with the SMA requirements (RCW 90.58), and the state's SMP guidelines (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26, Part III), which went into effect in 2003. The SMP guidelines specify that local governments must include within their shoreline master program, a "real and meaningful" strategy to address restoration of shorelines. The guidelines also specify how the policies in the SMP promote "restoration" of impaired shoreline ecological functions, in places where such functions are found to have been impaired based on the inventory and characterization of shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem processes. Local governments are required to contribute to restoration by planning for and supporting restoration through the SMP and other regulatory and non -regulatory programs. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan This repert restoration Plan provides a framework to: 1) understand how restoration of ecological function can be accomplished; and 2) suggest pathways to use the SMP process to accomplish the restoration of impaired shoreline functions associated with the Puget Sound shoreline in Federal Way and seven freshwater lakes in the City and/or its PAA. Regulatory Background The restoration plan is an important component of the SMP process under the new guidelines. As such, local governments must develop provisions "...to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program." It is important to note that the restoration planning component of the SMP is voluntary, not regulatory. Restoration planning is focused on incentives, available funding sources, volunteer programs, and other programs that can contribute to a ne net less str-ategy an overall improvement of shoreline processes and functions. To date, restoration, rehabilitation, enhancement or other improvements to shoreline ecological functions have either been voluntary or in the form of mitigation for impacts resulting from development. Conservation or preservation of existing conditions has been, and continues to be, the primary regulatory approach to protecting ecosystem functions: Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection, restoration, and preservation of 'fragile" shoreline "natural resources, " 'public health, " "the land and its vegetation and wildlife, " "the waters and their aquatic life, " "ecology, " and "environment, " the act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the act (WAC 173-26-186(8)); Current guidelines for updating local shoreline master programs add a planning and policy pathway to include the improvement of ecosystem functioning as part of the overall shoreline master program. The guidance augments the typically reactionary approach (i.e., mitigation for environmental impacts) to a proactive approach wherein: For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions (WAC 173-26-186(8)(c)). The guidelines to prepare or amend shoreline master programs further state: The goal of this effort is master programs which include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area of each city and county (WAC 173-26- 201(c)). Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Defining Restoration There are numerous definitions for "restoration" in scientific and regulatory publications. Specific elements of these definitions often differ, but the core element of repairing damage to an existing, degraded ecosystem remains consistent. In the SMP context, the WAC defines "restoration" or "ecological restoration" as: "... the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions" (WAC 173-26-020(27)). Using the WAC definition of restoration in regards to state shorelines, it is clear the effort should be focused on specific shoreline areas where natural ecological functions have been impaired or degraded. The emphasis in the WAC is to achieve overall improvement in existing shoreline processes or functions, if these functions are impaired. Therefore, the goal is not to restore historically natural conditions, but rather to improve on existing, degraded conditions. In this context, restoration can be broadly implemented through a combination of programmatic measures (such as surface water management; water quality improvement; public education) and site-specific projects (such as beach nourishment projects or riparian plantings). It is important to note that the guidelines do not state that local programs should or could require individual permittees to restore past damages to an ecosystem as a condition of a permit for new development (Ecology, 2004). The restoration planning element required therefore focuses on the City as a whole rather than parcel by parcel, or permit by permit. Restoration versus Protection Restoration is different from protection For shorelines the latter is achieved primarily through the SMP policies and regulations (as well as other City, state and federal regulations) that safeguard resources from damage caused by use and development Protection requires that development be prohibited in some areas and that when allowed development occur in a way that mitigates adverse effects on the natural environment such that the net result of the development activity is no worse than the pre -development condition. Protection also requires that deliberate measures be taken to ensure that natural ecosystem processes (such as net shore - drift coastal bluff and fluvial inputs sediment delivery, hydrology, for example) be maintained. 4 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan SMP updates: Achieving no net loss of ecological function Source: Department of Ecology Framework to achieve no net lass Restoration plan Cumulative %pa analysisOW -Compliance strategy -Recommended actions outside SMA authority -Policies & requtations -Environment designations Restoration opportunities Inventory characterization Figure 1. Mitigation versus Restoration in Shoreline Master Programs Restoration. on the other hand. involves more than simply following and enforcing existing rules or maintaining existing conditions. It requires taking active steps to improve the condition of existing resources and restoring ecological processes that have been lost or impaired over time. Restoration measures are intended to suDDlement shoreline protection efforts such that environmental conditions improve over time. Key Elements of Restoration Planning in the SMP Update Process The guidelines provide a framework for shoreline restoration planning as part of a local jurisdiction's shoreline master program. This framework (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)) includes the following key elements: • Through development of the shoreline inventory and characterization, identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for ecological restoration; Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and impaired ecological functions; Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan • Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs that are currently being implemented which are designed to contribute to local restoration goals (such as capital improvement programs (CIPs) and watershed planning efforts (WRIA habitat/recovery plans); • Identify additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration goals, and implementation strategies including identifying prospective funding sources for those projects and programs; • Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs and achieving local restoration goals; • Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs will be implemented according to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals (e.g., monitoring). The following sections of this report discuss these subjects as they relate to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. 2.0 Assessment of Shoreline Functions Shoreline restoration planning begins with the identification of "degraded areas" or areas with "impaired ecological functions." The City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Adolfson, 2006) examined nearshore and ecosystem -wide processes that maintain shoreline ecological functions; identified impaired ecological functions; and identified programmatic and site-specific opportunities for restoration and/or enhancement. Key findings of the inventory and characterization are summarized below. Watershed Context The City of Federal Way is located within two watersheds or Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) - the Duwamish-Green River WRIA No. 9 and the Puyallup -White River WRIA 10 (lig e Map 13- -e �" ' r� =te =�). The marine coastal areas of Puget Sound within the city as well as Steel Lake and Star Lake and Lake Dolloff in the city's PAA are addressed as part of WRIA 9. Lands within the City that drain to the Puget Sound to the west, and to Mill Creek and the lower Green River to the east lie within the WRIA 9 watershed. This includes the northern portions of the City and Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The majority of the Federal Way area lies within WRIA 10 and drains to either the White River or to Hylebos Creek. N 1 Lake, Lake Geneva,Lake Kil FiveTfi L—ake me Th -e lands withinthe City .a,-ai to +t, southwest The White River drains to the Puyallup River before entering Puget Sound at Commencement Bay. The Hylebos flows to the south into Tacoma and enters the Hylebos Waterway at Commencement Bay. Shoreline Planning areas or reaches within Federal Way were described in the inventory and characterization as shown in l r -e Map 2 and summarized in Table 1. These reaches were determined based upon land form and physical characteristics (i.e., bluffs and bays), as well as current land uses. In general, shorelines within the City were more highly altered in comparison to those within the PAA. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update —Restoration Plan Physical & Biological Bluffs, beaches, bays, and the mouths of several freshwater streams characterize the City's coastal / nearshore shoreline. Approximately 40 percent of the City's coastal shoreline has been modified with riprap, concrete or wooden bulkheads. Structures in the shoreline can limit the amount of sediment transported from upland areas to the beach, and are known to cause erosion and loss of some habitats such as sand and fine gravel beaches. Currents naturally move sediments across the beach and alongshore in continual cycles, but these structures interrupt the natural supply and distribution of sediments, causing a change in sediment composition within the nearshore area. However, coastal shoreline in Dumas Bay and Dash Point State Park are in a more natural condition, and coastal processes are less altered. Fish and wildlife that utilize the shoreline depend on these nearshore processes to maintain their habitats and ultimately their populations. Federal Wav Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Table 1. City of Federal Way Shoreline Planning Areas E:3 From the city limits boundary with Des 1.67 Moines on Puget Sound, near 1" Avenue Coastal Green South, extending west to Dumas Bay Puget River lA Sound — 9 East Coastal 1.43 Dumas Bay Puget 1B Sound — 9 Dumas Ba Coastal 1.74 From Dumas Bay extending west to the city Puget 1 C limits boundary with Pierce County, Sound — 9 including Dash Point State Park West 1.69 Inside the city limits, west of I-5. Steel Lake 9 2 1.33 Inside the northeast portion of the city's Star Lake 9 3 PAA, near the boundary with City of Kent Lake 9 1.81 Inside the northeast portion of the city's Dolloff 4 PAA, near I-5 and Military Road. Lake 9 1.12 In the southeast portion of the city's PAA, Geneva 5 southeast of SR 18. Puyallup- 2.16 Inside the city limits, between 1-5, SR 18, and North White 6 Military Road Lake River 10 10 2.12 Partially in the city limits, partially in the Lake 7 southeast portion of the city's PAA, east of I - Killarney 5 and SR 18. 10 1.87 In the southeast portion of the city's PAA, Five Mile 8 near Military Road. Lake 16.93 A total of 4.84 miles of Puget Sound Total shoreline and approximately 12.09 miles of lake shoreline. E:3 Federal Wav Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan The freshwater lakes in the City are located on a broad plateau in the eastern half of the City and in the PAA. The plateau developed from glacial recessional deposits and tills. As the glaciers melted, lakes formed in the scour areas. Lakes in the City drain to five main drainage basins including 1) the Puget Sound, 2) the Green River, 3) Mill Creek, 4) the White River, 5) and the Hylebos. Lake shorelines have been modified with bulkheads and other bank protection, but also have significant areas of natural shoreline conditions. On Steel Lake, Star Lake and Five Mile Lake, approximately 20 to 50 percent of the shoreline has been modified with bulkheads. Shoreline modifications are less frequently occurring on the remaining lakes. Habitat and Species The City's coastal and freshwater shorelines are used by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species including salmonids and other fish, birds, mammals, and a wide variety of invertebrates. Of special interest are areas that provide habitat for federally listed species and species of local importance (primarily nearshore areas), including bull trout (threatened), Chinook salmon (threatened), coho salmon, as well as great blue heron nest sites. Forage fish such as surf smelt and sand lance (prey for salmonids) spawn on local beaches. Eelgrass beds are also present along the City's coastal/nearshore areas, specifically near Dash Point State Park and in the northern end of Dumas Bay and northward. Dumas Bay in particular has been identified as a pocket estuary with regional importance within the WRIA 9 nearshore habitat. The freshwater shoreline lakes within the City and its PAA do not provide salmonid habitat or habitat for federally listed species. However, these lakes do provide general habitat for waterfowl, trout, and other aquatic species important to the character of Federal Way and the lakeshore residents. Also, good water quality in the freshwater lakes is important for downstream salmonid habitat in streams such as the Hylebos Creek, Joe's Creek, Mill Creek, Lakota Creek, and the Green River. Land Use and Public Access The major land uses along the Federal Way coastal / nearshore shoreline are single-family homes, parks, and public facilities. The City's most common shoreline use is single-family residential, which occupies 55 percent of the coastal shoreline. Parks and public recreational facilities occupy 18 percent of the coastal shoreline. These uses include Dash Point State Park, Dumas Bay Park, Dumas Bay Centre, and Poverty Bay Park. These areas provide opportunities for fishing, hiking and beach recreation. Land uses along the City's freshwater lakes are primarily single-family residential and public parks. Single-family residential use occupies between 55 and 80 percent of the shoreline on most lakes, with the exception of North Lake (35 percent) and Five Mile Lake (32 percent). Parks, boat ramps, and public facilities occupy 9 to 39 percent of the lake shorelines. Public access to the lakes occurs via parks including Steel Lake Park, Lake Geneva Park, Lake Killarney Park and Five Mile Lake Park, as well as several boat ramps owned by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Parks and open space areas within Federal Way are shown on liige Map 4---2- ar-ks and Open .,r-__, Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Restoration Opportunities Programmatic restoration opportunities include restoration of public properties, coordination with the City's Surface Water Management Division, public education and outreach programs to provide technical guidance for shoreline homeowners, and the possibility for incentive -based or community-based restoration on private property. Opportunities for enhancing public awareness and education will include installation of informational kiosks at public parks and waterfront use areas. The City will also continue to coordinate with King County, the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 forum, and other regional or Puget Sound -wide planning efforts to implement identified restoration policies and actions. Opportunities for site-specific habitat enhancement or restoration of shoreline ecological functions (primarily in the marine shoreline) have been identified in the shoreline inventory and characterization report based upon watershed information and field studies conducted by the WRIA groups. In the coastal Puget Sound areas, restoration focuses on removal of abandoned creosote pilings, debris and concrete from the shoreline. Restoration in the coastal shoreline also focuses on bulkhead replacement with soft -shore armoring and the use of native marine riparian plantings. These site-specific projects will provide small but valuable efforts toward habitat enhancement and restoration of impaired ecological functions. In the freshwater lakes, restoration opportunities have not been specifically studied. WRIA information for these lakes is lacking due to its emphasis on restoration of nearshore marine habitats. However, restoration opportunities have been generally identified through the shoreline inventory and characterization. These include enhancement of Lakeshore riparian areas with native vegetation, removal or replacement of failing bulkheads to improve and maintain water quality in the lakes, and removal of invasive plants. Water quality in these lakes is important to downstream native salmonid habitats, as well as for the overall enjoyment of the lakes by Lakeshore residents and by the public. 10 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan 3.0 Developing Restoration Goals and Policies The guidelines provide that local shoreline master programs shall include "goals, policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions." Under the guidelines, restoration planning has a purpose distinct from development regulations and mitigation standards. "The guidelines expressly focus restoration requirements on the use of master program policies, as opposed to development regulations" (Ecology 2004). "Master program provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program" (WAC 173-26- 201(2)(f)). Federal Way SMP Update — Integration with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan The exisfing Shereline Master- Program (,SN4P) goals and pokeies are in Seetien 2.8.5 ef the Federal Way Gempr-ehensive Plan (FWCP). This is a subseetion of the Land Use Designations seetion (Seetion 2.8) of the Land Use Chaptef ef the Comprehensive Plan. The existing SM -P does not eef4ain speeifie goals and peheies related to r-ester-atien of shereline habitat an and in Chapter- 9, Nattffal Environment, address preservation, eahaneement, or- restoration of SMP goals and policies should be consistent with and integrated with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The fellewi peter SMP goals and policies are found in Section 3 of the SMP and in Chapter 11 of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWCP). In addition, some policy statements in FWCP Chapter 9 Natural Environment address preservation, enhancement, or restoration of shoreline features such as natural vegetation and fish and wildlife habitat. The language drafted below has been used in developing proposed goals and policies for restoration within Section 3 of the SMP which is also a component of the city's comprehensive plan. As such the Shoreline Restoration Goals of this Restoration Plan will be directly linked to the Conservation and Restoration goals of the Comprehensive Plan as required by the state guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC). Restoration goals and policies are"generally focused around four key areas: 1) coordination with regional plans and programs; 2) opportunities focused on public and private property along the shorelines; and 3) voluntary or incentive based restoration opportunities on private property; and 4) public education opportunities. The content is organized to be generally consistent with the structure and organization of the City's Comprehensive Plan elements. The following goals and policies related to shoreline restoration have been integrated with the "Conservation and Restoration." Element of Section 3 of the SMP. Shoreline Restoration Element: This element promotes and encourages restoration of shoreline functions and ecological processes that have been impaired as a result of past development activities. 11 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Goal 1. Develop regional solutions with other jurisdictions, tribes and interested parties to resolve the challenge of protecting shoreline ecological functions while also protecting shoreline developments. Policies: 1. Continue to work with the State, King County, Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations to explore how local governments can contribute to the preservation of ecological processes and shoreline functions. 2. Continue to work with the WRIA 9 to restore shoreline habitats and shoreline functions that support listed endangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous fisheries. Goal 2. Pursue projects to restore and enhance shoreline habitats, functions and processes on private and publicly owned lands. Policies: 1. Prioritize restoration and enhancement first based upon the greatest net ecological benefit, as compared to the project cost. 2. Focus restoration and conservation activities on public parks and open space lands for public enjoyment. 3. Work with owners of other publicly owned land such as Washington State Parks to encourage restoration and enhancement projects, including funding strategies. 4. Work with the public and other interested parties to prioritize restoration opportunities identified in the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report. 5. Promote shoreline vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds and nonnative species, to enhance marine riparian and freshwater Lakeshore habitats. 6. Promote shoreline vegetation restoration to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion. 7. Develop a program to implement restoration projects, including funding strategies. 8. Monitor and adaptively manage restoration projects. Goal 3. Evaluate potential shoreline impairments when they are identified by the community or stakeholders. Policies: 1. Collect information to evaluate and assess potential shoreline degradation and impairments observed by the community. 2. Develop strategies to address impairments to shoreline functions through restoration actions, if appropriate. 12 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Restoration projects with broad ecological benefit will be given greater weight or priority than projects with localized benefits. Goal 4. Encourage voluntary restoration projects in degraded shoreline environments. Policies: Create incentives that will make it economically or otherwise attractive for development proposals to integrate shoreline ecological restoration into development projects. 2. Encourage protection, enhancement, or restoration of native riparian vegetation through incentives and non -regulatory programs.. 3. Promote bioengineering and/or soft engineering alternative design approaches to shoreline stabilization and provide technical guidance to shoreline landowners. 4. Establish public education materials to provide shoreline landowners technical assistance about the benefits of native vegetation plantings. 5. Identify and pursue funding sources for shoreline restoration actions on private lands. Goal 5. Provide ample opportunity for the public to learn about the ecological aspects and community values of the City's shorelines. Policies: 1. Explore opportunities with other educational organizations and agencies to develop an on-going program of shoreline education for all ages. 2. Identify areas where kiosks and interpretative signs can enhance the educational experience of users of the shoreline. 3. Develop strategies to fund these projects. 4.0 Existing Plans and Programs A number of regional and Puget Sound -wide planning efforts have been developed to address water resource management, water quality, and salmon habitat recovery. These existing plans and programs provide a framework of goals, policies, and in some cases, funding mechanisms. At the end of this section, an assessment of the need for any additional programs is offered. These plans and programs include both regional and local (county and city) plans and programs. The goals, policies, and actions identified in this restoration plan should coordinate and be consistent with this broader framework of conservation and restoration work in the Puget Sound region. 13 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Regional Programs The following regional programs are in place with the overall goal to restore Puget Sound marine shorelines and salmonid habitat. Puget Sound Partnership In December 2005, Governor Gregoire formed the Puget Sound Partnership to focus attention on the overall needs and health of Puget Sound and to promote public education and interagency coordination for clean up of the Sound. The vision of the new Partnership is: To ensure that the Puget Sound forever will be a thriving natural system, with clean marine and freshwaters, healthy and abundant native species, natural shorelines and places for public enjoyment, and a vibrant economy that prospers in productive harmony with a healthy Sound. At the direction of the Governor, the Puget Sound Partnership drafted r-eeemmendatiefis developed an Action A ends for preserving and restoring Puget Sound and its species and habitats by the year 2020. On December 1, 2008, the Partnership adopted its Action Agenda. The Agenda identifies the following five priority strategies for restoring the Sound: Priority A: Protect the intact ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget Sound. Avoiding problems before they occur is the best and most cost-effective approach to ecosystem health. Priority B: Restore the ecosystem processes, structures, and functions that sustain Puget Sound. Protecting what we have left is not sufficient, and significant effort at an unprecedented scale is needed to undo past damage. Priority C: Prevent water pollution at its source. Many of our efforts have focused on cleaning up degraded waters and sediments, but insufficient resources have been devoted to stopping pollutants before they reach our rivers, beaches, andspecies. Priority_ D: Work together as a coordinated system on priority actions. The programs and laws addressing environmental issues were established on a piecemeal basis to address separate problems in an earlier time, and the system does not address Soundwide and local problems on a coordinated basis at an ecosystem scale. Priority E: Build an implementation monitoring, and accountability management system. This includes: using a performance management system with adaptive management, coordinated monitoring accountability for action, and coordinated data management; providing sufficient stable funding focused on priority actions; implementing a focused scientific program with priorities for research, appropriate measures to improve understanding of the ecosystem and the effectiveness of our actions, and clear pathways for informing decision making; and increasing and sustaining coordinated efforts for communication, outreach, and education. 14 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan The City of Federal Way, and other local governments play a vital role in protecting water quality and habitat within their jurisdictions. The Action Agenda notes that local governments participate by "managing and/orap rticipatin in implementing watershed based salmon recovery and water uality management plans; construction and operation of wastewater and stormwater facilities; science and technical assistance to landowners; and implementation of re ug latory compliance programs through the Growth Management Act Shoreline Management Act and local clearing andragr ding ordinances." In addition this renewed focus on the health of the Puget Sound will likely result in an increase in state-wide funding for restoration of Puget Sound marine shorelines. Additionally, it is noted that the creation of the Puget Sound Partnership coincided with the end of the Puget Sound Action Team. The Action Team had previously filled some of the roles included in the Partnership. The Action Team developed a 2005-2007 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan, which included identification of priority restoration areas. These priorities include: • Clean up contaminated sites and sediments; • Reduce continuing toxic contamination and prevent future contamination-, • Reduce the harm from stormwater runoff; • Prevent nutrient and pathogen pollution caused by human and animal wastes; • Hood Canal: a geographic priority for 2005-2007• • Protect shorelines and other critical areas that provide important ecological functions; • Restore degraded nearshore and freshwater habitats-, and • Conserve and recover orca, salmon forage fish and groundfish (PSAT 2005 Each of these priorities remains applicable to Federal Wav with the exception of Hood Canal. •s_ _ _ . _ WIN 01 11 ilw- 15 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Eaeh of these p rides ; ,.;,.able to Foden, Puget Sound Nearshore Proiect (PSNP The Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP) (also referred to as the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)) is a large-scale, multi -agency initiative to address habitat restoration needs in the Puget Sound basin. Nearshore Project goals are to identify significant ecosystem problems, evaluate potential solutions, and restore and preserve critical nearshore habitat. PSRP represents a partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), state and federal government organizations, Indian tribes, industries and environmental organizations. A General Investigation Reconnaissance Study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2000 (USACOE, 2000) identified a direct link between healthy nearshore habitat and the physical condition of the shoreline. The study identified several actions that would be central in restoring nearshore processes to a more natural state: • Providing marshes, mudflats, and beaches with essential sand and gravel materials; • Removing, moving and modifying artificial structures (bulkheads, rip rap, dikes, tide gates, etc.); • Using alternative measures to protect shorelines from erosion and flooding; and • Restoring estuaries and nearshore habitat such as eelgrass beds and kelp beds (USACOE, 2000; PSNP, 2002). PSNERP also provides outreach and guidance materials related to nearshore ecosystem restoration principals, concepts, and methods of implementation. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound: Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy) is a collaborative effort between local stakeholders and regional leaders to protect and restore salmon runs across Puget Sound that was initiated as a result of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings of salmonid species in the Puget Sound region. Shared Strategy engages local citizens, tribes, technical experts and policy makers to build a practical, cost-effective recovery plan endorsed by the people living and working in the watersheds of Puget Sound. H ZA I&TO MMMMM - - as Eaeh of these p rides ; ,.;,.able to Foden, Puget Sound Nearshore Proiect (PSNP The Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP) (also referred to as the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP)) is a large-scale, multi -agency initiative to address habitat restoration needs in the Puget Sound basin. Nearshore Project goals are to identify significant ecosystem problems, evaluate potential solutions, and restore and preserve critical nearshore habitat. PSRP represents a partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), state and federal government organizations, Indian tribes, industries and environmental organizations. A General Investigation Reconnaissance Study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2000 (USACOE, 2000) identified a direct link between healthy nearshore habitat and the physical condition of the shoreline. The study identified several actions that would be central in restoring nearshore processes to a more natural state: • Providing marshes, mudflats, and beaches with essential sand and gravel materials; • Removing, moving and modifying artificial structures (bulkheads, rip rap, dikes, tide gates, etc.); • Using alternative measures to protect shorelines from erosion and flooding; and • Restoring estuaries and nearshore habitat such as eelgrass beds and kelp beds (USACOE, 2000; PSNP, 2002). PSNERP also provides outreach and guidance materials related to nearshore ecosystem restoration principals, concepts, and methods of implementation. Shared Strategy for Puget Sound: Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan Shared Strategy for Puget Sound (Shared Strategy) is a collaborative effort between local stakeholders and regional leaders to protect and restore salmon runs across Puget Sound that was initiated as a result of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings of salmonid species in the Puget Sound region. Shared Strategy engages local citizens, tribes, technical experts and policy makers to build a practical, cost-effective recovery plan endorsed by the people living and working in the watersheds of Puget Sound. H Federal Tray Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Shared Strategy has developed a draft salmon recovery plan (Shared Strategy, 2005) that provides a blueprint for salmon recovery strategies throughout Puget Sound and incorporates, by reference, local watershed plans for salmon recovery. Amongst other strategies described in the draft plan, Shared Strategy describes their `Top 10 Actions Needed for Salmon Recovery', many of which have additional beneficial impacts for humans. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9 Forum: Salmon Habitat Plan The city is a participating local agency in WRIA 9 watershed planning. After several years of planning and scientific study, WRIA 9 r-eee completed the Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9, 2005). The plan is both broad in scope and specific in recommendations for protection, enhancement, and restoration of habitat along the Green River and Puget Sound coastal shorelines. The plan identifies needs and includes recommended policies, programs, and projects for both the entire watershed and the sub watersheds (Middle and Lower Green River) within the City of Federal Way. Identified needs for the nearshore and lower watershed which are relevant to the City include: • Encourage nearshore property owners to continue the replacement of creosote pilings and structures with non -creosote alternatives as well as the removal of obsolete / abandoned facilities that contain significant amounts of creosoted wood; and • Actively feed beaches, where appropriate, with sediment where there is a lack of sediment due to interrupted supply from bulkheads or other forms of shoreline armoring (WRIA 9, 2005). • Prevention of future and reduction of current stream bank armoring; • Promotion of low -impact development throughout the watershed; • Restoration of fish passage on tributary streams to the lower Green-Duwamish River; • A focus on reducing non -point pollution; and • Maintenance of minimal stream flow levels to protect downstream salmonid habitats. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 9: Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration As part of the WRIA 9 watershed planning, a study was undertaken to identify and prioritize habitat protection and restoration actions along the marine shorelines of the Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound watershed, including the City of Federal Way (Anchor, May 2006). The study used habitat features to characterize marine shoreline habitats and select priority habitat action areas through a science -based prioritization process. Priority conservation, rehabilitation, and restoration projects were identified for WRIA 9 using a GIS model approach. Restoration actions were identified as two scales: first, at the extent of the entire WRIA nearshore area, and second, at the extent of each of 12 subareas within the study area. Based upon this WRIA study, the overall habitat needs and goals for the Federal Way marine shoreline include: 17 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan • maintaining and conserving the shoreline sediment supply through protection of feeder bluffs; and, • conserving and restoring tributary mouths and marshes present in Dumas Bay. These were identified as important habitat needs within the WRIA 9 nearshore environment due to the location of Dumas Bay and the bay's potential to provide marsh and pocket estuary habitat for feeding and refuge of salmonids. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 10 Forum: Salmon Habitat Plan Federal Way lakes also drain to the White River and the Hylebos, within WRIA 10. A Salmon Habitat Plan has not yet been developed for WRIA 10; however a framework for plan completion has been developed. Pierce County is acting as the lead agency for WRIA 10, with King County and other basin jurisdictions, including the City of Auburn, providing support. The framework for plan completion can be found in the Pierce County chapter of the Tri -County 4(d) Rule submittal. Upon completion, the WRIA 10 Salmon Habitat Plan will provide broad and specific goals and recommendations for protection, enhancement, and restoration of habitat throughout the basin. An existing document, The Salmon Habitat Protection and Restoration Strategy (Pierce County, 2005), provides initial assessment and prioritizes initial recommendations and actions for WRIA 10. Cascade Land Conservanc The Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) seeks to conserve urban and rural natural spaces within the Central Puget Sound region, including areas throughout King and Pierce Counties. Priority natural areas include lands along streams, rivers, other areas in the cascade foothills, and estuary areas. The CLC conservation strategies have included securing lands through purchase and donation, conservation easements, and ownership agreements. Since 1989, the CLC has completed 139 projects that have conserved a total 117,783 acres (85% in King County). Although no CLC protected lands currently exist within the City of Federal Way, the shoreline landscapes may provide conservation opportunities for the CLC. County and City Programs The following county or citywide programs are in place, which provide guidance for lakeshore restoration and/or restoration within the marine shoreline. King County Shoreline Master Program King County is updating its Shoreline Master Program concurrent with the cities in the County. The County is has completed its shoreline inventory and characterization, which will addresses ecological functions of the lake shorelines within the Federal Way's PAA. in 2007, King County will be has also developing developed its restoration plan for shorelines within unincorporated county lands. The King County Shoreline Restoration Plan does not identify any site specific restoration projects on the City's PAA lake shorelines. The City should, however, coordinate efforts with King County for restoration opportunities 18 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan identified for lakes in the PAA, as well as for regional collaboration in restoration with WRIAs 9 and 10. Kina Countv Lake Stewardship Proaram King County Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, has conducted volunteer lake monitoring for all of the larger lakes in King County since the 1980s. The monitoring was continuous on many of these lakes during the period from the mid 1990's to 2004. Lakes within the City of Federal Way were part of this program until 2004, when the City took over water quality monitoring. Monitoring data included watershed mapping, bathymetric mapping, mapping of aquatic vegetative communities, and water quality data. The City should coordinate efforts with King County for shoreline restoration opportunities on lakes currently within the City's PAA. Lake characteristics and health are summarized in the King County Lake Monitoring Report for Year 2004 (hllp:Hdiir.metrokc.gov/Nvl.r/wateffes/sml.akeL/). Citv of Federal Wav Surface Water Manaaement Division The City's Surface Water Management Program is guided by the Surface Water Facilities Plan (1994) and the City's Comprehensive Plan (2002). The Surface Water Management Division (SWM) is responsible for the comprehensive management of the City's surface water systems. This involves protecting developed and undeveloped properties from flooding, runoff and water quality problems, while continuing to accommodate new development. The SWM Division also promotes the preservation of natural drainage systems, and protection of fishery resources and wildlife habitat. The City's Surface Water Capital Improvement Program identifies, funds, and implements site-specific projects intended to provide flood control or alleviation, improve and enhance riparian habitat , replace culverts to improve fish passage, and improve water quality from stormwater runoff. The Surface Water Management conservation/restoration program efforts have been primarily isettfFently focused on stream and lake resources, with limited emphasis on restoration of lakes and marine shorelines due to their relatively/ good condition. An example of stream restoration occurring through the CIP program is the Lakota Creek Restoration. This project, completed in 2004, included the main stem and west branch of the creek from SW 320`h Street downstream to the Wastewater Treatment Plant near Dumas Bay Center. The project was designed to stabilize eroding stream banks and restore the natural stream channel. Fish passage barriers were removed, spawning gravels were placed, and large woody debris was installed within the restored stre channel. Invasive plants were replaced with native shrubs and trees. The city has undertaken similar stream restoration projects on the East Branch of Lakota Creek, Joe's Creek, and the West Hylebos. While not speeifieally inagrt of the shoreline, stream restoration projects like Lakota Creek serve to protect and restore water quality, natural stream flow, and ecological processes, all of which contribute to the health of Puget Sound. Other Local Arewams Organizations Another local preg organization focused on the health and protection of Hylebos Creek and its associated wetlands is the Friends of Hylebos Wetlands. This group is a local non - 19 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan government organization involved in salmonid recovery and is active in both stream and wetland restoration projects within Federal Way. Additional information on this organization maybe found at http:///Aww.hylebos.org. Management Districts The city has helped to establish two lake management districts (LMD), the Steel Lake LMD and the North Lake LMD. The purpose of these LMDs is to manage the long term health of the lakes through both aquatic weed management and water quality monitoring. The city is currently working with resicents adjacent to the Dumas Bay shoreline to explore the possibility of forming a Beach Management District to address concerns with shoreline health. 5.0 Implementation The implementation portion of restoration planning typically requires more detailed site-specific information than is available at this time, especially with regard to the timing of projects. However, potential shoreline projects and priorities have been provide identified for shorelines in Federal Way based upon the WRIA studies and other information. This implemefAatie section is intended to provide information about the implementation approach that will be used by the city consistent with guidance for SMP development (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(vi)). Identify Restoration and Conservation Opportunities The following SMA concepts should guide identification, evaluation and prioritization or restoration opportunities: 1) Restoration or enhancement should support the overarching goal that local shoreline master programs "serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area"; and 20 �•M 1101 NWI 11111111 5.0 Implementation The implementation portion of restoration planning typically requires more detailed site-specific information than is available at this time, especially with regard to the timing of projects. However, potential shoreline projects and priorities have been provide identified for shorelines in Federal Way based upon the WRIA studies and other information. This implemefAatie section is intended to provide information about the implementation approach that will be used by the city consistent with guidance for SMP development (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)(vi)). Identify Restoration and Conservation Opportunities The following SMA concepts should guide identification, evaluation and prioritization or restoration opportunities: 1) Restoration or enhancement should support the overarching goal that local shoreline master programs "serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area"; and 20 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan 2) Restoration should be designed to address areas where shoreline ecological functions have been impaired as a result of past development activities. In Federal Way, both programmatic and site-specific opportunities for shoreline restoration or enhancement exist. Opportunities have been identified by regional plans (e.g., WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan and related studies) and the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Adolfson, 2006). This section of the Restoration Plan prioritizes the previously identified opportunities relative to shoreline restoration activities and outlines City tiom itmert to undeftaking beth r ^ti^ and ^ ^t speeifie measures the city's approach to accomplish shoreline restoration. Conservation of shorelines is also included in this restoration plan. Conservation refers to preserving existing shoreline areas that currently provide valuable functions. An important part of any good habitat protection plan is protecting priority ecological processes and habitats that have not been degraded or impaired. Conservation opportunities in the City's shoreline are primarily provided through WRIA 9 studies and are intermixed with restoration opportunities for marine shorelines. Conservation of shorelines will also be addressed in the City's shoreline regulations. Programmatic Restoration City of Federal Way Restoration Program To organize and implement protection and restoration measures, Federal Way will inteigrate into its existing habitat restoration program additional establish ^ City Rester- tie Program, whie tar -gets and aire^ts aquatic habitat protection and restoration opportunities within the jurisdiction. This program will implement stream and wetland restoration, which is currently occurring through the Surface Water Management Utility, as well as restoration for freshwater lakes and Puget Sound coastal shoreline areas. SuFfaee Wa4eF Manalg__Iement Utility or- be established as a stand alone pr-egr-afn. This pr-egfa The existing program will be charged with integration and cooperation with the WRIA 9 and 10 committees, and King County, to identify funding opportunities and collaborate on watershed projects. The new or- end -program will be responsible for: 1) Coordination with and leveraging of regional programs and organizations; 2) Identification of restoration opportunities, including at freshwater lakes; 3) Prioritization and selection of restoration projects; 4) Procurement of restoration funding; 5) Implementation of restoration projects; and 6) Monitoring and evaluation (i.e. adaptive management) of restoration projects. 21 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan In addition to, and consistent with, these programmatic opportunities the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Adolfson, 2006) identified programmatic opportunities in the form of public education and awareness of shoreline functions and values: a) Promote public education and awareness at the Federal Way shoreline parks and other publicly accessible waterfront. Informational kiosks will be erected at parks and shoreline public access locations in the City. The kiosks will serve to educate the public on the importance of the nearshore area and coastal processes, providing information on what people can do to help preserve or improve what remains and describing existing wildlife viewing opportunities. A good example of this type of kiosk can be found at Dash Point State Park. b) Technical assistance and public outreach for riparian planting enhancement or rehabilitation. This program will be developed in concert with the "toolbox" program described above as part of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan. The program will develop specific technical assistance for appropriate plantings in marine riparian zones, lakeshores., and along freshwater streams that discharge to Puget Sound in the City of Federal Way. c) Distribution of public education material. Residential property owners will receive printed material emphasizing stewardship, natural processes and native plantings, such as a blueprint for a lake -friendly landscape and a Puget Sound shoreline stewardship guidebook. WRIA 9 Habitat Planning The WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan recommends development of several programs relevant to the City of Federal Way shoreline master program update. The programs will be developed by King County in coordination with local jurisdictions and could be implemented at the local level by the County or by the City of Federal Way. The city will continue to support and participate in the development of these programs, which will be administered by the city's new or expanded shoreline restoration program. The programs under consideration are: Promote Habitat Restoration on Private Property by Offering a Blueprint of Nearshore Habitat Project Designs. This program would promote voluntary restoration on private property by creating a "toolbox" of model habitat design and shoreline restoration actions. Types of actions could include removal of unneeded shoreline armoring and/or derelict structures, and rehabilitation of marine riparian vegetation. The program would provide technical assistance to landowners and would seek to develop incentives to encourage voluntary restoration projects on private property. 2. Create a Soft Armoring Technical Assistance and Cost -Share Program. This program would promote voluntary replacement of traditional "hard" shoreline armoring (concrete/riprap/wooden bulkheads) with "soft -shore" armoring techniques where appropriate and feasible. Specific designs would vary from site to site depending on the property's unique characteristics. A number of case studies and example designs are provided in Alternative Bank Protection Methods for Puget Sound Shorelines (Ecology, 2000). The shore segments in Federal Way that would most directly benefit from this 22 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan type of program include the Puget Sound East and Puget Sound West. Public education or incentives for shoreline bulkhead removal could help restore natural shoreline processes and enhance sediment depleted habitats and formerly important reaches of feeder bluffs (Coastal Geologic Services, Inc., in Adolfson, 2005), as well as other sites. 3. Citizen Volunteer Forage Fish Monitoring Program. This program would offer an opportunity for citizens to work with biologists and participate in data gathering to better identify and monitor forage fish spawning areas. 4. Create an Incentive Program to Remove Relict Structures from Intertidal areas. This program would be focused on reclaiming intertidal habitat located beneath relict structures such as old pier footings and failed erosion control structures. Opportunities to remove such structures are found throughout the Federal Way shores, and are most abundant in Puget Sound East. 23 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Site -Specific Restoration and Conservation The City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Adolfson, 2006) evaluated and described how shoreline ecological functions have been impaired in the City of Federal Way and identified site-specific opportunities for shoreline restoration, enhancement, and conservation. Puqet Sound Marine Shorelines Site-specific restoration opportunities for the coastal shorelines have been identified through WRIA 9 planning efforts (Anchor, 2006; Coastal Geologic Services, Inc., 2005). These restoration opportunities focus on Dumas Bay due to its overall importance to salmonid habitat within the nearshore environment. These high priority nearshore restoration projects are identified by WRIA 9 in the Federal Way area of the Puget Sound and illustrated on Figufe Map 3-5: 1. Conserve unarmored shoreline west of Dumas Bay. Two extended sections of unarmored feeder bluffs with mature marine riparian vegetation were identified west of Dumas Bay. The sections are separated by a reach with houses at the base of bluffs. Nearshore habitat would be enhanced and maintained by conserving the sediment supplies to the intertidal zone in this area. 2. Restore the tributary mouth at Dash Point State Park. The tributary mouth and lower reaches of this creek could be restored by removing existing armoring, adding channel meanders, and restoring riparian vegetation within the coastal shoreline zone. 3. Conserve unarmored feeder bluffs east of Dumas Bay. An extended reach of feeder bluff exists east of Dumas Bay. Conservation of mature vegetation and the feeder bluff area would preserve this particularly important sediment source for down drift areas, including Dumas Bay. 4. Conserve and restore tributary mouths in Dumas Bay. Restoration of tributary mouth at the west end of Dumas Bay would improve habitat and associated wetlands. 5. Restore riparian vegetation on residential properties east of Dumas Bay. Marine riparian vegetation should be restored east of Dumas Bay where native vegetation is degraded near the shore. Coastal Geologic Services identified other lower priority restoration projects in Federal Way during the WRIA 9 nearshore assessment. These are described below for neighborhoods and specific shoreline waterfront properties organized sequentially from east to west (see Maps 4 through 6). While not listed as priority restoration projects in the WRIA habitat assessment, these restoration opportunities are available within the City should additional funding be procured. However, it should be noted that the following projects have not been assessed or ranked based upon ecological benefit to the City's shorelines. Further, feasibility studies may be required for some of the projects to ensure that no critical design flaws are identified in the proposal. 24 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Dumas Bay Restoration/Enhancement Opportunities. Several restoration and/or enhancement opportunities are found within the shores of Dumas Bay. Opportunities range from recovering and restoring upper beach habitat, upland planting/marine riparian restoration and invasive species eradication, to the removal of toxic material -from the sub -tidal to upper beach. A boulder rockery lines the City of Federal Way (Dumas Bay Center) shoreline for approximately 860 feet between 2 creek mouths. The rockery is currently over the upper intertidal zone and is failing in a number of places. The buildings at Dumas Bay Center have a very large setback and the removal of all or portions of the rockery would allow for upper beach and backshore restoration, and reestablishment of the sediment supply from the bluffs. Portions of the bluff toe could be partially protected from erosion by installation of soft shore protection, if the bluff toe were first graded further landward to make space for this. However, it may be more cost effective to allow the toe to erode naturally. Currently much of the banks are covered with Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed), which should be eradicated. Another smaller patch of Polygonum cuspidatum is located along the western shore of Dumas Bay and should also be eradicated as soon as possible. Over 30 relict creosoted pilings and a number of creosoted drift logs are found within the Bay. The toxic creosote could be removed from beaches. These restoration opportunities are well suited as a demonstration project, due to its location within a public park enabling citizens to participate in community based restoration such as invasive species eradication and/or replanting the bank. Kiosks and signs describing the restored geomorphic and ecological processes could also provide an opportunity to engage and educate community members. Buena Bulkhead Removal — Nearshore Sediment Restoration. Three opportunities for bulkhead removal are found near Buena, in the Puget Sound East shore segment. These armored shore segments are located at the base of feeder bluffs, precluding sediment from "feeding" the beach. The three segments measure 479, 436 and 101 feet long. The drift cell that encompasses this shore segment exhibits eastward, then northward net shore -drift. A number of down -drift beaches rely on sediment from these bluffs to maintain nearshore habitats and moderate erosion rates. This drift cell has incurred the greatest reduction in nearshore sediment supply in Federal Way and was identified as a moderately high restoration priority across the entire WRIA 9 nearshore (Coastal Geologic Services, Inc., 2005). Removal of shoreline armoring from the base of these bluffs would restore the function of the bluff as a nearshore sediment source; however, bluff erosion rates may need to be moderated to avoid threatening homes residing in the upland. Following removal of shoreline armoring, soft shore protection should be used to mitigate and slow "deferred" erosion. Planting a marine riparian buffer, comprised of native shrubs and trees, will also reduce erosion rates as well as eventually providing large woody debris to the nearshore. Federal Way/Adelaide Bulkhead Removal. This opportunity entails removing an unnecessary bulkhead from the backshore of an accretionary beach. The bulkhead measures approximately 475 feet long and runs adjacent to shore, with the nearest home set back considerably from the shore. The structure is largely aesthetic and provides no function as erosion control. Removing the structure and restoring the upper beach and a 25 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan more natural shore profile would enhance nearshore habitats. Beach nourishment could replace lost upper beach sediment and allow for the creation of a protective storm berm. Dune and marine riparian plants should be planted to further enhance beach habitat, by providing shade to the upper beach, a source of large woody debris and pollution abatement. Poverty Bay/Lakota Bulkhead Removal. This accretionary (depositional) beach has suffered considerable impact resulting from paving the upper beach for what is assumed to be recreational or aesthetic purposes. The pavement extends across approximately 55 feet of shoreline and is roughly 16 feet in width. This paved area could be deconstructed to improve shoreline functions. Following removal of the backshore pavement the upper beach could be nourished and dune and marine riparian vegetation could be planted to further restore nearshore processes. Remove Relict Structures in Intertidal Lakota — Northeast Dumas Bay (3 locations). These opportunities entail removing several relict concrete structures from the intertidal beach that currently preclude access to the underlying habitat. Two of these structures appear to also obstruct littoral transport of sediment, which can cause erosion of down - drift beaches as well as degrading nearshore habitats. The northeastern -most opportunity entails removing the relict concreted footings of a boat ramp. These footings extend from the bulkheaded upper beach to the lower-most intertidal. The central enhancement opportunity includes removal of a larger concrete structure that was likely used as a boat ramp. This solid concrete, angular structure acts like a groin, impeding littoral transport. This structure also reduces alongshore connectivity for migrating juvenile salmonids, which are likely to be forced into deeper water (where they are thought to be more vulnerable to predation) to swim around the structure. Additionally, large boulders (4-5 feet in diameter) line the leeward side of the structure, which could be removed. Further west there is another dilapidated concrete boat ramp. Chunks of the structure cover valuable intertidal forage fish spawning habitat. This relict boat ramp could be deconstructed and removed from the beach along with the associated concrete debris. Remove Relict Bulkhead and Structures From Intertidal in Puget Sound West. This enhancement opportunity entails removing a soldier pile bulkhead that is no longer providing its intended function as erosion control, and a decaying barge that is interrupting net shore -drift. The bulkhead infringes on upper intertidal habitats, is composed of creosoted logs and impounds upland sediment. Coastal Geologic Services (2005) identified this bluff as being a high restoration priority due to its value as a nearshore sediment source. The barge is of considerable length and width, and is positioned perpendicular to shore. As a result, it both infringes on a substantial area of intertidal habitat and prevents net shore -drift along a large portion of the beach profile. Additionally, there are numerous (15-20) car tires that are buried in intertidal sediment from this point to approximately 100 yards to the southwest. Removing these structures would enhance alongshore and cross -shore connectivity, restore feeder bluff function, and reclaim currently impacted habitats. Purchase and Relocate Homes at Base of Historic Feeder Bluffs. The bluffs that are proposed for restoration are located approximately 0.6 and 0.9 miles northeast of the creek mouth at Dash Point State Park or 300 feet southwest and 1100 feet northeast of the end of 53rd Avenue SW. The bluffs are referred to as Restoration Bluffs No. 1 and 2. 26 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Prior to the construction of shore modifications and homes along the base of these bluffs, they were exceptional (historic) feeder bluffs — meaning they regularly contributed large quantities of sediment to the nearshore (Coastal Geologic Services 2005). Shoreline armoring and bulkheads have considerably slowed erosion rates along these bluffs, which has likely reduced the sediment supply in this shore reach. Coastal Geologic Services (2005) identified this area as being a high restoration priority across the entire WRIA 8 and 9 nearshore (over 121 miles of shoreline). The shore modifications typically extend 20 or more feet from the base of the bluff; preventing bluff sediment input into the intertidal as well as infringing on upper beach habitat. As sea levels rise and waves scour the beach waterward of bulkheads, those beaches will become increasingly narrow and "starved" of littoral sediment. This eventually leads to the loss of nearshore habitats in a phenomenon referred to as "the coastal squeeze." Relocating any hazardously positioned homes and restoring the nearshore sediment source would restore down -drift shores and reduce life safety risks. Additionally a number of creosoted logs likely associated with a failed bulkhead could be removed from the upper beach. Here it should be noted, that actions such as this would only be feasible with property owner consent and a dedicated source of funding. Dash Point State Park Bluff and Estuarine Enhancement. Opportunities include the removal of riprap from the lower reaches of the unnamed creek and restoring channel sinuosity and dune/riparian vegetation. The riprap could be replaced with limited soft shore protection and enhanced riparian vegetation. The stream channel should be widened and logs could be used to control the area over which the channel could migrate near the bridge. These actions combined with marine riparian plantings could enhance the geomorphic and ecologic function of this sub -estuary, which would increase habitat quality and quantity for the benefit of both local terrestrial and aquatic species. A second restoration action is to remove over 30 -creosoted piles and a creosoted soldier pile bulkhead located just west of the Dash Point creek. The piles also provide an opportune site for birds to predate on migrating juvenile salmonids. Simple pile removal would help restore natural beach conditions and bluff processes. Several of these are creosoted piles, so additional water quality benefits could be achieved. As mentioned above, the City's Surface Water Management Capital Improvement Program identifies and funds several site-specific stream restoration projects which are completed or underway. While these projects are not located within the marine shoreline, their implementation will improve habitat and flow regimes in key streams that discharge to Puget Sound. As such, they are worth noting in the context of shoreline restoration planning. Key projects include: • Lakota Creek Restoration (2004-2006). Habitat improvements include removal of fish passage obstructions and stream restoration (e.g., creation of spawning pools; placement of anchored large woody debris and boulders; and bank stabilization). • West Hylebos Restoration (2004). Habitat improvements, including the installation of large woody debris and native plants to stabilize and restore the stream channel. 27 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Joe's Creek (2006-2007). Involves widening the stream channel to alleviate flooding and to restore fish habitat (via addition of spawning gravel, creation of eddy pools, riparian enhancement for shade, etc.). • Spring Valley Restoration and Bridge Replacement (2007). The Spring Valley Restoration Project is a joint effort between City of Federal Way and Washington Department of Transportation, which will return approximately 1,400 feet of degraded creek channel and pasture -land back to its natural state. The creek will be realigned to follow a more natural, meandering path, with shade cover from native trees and shrubs. Creating wetland areas and placing logs will provide additional habitat. A major element of this project will be the construction of a new bridge on S. 373, St. to eliminate flooding across the road and improve fish and wildlife passage. • West Hylebos Culvert Removal (2010). Involves removal of an unnecessary culvert and restoration of the channel. In addition, second downstream culvert will be removed and replaceed with a new one that meets fish passage criteria. Freshwater Lake Shorelines Site-specific restoration opportunities on the City's freshwater lakes have not been identified on the ground due to limited access to private lakeshore properties. Further, lakes within Federal Way and its PAA have not been specifically evaluated as part of any comprehensive study such as the WRIA 9 or 10 efforts or King County's Shoreline Restoration Plan. Baseline studies on the City's freshwater lakes to determine specific restoration needs and opportunities would be a logical first step in identifying and implementing lakeshore restoration. Despite the relative lack of detailed information and site-specific opportunities for lakes, the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (Adolfson, 2006) did identify a number of potential actions that could occur within specific shoreline reaches of the lakes. In general, restoration activities on each of the City's freshwater lakes (including PAA lakes) are shown on Map 7 and should .,,hide: are described below. • Steel Lake - The stewardship efforts of the Steel Lake Management District (limited to aquatic plant management activities) should be supported. This lake also has a higher percentage of armored shoreline and this practice should be discouraged. Existing bulkheads could be replaced with bioengineered shore protection. Although the park is large for this size lake little nearshore vegetation remains. Sections could be restored and used as educational demonstrations for other property owners • Star Lake - Although most of the shoreline is developed, bulkheads are used minimally at Star Lake. This should be showcased and additional armoring should be discouraged. Property owners could also be further educated on the advantages of creating 15 to 20 - foot wide native vegetation buffers to protect the water quality at the lake. • Lake Dolloff - Since Lake Dolloff still has good riparian vegetation, it is important to maintain and enhance current practices. Through continued education these buffer zones may continue to be kept in a functional state. The floodplain boundaries should be used to keep development away from the shoreline. 28 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan • Lake Geneva - Along the eastern shoreline special consideration should be given to creating a conservation zone or strong development regulations. The steeper shoreline lends itself to tiered development which would greatly reduce the potential for recruitment of large woody debris. Currently, the mature trees along this area provide excellent habitat. • North Lake - Support Weyerhaeuser's continued maintenance of the large conservation area on the western shoreline. Continue to support the North Lake Steering Committee to promote lake stewardship activities. • Lake Killarney - Promote the importance of mature trees on properties, since most properties still contain multi -storied vegetation. The southern shoreline is moderately steep, however development is not yet tiered and should not be permitted. • Five Mile Lake - With bulkheads existing already along at least 50 percent of the shoreline, it is most important to limit any additional armoring of the shoreline. Property owners should also be educated about the importance of maintaining mature trees in the riparian area. As noted previously, the King County Shoreline Restoration Plan and other re ig�onal watershed and salmon recovery documents do not identifyspecific restoration actions on the City's lakes (for within City limits and within the City's PAA). quality and abitat; Use of soft sher-e anner-ing to r-eplaee hard existing bulkheads where feasible, -end Funding and Partnership Opportunities Funding opportunities for restoration projects include both grants and legislative funds administered by state agencies. For potential projects in Federal Way, the greatest likelihood to obtain funding will result from strategic partnering with King County and state and federal agencies. Targeting funding requests to sediment supply for nearshore habitats such as forage fish spawning enhancement or pocket estuary enhancement would fit well into the science and restoration plans/goals of the organizations listed below. A few of these programs and organizations most relevant to Federal Way are described below. Puget Sound Gt*on Team Partnership The Puget Sound Partnership is not a funding agency. However, Tthe state legislature has appropriated $33 million to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office for Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration projects and $7 million for the Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program projects, with project identification informed by the Puget Sound 29 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Partnership, Allocation of restoration funding is determined by the priorities identified in the 2020 Action Agenda Puget Sound Partnership 20082 state ageneies and univer-sity education pfegfams for- implefflenting the 2005 2007 Puget Seun Gensenwtien andReeeveFy Plan (PSAT-, 2005). Funding is alleeated by both pr-iotity area (e.g.—, habitat restoration (13 per-een4), stefmwater- (29 per-eent)) and state ageney (e.g., , NVDF ,3AIS U Extension,et). The Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program funds would be the best fit for marine nearshore opportunities in Federal Way Puget Sound Watershed Protection & Restoration Grant Program The Environmental Protection Agency through the Washington Department of Ecology is offering watershed grants to applicants within the 14 Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Planning Areas. These grants are in collaboration with the Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Puget Sound ^ e fien Team Partnership. Local governments, tribes, watershed entities and non-profit groups are eligible for these grants. The focus of the grants is to identify opportunities and barriers for the protection and restoration of water quality, water quantity, habitat protection and habitat restoration within the Puget Sound Basin. Salmon Recovery Fundina Board (SRFB With the listing of salmonid species under the Endangered Species Act in 1999, the Legislature created the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Composed of citizens appointed by the Governor and five state agency directors, the Board provides grant funds to protect or restore salmon habitat and assist related activities. It works closely with local watershed groups and has helped finance over 500 projects. The Salmon Recovery Funding Board awarded $7.1 million during the first five funding cycles for salmon habitat protection, restoration, and assessment projects in the Green/Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed (WRIA 9). In 2008, grants awarded in King County totaled approximately $1.5 million with a significant portion of the fundinggoing to WRIA 9 projects. These grants build on other funding sources such as the King County Conservation District and Waterways 2000. King County Conservation District The King Conservation District (KCD) is a non -regulatory natural resources assistance agency founded in 1949. The Conservation District is authorized by the State of Washington and guided by the Washington State Conservation Commission. The District promotes conservation through demonstration projects, educational events, providing technical assistance, and, in some cases, providing or pointing the way to funds that may be available for projects. The WRIA 9 Forum allocates approximately $634,000 in King Conservation District funds annually to support habitat protection and restoration projects, stewardship projects and programs, and essential technical assessments. The money comes from a countywide $5 per parcel assessment that funds the activities of the King Conservation District as well as projects through other watershed forums in King County. Beginning in 2005, the highest priority for WRIA 9 KCD funding is projects and programs that are informed by the watershed Habitat Plan and the Strategic Assessment, such as the pocket estuary restoration projects. 30 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan NOAA Communitv-Based Restoration Proaram NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service houses the Community -Based Restoration Program (CRP), begun in 1996. The Program promotes local efforts to conduct meaningful, on -the - ground restoration of marine, estuarine and riparian habitat. The Program provides seed money and technical expertise to address important fishery habitat concerns. Projects are developed by individual and civic organizations. NOAA solicits proposals for locally -driven habitat restoration projects and works closely with communities to aid their development and implementation. Successful projects result from significant local support, including citizens' hands-on involvement to implement the restoration projects. Following development of a restoration project, the "host" community subsequently monitors and maintains the site. This model promotes stewardship and a heightened appreciation for the environment. Federal Way Surface Water Management CIP The Federal Way Surface Water Management Capital Improvement Program funds projects through a combination of CIP funds and grants and/or funding partners for multi jurisdiction projects such as development of comprehensive basin plans. While the Surface Water Management Program is focused on freshwater resources, the City could consider adding a Puget Sound nearshore restoration component to its capital program. Funding sources would include grants and partnership opportunities. Other Possible Funding Sources 1. Coastal Protection Account — WA Department of Ecology 2. Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account — WA Department of Natural Resources 3. City Fish Passage Barrier, Stormwater and Habitat Restoration Grant Program - WA Department of Transportation 4. Five -Star Restoration Program - Environmental Protection Agency 5. Habitat Conservation - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program 6. Matching Aid to Restore States Habitat (MARSH) - Ducks Unlimited 7. Non -point Source Implementation Grant (319) Program - Environmental Protection Agency, WA State Department of Ecology 8. Pacific Grassroots Salmon Initiative - National Fish & Wildlife Foundation 9. Puget Sound Program - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 10. Puget Sound Wetland Restoration Program - Washington State Department of Ecology 11. Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 12. Section 206: Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Program - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) - Washington Department of Transportation 14. Washington State Ecosystems Conservation Program - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 15. Wetland Protection, Restoration, and Stewardship Discretionary Funding - Environmental Protection Agency 31 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Timelines and Benchmarks In the context of the SMP update, restoration planning is a long-term effort. As stated earlier, the SMP guidelines include the general goal that local master programs "include planning elements that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition of habitat and resources within the shoreline area" (WAC 173-26-201(c)). Asa long-range policy plan, it is difficult to establish meaningful timelines and measurable benchmarks in the SMP by which to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration planning or actions. Establishing timelines is further complicated by the fact that shoreline restoration is almost entirely dependant on grant funding, which is unpredictable at best. Nonetheless, the legislature has provided an overall timeframe for future amendments to the SMP. In 2003, Substitute Senate Bill 6012 amended the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.5 8.080) to establish an amendment schedule for all jurisdictions in the state. Once Federal Way amends its SMP, the City is required to review, and amend if necessary, its SMP once every seven years (RCW 90.58.080(4)). During this review period, the City should document progress toward achieving shoreline restoration goals. The review could include: • Re-evaluating adopted restoration goals, objectives, and policies; • Summarizing both planning efforts (including application for and securing grant funds) and on -the -ground actions undertaken in the interim to meet those goals; and Revising the SMP restoration planning element to reflect changes in priorities or objectives. Specific timelines for identified reach and site-specific restoration actions should be developed according to the general priorities described herein and emphasis should be given to areas with the greatest restoration potential A preliminary prioritization for identified general- and site- specific restoration actions is provided in Table 2 (Puget Sound shorelines) and Table 3 (all freshwater lake shorelines). To aid the City in developing an internal ranking system a preliminm qualitative (high medium, low) project ranking system is employed: High Priority Projects — typical components: • B"Erioritized by WRIA 9 salmon recovery plans and/or the criteria set forth in the Puget Sound Partnership's 2020 Action Agenda. • Address both process -based restoration and habitat ecosystem functions; • Have opportunity for multiple funding sources; • Include freshwater tributary channels; and/or • Not require additional property acquisition. Medium Priority Projects — typical components: 32 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan • Address only hydrologic or habitat ecosystem functions; and • Be eligible for multiple funding sources, and/or require property acquisition. Low Priority Projects — typical components: • Only focus on habitat enhancement; • Will be used as mitigation to offset impacts elsewhere; or • Not be eligible for multiple funding sources. This ranking system is applied in Tables 2 and 3 to the projects described in the previous section that have been proposed or initially identified to -date. Tables 2 and 3 also provide an assessment of the scale and potential length of time required to implement restoration projects. For each identified project, the tables identify whether the project is of a short term, medium term, or long term nature. As detailed restoration assessment and prioritization occurs, as consistent with this plan, the initial assessment of timelines should be re -focused to create detailed schedules and benchmarks for those actions and areas with the greatest restoration potential. Short term (approximately 1-3 years) restoration projects include those that could be implemented by local landowner and volunteers and that would benefit the areas most in need. These projects could be implemented in Puget Sound Reach 1B (within Dumas Bay) due to high potential for habitat benefits in areas where there are already publicly owned lands. Likewise, short term restoration efforts include habitat restoration and enhancement efforts in publically owned areas of the City's lake shorelines. These projects could be implemented in the near- term, depending on grant cycles and coordination with volunteer and community organizations. Medium term (approximately 3-5 years) restoration projects could include those that enhance Federal Way shorelines that have been designated or acquired previously. These could also be implemented in segment D where there are public access lands that are not likely to be developed in the near future. Long term (approximatelyyears) restoration projects could be those that require coordination with other jurisdictions or that cover larger land areas. These projects may be more difficult to implement and would likely require more planning and permitting. 33 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Table 2. Site Specific Restoration Prioritization and Timeline — Marine Shorelines Reach and L Reach 1 C: Shoreline to the west of Dumas Bay (see Map 3 — Point #11) Reach 1 C: Tributary mouth within Dash Point State Park (see Map 3 — Point #2 Reach 1 A: Shoreline to the east of Dumas Bay (see Map 3 Point #3) Reach 1 B: Tributary mouths within Dumas Bay (see Map 3 — Point M Reach 1A and 1B: Shorelands to the east of Dumas Bay (see Map 3 — Point #5 Reach 1A: Shoreline extending to the east of Dumas Bay (see Section Map 5 — Point #2) Conserve two extended sections of unarmored feeder bluffs with mature marine riparian vegetation Restore the tributary mouth and lower reach of Dash Point Creek. Conserve the extended section of unarmored feeder bluff with mature marine riparian vegetation Conserve and restore the tributary mouths and associated wetlands of Dumas Bay (emphasis on west -end streams and wetlands area J. Restore riparian vegetation on residential properties in the degraded shoreland areas. Removal of bulkhead on privately owned marine shoreline reach Point 2 Medium term (publically owned portion within Dash X Point State Park) ! Lona term (privately owned shoreline section) X I I I Lona term X I I I Lona term X I I I Lona term X I I I Lona term Each of these marine shoreline High Priority actions are specified by WRIA 9 planning documents as the highest priorities for restoration within the City's shoreline areas. However, no funding sources have been identified and no funding is ensured. In addition, the private ownership of many of the shoreline segments included will add to the complexity of imolementina the restoration actions. This Moderate Priority restoration action is located on a private residential shoreline. Coordination with individual Lona term property owners is freguently challenging, especially for bulkhead removal projects. No funding has been identified. 1 No "Low Priority" projects are currently identified The "Low Priority" category is retained for evaluation of additional restoration actions as they are identified in the future. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Reach ,ar►fi,Location Ik W Reach 1 B: Dumas Bay Removal of fill, bulkheads, and X nnY All proiects: Medium term These Moderate Priority restoration actions are located on private residential shoreline properties. Coordination with individual property and shoreline extending other derelict intertidal shoreline structures and restoration of shoreline between Poverty Bay to east — multiple opportunities (see Map 5 — Points #2 through 9) Park and the Dumas Bay Center owners is frequently challenging. However, it is likely that the removal (Points 2, 3, 4, 5) and restoration efforts could be implemented if funding sources were secured. Removal of bulkhead and invasive X Bulkhead removal: These Moderate Priorit ry restoration species from and restoration of Dumas Bay Center shoreline (Point Medium term Invasive species actions within Dumas Bay are all located on City owned and managed 6) removal: Short park and recreational lands. Public term ownership and the location within high - use areas create a unique opportunity Removal of creosote logs/piles in X Medium term to successfully implement restoration intertidal zone on east and west and educate the public. edges of Dumas Bay Park (Points 7and 9 Removal of invasive species within X Short term Dumas Bay _Park(Point 8) Reach 1 C: Shoreline extending to the west of Removal of fill, bulkheads, tires and X All proiects: Medium term These Moderate Priority restoration other derelict intertidal shoreline actions are located on private residential shoreline properties. with individual property Dumas Bay — multiple structures from privately owned opportunities (see Map 6 shoreline extending from theCoordination western edge of Dumas Bay to the — Points #10 through 18) owners is frequently challenging. However, it is likely that the removal eastern edge of Dash Point State Park (Points 10 through 16) efforts could be agreed to and implemented if funding sources were secured. Dash Point Creek within the State X — Lona Term Consistent with WRIA 9 identified High Park: Removal of riprap downstream of bridge, enhance Priority action / point #2. See discussion above. mini -estuary (Point 17) Dash Point State Park shoreline: X Medium term This Moderate Priority restoration action within the State Park is located Remove aprox. 50 creosote piles and failed creosote bulkhead (Point on managed park land. Public ownership and location within hiah-use 18 area creates a uni ue opEortunily to Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan � `^ .; =:fin-�-r '� .. p. ;..'.`.tee. �'^�' '" * � � n„.. �. � ��''; �.•� �'* .g, � � � �� s r. �*� , ?s�� ` c'� t;Z�tic�rr��.�:�,. �� '` s ��t � - � .s ��rt:..3. � a � ., was � z�i , , k- A9F+•,a :._ 4..... , � �� ;'?; '� d :��.: �` � � � r� ..; �' � i. -'. � +�` t #4 � §°�,�a�' ;. S. a:. r `` ✓r#fa.ba�� °"r q BSP t"x`�, .�;<, �:n� 'zr°S k '� a& � :iso- �=�"X�,�'�`•.• ,.« „`%�.`� ""�` -1 . successfully implement restoration and educate the public. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Table 3. Freshwater Restoration Prioritization and Timeline - Lake Shorelines Star Lake — Reach 3 (see Map 7) General action — Conserve natural X — Moderate term This Moderate Priority conservation (bulkhead free) shorelines on private properties and conserve action requires cooperation with private residential property owners. Coordination with individual property naturally vegetated shoreline areas. (Points 1 and 4) owners is freguently challenging; promoting voluntary conservation would be a short term step to initiate broader efforts. General action - Encourage buffer X Lona term This High Priority action requires restoration and enhancement on cooperation and coordination with private shoreline properties. Potential strategy could include private residential property owners. Coordination with individual property implementing buffer restoration on owners is frequently challenging; showcase properties. (Points 2 and identifying and promoting a showcase 3) property would be a moderate term step to initiate broader efforts. Steel Lake — Reach 2 (see Map 7) Site action — Protect lake outlet and X — Lona term This Hi-gh Priority conservation action associated natural shoreline (western shoreline — Point 5) requires cooperation with private property owners. Coordination with individual property owners is frequently challenging, however should be targeted for this high habitat, water quality, and hydrology value section of the lake shoreline. Site action — Conserve and restore X Medium term This Moderate Priority restoration action is located on managed park land. the Steel Lake Park shoreline with natural shoreline vegetation. (Point Public ownership and location within high -use area creates a unique opportunity to successfully implement restoration and educate the public. Lake Dolloff — Reach 4 (see Map 7) Site action — Protect natural shoreline segments and associated X Moderate term This Moderate Priority conservation action requires cooperation with private wetlands (Point 7 — multiple locations) residential property owners. Coordination with individual property owners is frequently challenging; consider promotion of voluntary actions to initiate broader efforts. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan .vLaka and ResoFr� � �nyerst ��ry�d �" S}ci c tA fi AW f1b .35 g it��at�o T-'�r �. ..Jy�W ♦ ;%`-' a°, �.� ��,� � �►�� .: ��,�< .� xi.,' s. General action - Encourage buffer X_ Moderate term This Moderate Priority action requires conservation and enhancement on cooperation and coordination with private shoreline properties. (Point private residential property owners. 8) Coordination with individual property owners is frequently challenging. Potential strategy could include incentives (such as promoting KC Property tax credits available for conservation). Lake Geneva— Reach 5 Site action — Conserve / protect X Short term (public This High Priority conservation action (see Map 7) lake shoreline along eastern shoreline, including areas in Lake could be implemented within the park shorelines) / Moderate term rivate shorelines) area in the near future. Conservation of Geneva Park (Point 14) private shoreline areas requires cooperation with property owners. Coordination with individual property owners is frequently challenging North Lake — Reach 6 Site action — Conserve / protect X Medium term This High Priority restoration action is (see Map 7) lake shoreline along western and located on undeveloped land under southern shorelines, entirely under private ownership. private ownership (Points 9 and 10) Lake Killarney — Reach 7 Site action — Encourage continued X Short term This High Priority conservation action Mai) (see Ma 7) conservation of mature shoreline has can build on existing practices and vegetation on lake's north and uses of these segments of privatel y owned shorelines. south shorelines (Point 11 — multiple locations) General action - Encourage buffer X Medium term This Moderate Priority conservation action requires cooperation with private conservation and enhancement on private shoreline properties, especially those shorelines with residential property owners. Coordination with individual property mature, multi -storied vegetation owners is frequently challenging; consider promotion of voluntary actions and steep shorelines (Points 12 and 13 to initiate broader efforts. Five Mile Lake — Reach 8 Site action — Conserve / protect X Moderate term This Moderate Priority restoration action is located on managed park land. (see Map 7) lake shoreline in Five Mile Lake Park (Point 15) Public ownership and location within high -use area creates a unique opportunity to successfully implement restoration and educate the public. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Integration of the Restoration Plan with the CIP Aflether- A mechanism that may serve to further investigate and identify restoration establi timelines and benchmarks would be establishment of a shoreline restoration program organized like or integrated with the City's capital improvement program (CIP). Similar to an infrastructure CIP, a shoreline restoration CIP would be evaluated and updated regularly. The CIP would be focused on site-specific projects and would be funded through grants. For example, funds could be dedicated to support bulkhead removal beach cleanup and riparian enhancements in the shoreline jurisdiction. Further, other CIP projects, such as stormwater facility improvements, could be evaluated to determine if their design could advance shoreline restoration goals. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Monitoring and Adaptive Management The SMP guidelines for restoration planning state that local programs should "...appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals" (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)). Phase 3 of the restoration framework described previously (based on Palmer et al, 2005) provides a general roadmap for assessing restoration actions and revising the approach to meeting restoration goals. It includes the following objectives: • Adaptively manage restoration projects; • Monitor post -restoration conditions; and • Use monitoring and maintenance results to inform future restoration activities. These core objectives have been expanded upon by regional entities focused on restoration such as the WRIA 9 Forum and the Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). Strategic principles and concepts intended to guide ecosystem recovery are expressed in guidance publications (PSNP, 2004) and the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan (WRIA 9, 2006). Relevant principles and concepts are very briefly summarized below: Restoration Principles. Restoration planning should be strategic and restoration design should be based on carefully developed goals and objectives. Follow-through, or monitoring, should be employed, including development of performance criteria and use of adaptive management in project development. Monitoring Principles. Three types of monitoring are defined: 1) implementation monitoring to track which potential programs and projects are carried out; 2) effectiveness monitoring to determine if habitat objectives of the program or project have been achieved on the ground; and 3) validation monitoring to confirm whether proposed restoration actions are achieving the overall goals and objectives for restoration citywide. Monitoring should be driven by specific questions, goals, and objectives and should be used as the basis for determining if restoration goals are being met. Monitoring should be long-term and interdisciplinary. Another component of monitoring is information management; data should be well documented and available to others. Adaptive Management Principles. Adaptive management is a process that uses research and monitoring to allow projects to proceed, despite inherent uncertainty and risk regarding its consequences. Adaptive management is best accomplished at a regional or watershed scale, but can be used at a project level to increase knowledge about ecosystems and how they respond to restoration actions. By ensuring that restoration efforts are planned and implemented using. key restoration and monitoring principles and that adaptive management principles are integrated into all restoration plans the City will ensure that the groundwork is in place for restoration success. As restoration efforts are implemented the City must monitor progress over time to verify that restoration objectives are achieved Additional efforts should be taken under the principles of adaptive management when determined necessary to meet restoration objectives. Monitoring reports for Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan individual restoration efforts should be assessed on a city-wide basis to determine restoration progress both temporally and geographically. The assessment of restoration progress should be compared to the restoration goals identified in this plan and in other restoration prioritization efforts City-wide assessments of restoration success could occur during the next SMP update — Lipdates are required to occur on a seven year cycle. 6.0 Conclusions Several watershed planning and restoration efforts are underway through the WRIA 9 and 10 forums and other Countywide and regional efforts. These existing programs provide a regional framework and priorities for shoreline restoration planning and implementation in the City of Federal Way. The City has been an active participant in these efforts and should continue to support WRIA projects designed to address watershed level restoration goals. Implementation of the identified restoration opportunities, both at the WRIA level and in the City, would advance the goals and objectives of restoration of shoreline functions in the City. Initial efforts will likely focus on pursuing funding through grant opportunities, especially for restoration projects within the coastal shorelines of Puget Sound. Less information is available for the City's lakes, which are also considered shorelines of the state. Restoration of the Federal Way's lake shorelines will be included in a citywide restoration program with the first step being an initial study to evaluate the preliminary restoration opportunities identified in this plan as well as additional restoration opportunities, and to assess project feasibility. Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan References Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Adolfson). 2005. City of Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. Prepared for the City of Federal Way. Seattle, Washington. City of Federal Way. 2005. 2005-2010 Capital Improvement Plan - Surface Water Management. Federal Way, Washington. Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. 2005. Inventory and Assessment of Current and Historic Beach Feeding Sources /Erosion and Accretion Areas for WRIAs 8 and 9, Appendix D: Restoration Potentials. Prepared for King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. Bellingham, Washington. Green / Duwamish and Central Puget Sound Watershed Water Resource Inventory Area 9 Steering Committee (WRIA 9). August 2005. Salmon Habitat Plan - Making Our Watershed Fit for a King. Prepared for the WRIA 9 Forum. Seattle, Washington. Puget Sound Action Team (P SAT). 2005. 2005-2007 Puget Sound Conservation and Recovery Plan. Olympia, Washington. Puget Sound Partnership. 2008. 2020 Action Agenda. Available online: http://www.psp.wa.gov/aa action agenda.php Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). 2002. Overview of Puget Sound Nearshore Project. Fact sheet available online: www.pugetsoundnearshore.org Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). 2003. Strategic Principles and Concepts. Fact sheet available online: www.pug_etsoundnearshore.org Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). 2004a. Guidance for Protection and Restorationof the Nearshore Ecosystems of Puget Sound. Technical Report 2004-02 available online: -A,w.pugetsoundnearshore.org Puget Sound Nearshore Project (PNSP). 2004b. Guiding Restoration Principles. Technical Report 2004-03 available online: www.pugetsoundnearshore.M United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 2000. Section 905(b) Analysis: General Investigation Reconnaissance Study, Puget Sound Nearshore, Washington. Seattle, Washington. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2004. Restoration Planning and the 2003 Shoreline Management Guidelines. Ecology Publication No. 04-06-022. Olympia, Washington. 4 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update — Restoration Plan Maps Map 1. Regional Context Map 2. Shoreline Planning Area Map I High Priority Restoration Opportunities — Puget Sound Shoreline Map 4. Site Specific Restoration Opportunities — Puget Sound West Map 5. Site Specific Restoration Opportunities — Dumas Bay Map 6. Site Specific Restoration Opportunities — Puget Sound East Map 7. Lake Restoration Opportunities Map 1 Federal Way Shoreline Management Plan Regional Context Legend =WIRA9 & 10 City of Federal Way Other Incorporated Area Map Source: City of Federal Way, King County Map Date: May, 2006 Revision Date: September, 2009 City of Federal Way 33325 8th Ave S, PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com 0 2.5 5 Miles N CITY of Federal Way � This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. � /ent Map 2 cl-Des �d f^ tar Federal Way Shoreline a Master Program s o u n dShoreline 288th St g e t =Planning Area s Federal Way Potential Fedet'al _ Annexation Area rty Way ; wea .�--- General Legend: Shorelines: Park h t 3 4 h St o '�-Streams Shoreline e�elo�ed� ❑ Planning Area Duma say a —� y �� Ltgk l a' Lakp � ❑ Federal Way Puget Sound Say Pa Mre SW 2� S �1 st N DoClo Federal Way East Mirror I! �1<, Aubu potential Puget Sound - Lake Par Annexation Area o st 2d h' St-, { 2 t s Dumas Bay 0 3 _ ®Unincorporated Puget Sound p a 3 Area S 324 St NOYt ' (DWest � r Lake - Other it ❑Incorporated Area © Steel Lake rt� - T ---� d / a y S 4 [:]sw carry o Surface Water © Star Lake cn s r Park c !. Pa �e Parks Lake Dolloff �> s Ta onla _ iQ ■Open Space © Lake Geneva L n tLake 0 North Lake a Lalfe Gene v Map Source: City of Federal Way, O Lake Killarney u, IN 356 Killarn y Federal Why Potential King County Annexation Area o Five Mile Lake 3 � �� ■ 3 `� Five Mile Scale: r Lake 0 0.5 1 Mile City of Federal Way ? 9 Mile Lake Park 33325 8th Ave S Unincorporated N PO Box 9718 Mayne King-County Map Date: 05/2006 Federal Way, WA 98063 orT wo Revision Date: 09/2009 (253) 835-7000 Unincorporated i I � Tro t Pierce County J La p V / ` r CITY OF -� Milton g * Federal Way Edgewooa This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply FI a ---� a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on the web: www.cityoffederalway.com erike\cd\Proaects\ShorelineManaaementPl;nWar)s\2009\mar)2.mxd Map 3 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program High Priority Restoration Opportunities Puget Sound Shoreline Legend: Streams City Limits County Boundary E]Shoreline Planning Area ,Restoratioin Bluffs Conservation Bluffs Map Source: City of Federal Way, King County, Coastal Geologic Services Map Date: 05/2006 Revision Date: 09/2009 Aerial Image Date: 07/2007 Scale: City of Federal Way 1 inch = 1,650 feet 33325 8th Ave S, 0 500 1,000 1A PO Box 9718, i N Federal Way, WA 98063 � Feet (253) 835-7000 Map Date: 12/2006 www.cilyoffederamW.com CITY OF Federal Way This map Is accompanied by no warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. ql Y� ry € ..pV rxri CD LA 4 � 1 11 AVSVV 11.AVSVtV•.i 10 4. R Il\J >'vV -Vv,t. �x y' - `r `� 2 :ti �W.m ! A'' - � 7 n>' n� i�ro(A�JSW . j t ti. v n 1V 1,N U> �> rn �� F3 /"V A ;VV 6 A _r _ 'i N Yii i. 1�KV SVv iv i 02 , Sohl :y+ i33fVV 5 ' ,R t :• � � , 2f'l � J 3AV5W` + SVS i of . s :� L L LcStl� bc cn Rh N/a, v AV .>U,." -2 AV SVV AV la " .tn av S > 2lkv -,vv 1AVS - «7 1lF1.. 2 c _ ♦ v .r Legend: ON.o Streams ® Wetlands Open Space Parks City Limits L3 Map Date: 05/2006 Revision Date: 09/2009 Photo Date: 07/2007 *Streams and Wetlands were identified in a 1998 City of Federal Way survey. Map Source: City of Federal Way, King County, Coastal Geologic Services Puget m m L R SoundJ Dumas Bay Map 5 Federal Way Shoreline W Master Program U C Site Specific d Restoration Opportunities Dumas Bay Opportunities Legend: ©over Remove fill and bulkhead intertidal © Remove concrete footings of derelict boat ramp Remove boulders, contrete 0 from boat house acting as groin © Remove concrete rubble 0species Remove bulkhead, invasive from park 0 Remove creosote logs 0 Remove japanese knotweed O Remove aprox. 20 creosote piles Remove creosote (dolphin washed ashore) Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead 0 Remove decaying barge, creosote dolphins ® Remove tires buried in sediment Remove tires buried in sediment ® Remove tires buried in sediment Scale: City of Federal Way 1 inch = 1,000 feel 33325 8th Ave S, 0 250 500 PO Dox 9718, N Federal Way, WA 98063 Feet (253)835.7000 n Map Date: May, 2008 www.cityoffederalway.com f•.f�DERAI � CITY OF WAY Federal Way Vicinity Map This map is accompanied by no warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. Legend: 'ti Streams ®Wetlands Open Space Parks City Limits Map 6 Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Site Specific odor o`'ca Restoration Opportunities Puget Sound West Puget Opportunities Legend: O Remove aprox. 20 creosote ,] Sound piles t • Remove creosote (dolphin washed ashore) Remove creosote soldier pile bulkhead ®Remove decaying barge, creosote dolphins Remove tires buried in ® sediment Remove tires buried in sediment • Remove tires buried in ® sediment . • Remove 14 cresote piles Remove riprap downstream of bridge, enhance ' mini -estuary Remove aprox. 50 creosote ® piles and failed creosote bulkhead Map Date: 05/2006 " Revision Date: 09/2009 Photo Date: 07/2007 *Streams and Wetlands were identified in a 1998 City of Federal Way survey. Map Source: City of Federal Way, King County, Coastal Geologic Services Scale: City of Federal Way • I inch= 1,000 feet 33325 6th Ave S, 0 250 500 PO Box 9718, N Federal Way, WA 98063 Feet (253) 835-7000 Map Date: May, 2006 www.cityoffederalway.com EDERAL WAY CITY OF AFederal / Vicinity Way Map This map is accompanied by no warranties, and is s,mpty a graphic representation. s 27and St Map 7 Federal Way Shoreline - Star Lake Master Program I Lake Restoration a Opportunities o S 288th St 1 Federal Way Legend Ns Potential Annexation Area Open Space Parks 'r Camelot Park L... �_�__ �_. __. ; Wetlands ti Protection Opportunity I ti Restoration Opportunity �3 th St fir- i rn y Other Location-Specific Action Q(Star Lake - General) Limit additional Steel © I bulkheads Lake © (Star Lake -General) Encourage Buffers 2th St N Dolloff (Star Lake - General) Showcase properties with 15-20' wide native vegetation buffers - - ; ParkY O (Star Lake -General) Encourage continued protection where native vegetation exists S 32' S© (Steel Lake) rn ; Protect outlet and natural shoreline >' Q (Steel Lake) Restoration potential 3 = S 324'h St8' } Unincorporated O (Lake Dollof) Protection Opportunity King county © (Lake Dollof) Encourage acontinued use of vegetation buffers North .p 0 (North Lake) Protection Opportunity Lake 0' (North Lake) Possible protection of south end of lake S 36th S (Lake Killamey) Continuation of protection activities �j (Lake Killarney) Encourage protection ► of multi-storyied vegetation ]1 M ® (Lake Killarney - General) Encourage native Q vegetation o; w enev (Lake Geneva) Protection area due co ark to native shoreline and steep shoreline Lake ® (Five Mile Lake) Protection Opportunity Geneva i ® Map Source: EnviroVision Corporation t Lake SOUth Map Date: 05/2006 Killa'1 County Revision Date: 09/2009 Federal Wa Potential BallfieldS Scale: City of Federal Way LWay 0 0.25 0.5 Mile 33325 8th Ave S J isa Annexation Area a PO Box 9718 N Federal Way, WA 98063 N Map Date: May, 2006 (253) 835-7000 > ® Unincorporated CITY of King County Federal Way Five a Mile ` t Mile ake Park This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply r0 Lake a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on $� the web: www.cityoffederalway.com erike\rd\Proiects\ShorelineMananementPlan\Maos\2009\Mao7.mxd __ -� Map 8 Des- d St Kent Moin - 1410 star Federal Way Shoreline "Lake Master Program S o u n d 2NOi t Parcels Identified for g e t Federal Way Redevlopment p Potential 1 "Federal Annexation Area Way 1 mea t — - • a General Legend: Parcel Legend: eevae Ped) a V - Streams Parcels with an Du Bay Pae Lake Lake Doldoff Federal Way improvement ■value to land sws �� Mirror Ci ) h St N AUbU Federal Way Potential value ratio less than 0.5 Lake a -' Pa Annexation Area st w3z6tn'st ' Parcels that can p ' J z Unincorporated E]Area be subdivided ■ into more than a q s N --- _ ` d 324St y Lart _ Other Incorporated Area 2.5 lots. Parcels that ' o !' Surface Water meet both ■criteria SWCa t Sag G i P ke Park 8r_ l C2 Parks Map Source: > City of Federal Way, soma O a, i -------- '�p Open Space ce �I County g n C n I h Iro Note: m l Lake Redevelopable parcels were identified from the 2006 City _ Gen a of Federal Way capacity analysis of buildable lands. A Lake I Parcel is considered to be redevelopable if it meets any W Killarn Federal l ay Potential of the following criteria: 1. The parcel has an improvement j Annexation Area value to land value ratio of less than 0.5. 2. The parcel 3 ' � can be subdivided into more than 2.5 lots. r ¢ ; Five Mile Scale: rJ a Lake 0 0.5 1 Mile City of Federal Way Mile Lake Park/1 Unincorporated � 33325 8th Ave S N PO Box 9718 I<ing.Counry Map Date: 05/2006 Federal Way, WA 98063 w� Tro t Revision Date: 09/2009 (253) 835-7000 Unincorporated , I Pierce County La P ` CITY OF R"Federal Wa -' „sem 0 � Milton � � � 1� y Edgew,q This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply 1" a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on ih r IineMana ementPl nWla \2009\Ma 8.mxd the web: www.cityoffederalway.Com Section 7 Definitions Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions based on Department of Ecology review and comment are indicated as follows: Additions are indicated with underline and deletions are indicated with str-ilethr-eu text. SECTION 7 - SMP DEFINITIONS Act Act means chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, as amended. Amendment Amendment means a revision, update, addition, deletion, and/or reenactment to the Federal Way SMP. Aquaculture Aquaculture is the farming or culturing of food fish, shellfish or other aquatic plants and animals in streams, inlets and other natural or artificial water bodies. Activities include the hatching, cultivating, planting, feeding, raising and harvesting of aquatic plants and animals and the maintenance and construction of necessary equipment, buildings, and growing areas. Cultivation methods include but are not limited to fish pens, fish traps or other similar apparatuses. Averagerg ade Average grade level means, for structure n land the average of the natural or level existing topography of the portion of , parcel, or tract of real property which will be directly under the proposed bui r structure. the case of structures to be built over the water, average grade level e the ele of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Calculation of the average eve a made by averaging the ground elevations at the midpoint of all exterior proposed building or structure. Backshore Backshore means a berm, together with associ arshes or meadows, on marine shores landward of the ordinary high water mark is normally above high tide level and has been gradually built up by accretion. Bank Bank meor slope at the edge of a body of water or water course. Beach , ns the artificial replenishing of a beach by delivery of materials B,oanse nourishment dr ewhere. Berm Ber of mounded earth or rock. Boating Facility 4consisting Boatin ns a facih cture providing access in and out of the water for Breakwater Breakwater means an off -shore structure, either floating or not, which may or may not be connected to the shore, such structure being designed to absorb and/or reflect back into the water body the energy of the waves. Bulkhead Bulkhead means a wall, seawall, embankment or other structure erected at or near the OHWM and roughly parallel to the shoreline that retains or prevents sliding or erosion of land or protects land from wave or current action. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comm ent/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 2 of 13 Bluff Bluff means a steep slope, which abuts and rises from Puget Sound. Bluffs contain slopes predominantly in excess of 40 percent, although portions may be less than 40 percent. The toe of the bluff is the beach of Puget Sound. The top of a bluff is typically a distinct line where the slope abruptly levels out. Where there is no distinct break in slope, the slope is either the line of vegetation separating the unvegetated slope from the vegetated uplands plateau or, when the bluff is vegetated, the point where the bluff slope diminishes to less than 15 percent. Commercial Use uses permitted in the commercial enterprise zone. Conditional use Conditional use means a use, development, or su elopment which is classified as a shoreline conditional use or is no sified the SMP. Critical Critical salmonid habitats means habitats that are used by Paci 1 onid species that salmonid migrate between fresh water and salt water during their life cycle. habitats habitats include: 1. Gravel bottomed streams used for spawning; as sandy beaches and eelgra; 5. Pocket estuaries inc: with salt water and provides All saltwater shorelines in Department indicates otherwise. mou eltas where fresh water mixes tat for iuvenile salmonids. Way are critical salmonid habitats. ment means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of stru dredging; drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkhe driving of piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or tempora re which interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying I subject to the SMA (RCW 90.58) at any state of water level. Development evelopme lations means the controls placed on development or land uses by a regulations my or ncluding, but not limited to, zoning ordinances, critical areas ordinances, a shoreline master program other than goals and policies approved or ado der chapter 90.58 RCW, planned unit development ordinances, subdivision ordina es, and binding site plan ordinances together with any amendments thereto. Dock Dock means all platform structures in or floating upon water bodies and connected to land to provide moorage or landing for waterborne pleasure craft d/ water- depende ti Dredging Dredging means the removal of earth from the bottom of a stream, marine water body, lake or other water body for the purposes of deepening and/or maintaining a navigational channel. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 3 of 13 Drift cell, drift Drift cell (also referred to as "drift sector" or "littoral cell") means a particular reach of sector, or littoral marine shore in which littoral drift may occur without significant interruption and which cell contains any natural sources of such drift and also accretion shore forms created by such drift. Ecological Ecological functions or shoreline functions means work performed or the role played by functions or the physical, chemical, and biological processes that contribute to the maintenance of the shoreline aquatic and terrestrial environments that constitute the shoreline's natural ecosystem. See functions WAC 173-26-200(2)(c). Ecosystem -wide Ecosystem -wide processes means the suite of naturally occurring physical and geologic processes processes of erosion, transport, and deposition; and specific chemical processes that shape landforms within a specific shoreline ecosystem and determine both the types of habitat and the associated ecological functi Exempt Exempt developments are those seA AC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030 (Exemptions) (3)(e), 90.58.140(9), 90.58.147, 90, and 90.58. 15 which are not required to obtain a substantial development put which therwise comply with applicable provisions of the Shorele t and the ci 's local master program. Extreme low Extreme low tide means the lowest line on thelVhed by a receding tide. tide (a) The action caccomplished with technologies and methods that have been used in the past in Simi circumstances, or studies or tests have demonstrated in similar circumstances that such approaches are currently available and likely to achieve the intended results; (b) The action provides a reasonable likelihood of achieving its intended purpose; and (c) The action does not physically preclude achieving the project's primary intended legal use. In cases where these guidelines require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is on the applicant. In determining an action's infeasibility, the reviewing agency may weigh the action's relative public costs and public benefits, considered in the short- and long-term time frames. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 4 of 13 Fill Fill means the addition of soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, earth retaining structure, or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM, in wetlands, or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Float Float means a structure or device which is not a breakwater and which is moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in the waters of Federal Way, and which is not connected to the shoreline. Flood plain Flood plain is synonymous with one hundred -year flood plain and means that land area susceptible to inundation with a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The limit of this area shall be based upon flood ordinance regulation maps or a reasonable method which meets the objectives of the Act. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 5 of 13 Geologically Geologically hazardous areas means areas which because of their susceptibility to hazardous areas erosion, land -sliding, seismic or other geological events are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. Geologically hazardous areas include the following areas: (1) Erosion hazard areas are those areas having a severe to very severe erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow. (2) Landslide hazard areas are those areas potentially sub' episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including, but not to, the following areas: a. Any area with a combination of: 1. Slopes greater than 15 percent; 2. Permeable sediment, predominately sand and gravel, over elatively impermeable sediment or bedrock, typically silt and clay; and 3. Springs or groundwater seepage. b. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years ago to the present, or wilftgunderlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comm ent/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 6 of 13 Geotechnical Geotechnical report or geotechnical analysis means a scientific study or evaluation report or conducted by a qualified expert that includes a description of the ground and surface geotechnical hydrology and geology, the affected land form and its susceptibility to mass wasting, analysis erosion, and other geologic hazards or processes, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of the proposed development on geologic conditions, the adequacy of the site to be developed, the impacts of the proposed development, alternative approaches to the proposed development, and measures to mitigate potential site-specific and cumulative geological and hydrological impacts of the proposed development, including the potential adverse impacts to adjacent and down -current properties. Geotechnical reports shall conform to accepted technical standards and must be prepared by qualified professional engineers or geologists who have professional expertise about the regional and local shoreline geology and processes. Gradin Grading means the movement or redistrib f the soil, sand, rock, gravel, sediment, or other material on a site in a manner t rs the natural contour of the land. Groin Groin means a barrier type struc nding from t backshore into the water across the beach. The purpose of a groin is rrupt se movement along the shore. Hearings Board Hearings Board means the shoreline hea established by the SMA. Height Height is measured from average grade level t ighest point of a structure: Provided, that television antennas, chimneys, and similar ap ances shall not be used in calculating height, except where such appurtenances ct the view of the shoreline of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining s shorelines, or the applicable master pr ifically requires that such appurtenances be included: Provided further emp construction equipment is excluded in this calculation J� J ans an artifi barrier used to change the natural littoral drift to protect inlet Land-a•.v� en from clo by excess sediment. Lam , , awnand- Landslide ex-san at -on and filling—, Landslide mean isodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock that includes but is not limited to alls, slumps, mudflows, and earthflows. Littoral drift Littoral drift means the natural movement of sediment along marine or lake shorelines by wave action in response to prevailing winds. Lot Lot means a parcel of land having fixed boundaries described by reference to a recorded plat, by reference to metes and bounds, or by reference to section, township and range. Marine Marine means pertaining to tidally influenced waters, including Puget Sound and the bays, estuaries and inlets associated therewith. Master program Master program means the comprehensive use plan for a described area, and the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive material and text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the policies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 7 of 13 Major stream Major stream means any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports, resident or migratory fish. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the upstream movement of anadromous salmonid fish, then that portion of the stream which is downstream of the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a major stream. Minor stream Minor stream means any stream that does not meet the definition of "major stream." Mooring buoys means a floating object anchored to the bottom of a water body that MooringBuoys uoys provides tie ap capabilities for vessels. Native shoreline Native shoreline vegetation means trees, shrubs and other plant species that are vegetation indigenous to a specific area or region. Plants native to western Washington are referenced in Flora of the Pacific Northwest itchcock and Cronquist). Ornamental landscaping and invasive species shall not sidered native shoreline vegetation. Natural or Natural or existing topography means pography of the lot, parcel, or tract of real existin property immediately prior to any paration or grading, including excavating or topography filling. Non -water- No er-oriente s means those uses that are not water -dependent, water -related or oriented uses water- e little or no relationship to the shoreline and are not consider ses I I . Examples include professional offices, obile or repair shops, i -storage facilities, multifamily residential de ent, ent stores, and gas stations. Normal enanNudes interior and exterior repairs and incidental alterations. Normal m anepair may include, but is not limited to, painting, roof repair and replace , plumbing, wiring and electrical systems, mechanical equipment replacement weatherization. Incidental alterations may include construction of bea' n s or partitions. Ordinary High O gh Water Mark (OHWM) means the mark on all lakes, streams and tidal Water Mark Ovate at will be found by examining the beds and banks and ascertaining where the OHWM presence and action of waters are so common and usual and so long continued in all ordinary years as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation, as that condition existed on June 1, 1971, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the Department of Ecology. In any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining saltwater shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoining freshwater shall be the line of mean high water. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 8 of 13 Permit Permit means any substantial development, variance, conditional use permit, or revision authorized under chapter 90.58 RCW. Pier Pier means any fixed platform structure upon water bodies that is supported by piles and connected to land rublie r Prima Primary structure means the structure associated with the pal use of the property. structure If more than one structure is associated with the princi of the property, the one with the highest value shall be considered the prima cture. Public access means the general public's abili t touch and enio the Public Access water's edge) and use the State's public waters ater/1 terface and associated • Comparatively high fish or wi e density; • Comparatively high fish or wil species diversity; • Fish spawning habitat; • Important wildlife habitat; !-kfish or wildlife seasonal range; fish or wildlife movement corridor; nd foraging habitat; marine mammal haul -out; • Limited ilability; • High ability to habitat alteration; �Un i dependent species; or bed. A prio ty habitat may be described by a unique vegetation type or by a dominant plant species that is of primary importance to fish and wildlife (such as oak woodlands or eelgrass meadows). A priority habitat may also be described by a successional stage (such as, old growth and mature forests). Alternatively, a priority habitat may consist of a specific habitat element (such as a consolidated marine/estuarine shoreline, talus slopes, caves, snags) of key value to fish and wildlife. A priority habitat may contain priority and/or nonpriority fish and wildlife. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 9 of 13 Priority Species Priority species means species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their persistence at genetically viable population levels. Priority species are those that meet any of the criteria listed below. (a) Criterion 1. State -listed or state proposed species. State -listed species are those native fish and wildlife species legally designated as endangered (WAC 232-12-014), threatened (WAC 232-12-011), or sensitive (WAC 232-12-011). State proposed species are those fish and wildlife species that will be reviewed by the department of fish and wildlife (POL-M-6001) for possible listing as endangered, threatened, or sensitive according to the process and criteria defined in WAC 232-12-297. (b) Criterion 2. Vulnerable aggregations. Vulnerable aggregations include those species or groups of animals susceptible to significa opulation declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue of their inclination gregate. Examples include heron colonies, seabird concentrations, and ammal congregations. (c) Criterion 3. Species of recreati ommercial, or tribal importance. Native and nonnative fish, shellfish, and wildlife%s s of r onal or commercial importance and recognized species used for tribal ce subsistence purposes that are vulnerable to habitat loss or degradation. (d) Criterion 4. Species listed under the federal proposed, threatened, or endangered. Provisions Provisions olicies, regulations, standards, Species Act as either criteria, or environmental Public access Pu cess means public's ability to get to and use the State's public waters, the w nd interfac associated public shoreline area. Public interest Public t ed by the citizens of the state or community at large in th of governin ome interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected incl but not limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare ng from a use or development; Recreational devel t means commercial and public facilities designed and used to Recreational provide recreational OfffitLunities to the public., Development Replacement structure means the construction of a new structure to perform the same Replacement function as an existing structure that can no loser adequately serve its purpose. Structure Additions to or increases in size of existing structures shall not be considered replacement structures. Residential development means developments and occupancy in which persons sleep and Residential prepare food other than developments used for transient occupancy. Residential Development development includes the creation of new residential lots through subdivision of land. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 10 of 13 Restore, Restoration means, in the context of "ecological restoration," the reestablishment or restoration, or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be ecological accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of restoration intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre - European settlement conditions. Riprap Riprap means a layer, facing or protective mound of angular stones randomly placed to prevent erosion, scour or sloughing of a structure or embankment; also, the stone so used. Shall means a mandate; the action must be done. Shall Shorelands Shorelands, also referred to as "shoreland a " means those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as ed on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and cont' floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all wed d river delta associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are su o the pro of this chapter; the same to be designated as to location by the Depa of Shoreline Shoreline administrator means the Director epartment of Community administrator Development or his or her designee and is resp le for administering the Federal Way SMP. Shoreline Shoreline environment designation means the categori shorelines of the state environment established by the city of Federal Way shoreline management master program to designation differentiate between areas whose features imply differing objectives regarding their use and future development. Shoreline Shoreline jurisdiction means all "shorelines of the state" and "shorelands" as defined in jurisdiction the Federal Way SMP and RCW 90.58.030. Shoreline eline Master Program (SMP) means the comprehensive use plan for a describe Proara a the use regulations together with maps, diagrams, charts, or other descriptive mate d text, a statement of desired goals, and standards developed in accordance with the ies enunciated in RCW 90.58.020. Shoreline Shoreline m ications means those actions that modify the physical configuration or modification qualities of t horeline area, usually through the construction of a physical element ch as a d reakwater, pier, weir, dredged basin, fill, bulkhead, or other shoreline ture can include other actions, such as clearing, grading, or application of c Shor stabilization means structural and nonstructural actions taken to address Shoreline erosion impacts to property, dwellings, businesses, or structures caused by natural stabilization shoreline processes such as currents, floods, tides, wind or wave action. Expansion or enlargement of existing stabilization measures is considered new stabilization. Shoreline Shoreline variance is a means to grant relief from the specific bulk, dimensional or Variance performance standards in the local SMP, but not a means to vary a "use" of a shoreline. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 11 of 13 Shorelines Shorelines means all of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; except (i) shorelines of statewide significance; (ii) shorelines on segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands associated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shorelines on lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with such small lakes. Shorelines of et Shorelines of Statewide Significance means those areas of et Sound in the City of Statewide Federal Way lying seaward from the line of extreme low Significance Shorelines of the Shorelines of the state means the total of all "sho "shorelines of statewide State significance" within the City of Federal Way. Should means that the articular action is re uired unless ther emonstrated Should compelling reason based on policyof the Shoreline Mana nd this title against taking the action. SMA SMA means the Shoreline Management Act. SMP SMP means the Shoreline Master Program. Soft -shore bank Soft -shore bank stabil1 s the use of bioengineering or biotechnical bank stabilization stabilization measures w , logs, rock and beach nourishment are used to address erosion control an e s Strin Ig ine Stringline setback means a s t li the points on the primary setback structures having the greatest p waterwar the two adjacent properties. If one of the adjacent properties is proved the line shall be drawn to the point of the standard shoreline setback at the s roperty line of the unimproved lot. Structure Structure means a permanent or temp edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts j ned together in some definite manner, whether led on, above, or below the surface of the ground or water, except for vessels. Subst Subs accessory structure means non -primary structures equal to or larger than 400 Acc square d in good repair. Struc Substantial Substantial lopment means any development of which the total cost or fair market Development lue excee e thousand dollars, or any development which materially interferes with orm is use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold must be a inflation by the office of financial management every five years, beginning July 7, based upon changes in the consumer price index during that time period. Consumer price index means, for any calendar year, that year's annual average consumer price index, Seattle, Washington area, for urban wage earners and clerical workers, all items, compiled by the bureau of labor and statistics, United States department of labor. The office of financial management must calculate the new dollar threshold and transmit it to the office of the code reviser for publication in the Washington State Register at least one month before the new dollar threshold is to take effect. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 12 of 13 Substantially Substantially degrade means to cause significant ecological impact. degrade Vegetation conservation area means an upland area adjacent to the ordinary high water Vegetation mark or top of bluff where existing native vegetation and native trees shall be retained Conservation per the requirements of the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program. The width of the Area vegetation conservation area is consistent with setback requirements for specific uses and shoreline environment designations. A pr-eteeted area adjaeent to mafine waters -- fr-eshwater- lakes within the sher-eli Vessel inflcaenee eaeh other Vegetation in this o is to be generally eenselwed to pr -et eeelegieal F„ et', of the sho -eli e Vessel means ineludes-ships, boats, barges y other floating craft which are designed and used for navigation and do not inte lth the normal public use of the water. Water quality Water quality means the physical eristics of w er within shoreline jurisdiction, including water quantity, hydrologi sical, c 1, aesthetic, recreation -related, and biological characteristics. Where u th' er, the term "water quantity" refers only to development and uses regu this chapter and affecting water quantity, such as impermeable surfaces and water handling practices. Water quantity, for purposes of this chapter, does not he withdrawal of ground water or diversion of surface water pursuant to RCW 90.03. ough 90.03.340. Water- Water-depen t use means a use or portion of a use w cannot exist in a location that dependent use is not ad' water and which is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature opera Water- njoyment us ans a recreational use or other use that facilitates public access enjoyment use to t reline as. characteristic of the use; or a use that provides for recrea us ent of the shoreline for a substantial number of people as character use and which through location, design, and operation en the public's ability to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In or qualify as a water -enjoyment use, the use must be open to the general public an horeline-oriented space within the project must be devoted to the specific aspects of th that fosters shoreline enjoyment. Water -oriented Water -oriented use means a use that is water -dependent, water -related, or water - use enjoyment, or a combination of such uses. Water -related Water -related use means a use or portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on use a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: (a) The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or (b) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water -dependent uses and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 City of Federal Way SMP Definitions Page 13 of 13 Wetlands Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands. Passed by Resolution 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions per Department of Ecology Comment/Corrections, July, 2010 • • Appendix A Cumulative Impacts Analysis Passed by Resolution No 07-500 on June 5, 2007 Revisions based on Department of Ecology review and comment are indicated as follows: Additions are indicated with underline and deletions are indicated with str-iledwough text. ES1 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW „Adolfson Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax memorandum date May 24, 2010, Revision of January 15, 2007 version (revised by Planning Staff June 16, 2010) to Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager from Aaron Booy and Teresa Vanderburg subject Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update - Cumulative Impacts Analysis mm.adolfson.corn The purpose of this memo is to assess the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development in the shoreline that would result from development and activities over time under the proposed City of Federal Way SMP. Under the shoreline guidelines, local jurisdictions are required to evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development in the shorelines of the state (WAC 17-26-186(8)(d)). Current conditions, foreseeable future development, and beneficial effects of other established regulatory programs are identified and must be discussed. For the City of Federal Way, shorelines of the state include 4.8 miles of Puget Sound shoreline in the City limits and 12.1 miles of freshwater lake shoreline within both the City limits and the City's potential annexation area (PAA). The state's objective in evaluating potential cumulative impacts is to insure that, when implemented over time, the proposed SMP goals, policies and regulations will achieve no net loss of ecological functions from current "baseline" conditions. Baseline conditions are identified and described in the City of Federal Way Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (Draft) dated August 1, 2006. The proposed Federal Way SMP provides procedures to evaluate individual actions for their potential to impact shoreline resources on a case-by-case basis. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if impacts to shoreline ecological functions are likely to result from the aggregate of activities and developments in the shoreline that take place over time. The guidelines state that, "to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts among development opportunities. Evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider: • Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes; • Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline; and Page 1 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis • Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws."1 This cumulative impacts assessment uses these three considerations as a framework for evaluating the potential long-term impacts on shoreline ecological functions and processes that may result from development or activities under the proposed SMP over time. Current Shoreline Condition As part of the City's SMP update process, a shoreline inventory and map folio was prepared in the spring and summer of 2006. The Shoreline Inventory and Characterization identifies existing conditions and evaluates the ecological functions and processes in the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The inventory included all shoreline areas within the City of Federal Way, as well as those found in the Potential Annexation Area (PAA), east of the city limits. The City has two main types of water bodies that are regulated under the City's SMP: marine coastal shorelines of Puget Sound and freshwater lakes over.20 acres in size. The Puget Sound marine coastal shoreline is designated a "shoreline of statewide significance." The freshwater lakes under SMA regulation within the city are Steel take, North Lake and the - northwestern shore of Lake Killarney. Further, the City of Federal Way has identified an area largely to the east of the City and east of the Interstate 5 corridor for future annexation. This area is referred to as the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Lakes subject to SMA regulation located within the City's PAA include Star Lake, Lake Dolloff, Lake Geneva, Five Mile Lake and the remaining portions of Lake Killarney. The freshwater lakes are all designated as "shorelines of the state." Lakes or portions thereof in the PAA are currently regulated under the King County SMP. There are no rivers or streams in Federal Way or its PAA that meet the definition of shorelines of the state. The City of Federal Way encompasses 16.9 miles of shoreline area, including those areas within the PAA. Of this total, an estimated 4.8 miles of shoreline is located along the Puget Sound marine coastline. The remaining shoreline (12.1 miles) is located along freshwater lakes. Key findings of the inventory and characterization are summarized below. Watershed Context The City of Federal Way is located within two watersheds or Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) - the Duwamish-Green River WRIA 9 and the Puyallup -White River WRIA 10. The marine coastal areas of Puget Sound within the city as well as Steel Lake and Star Lake and Lake Dolloff in the city's PAA are addressed as part of WRIA 9. Lands within the City that drain to the Puget Sound to the west, and to Mill Creek and the lower Green River to the east lie within the WRIA 9 watershed. This includes the northern portions of the City and the PAA. The majority of the Federal Way area lies within WRIA 10 and drains to either the White River or to Hylebos Creek. North Lake, Lake Geneva, Lake Killarney and Five Mile Lake are located within this watershed. These lands drain to the south. The White River flows to the Puyallup River before entering Puget Sound at Commencement Bay. The Hylebos flows to the south into Tacoma and enters the Hylebos Waterway at Commencement Bay. 1 WAC 173-26-186(8)(d) Page 2 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis Physical and Biological Bluffs, beaches, bays, and the mouths of several freshwater streams characterize the City's coastal / nearshore shoreline (Characterization Figures 3, 7, 9(full set), and 11 (full set)). Approximately 40 percent of the City's coastal shoreline has been modified with riprap, concrete or wooden bulkheads (Characterization Figures 11 a though 11 c). Structures in the shoreline can limit the amount of sediment transported from upland areas to the beach, and are known to cause erosion and loss of some habitats such as sand and fine gravel beaches. Currents naturally move sediments across the beach and alongshore in continual cycles, but these structures interrupt the natural supply and distribution of sediments, causing a change in sediment composition within the nearshore area. However, coastal shoreline in Dumas Bay and Dash Point State Park are in a more natural condition, and coastal processes are less altered. Fish and wildlife that utilize the shoreline depend on these nearshore processes to maintain their habitats and ultimately their populations. Important feeder bluffs have been identified both north and south of Dumas Bay. The freshwater lakes in the City are located on a broad plateau in the eastern half of the City and in the PAA (Characterization Figures 3, 11 d through 11 h). The plateau developed from glacial recessional deposits and tills. As the glaciers melted, lakes formed in the scour areas. Lakes in the City drain to five main drainage basins including 1) the Puget Sound, 2) the Green River, 3) Mill Creek, 4) the White River, 5) and the Hylebos. Lake shorelines have been modified with bulkheads and other bank protection, but also have significant areas of natural shoreline conditions. On Steel Lake, Star Lake and Five Mile Lake, approximately 20 to 50 percent of the shoreline'has been modified with bulkheads. Shoreline modifications are less frequently occurring on the remaining lakes. In general, shorelines within the City are more highly altered in comparison to those within the PAA. Designated wetlands are found throughout the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Wetlands throughout shoreline areas in the city and in the PAA have been degraded to varying degrees as a result of urbanization over the last 60 years Wetlands near the Puget Sound shoreline typically include tidal marshes and tidally influenced estuaries Development and armoring along marine shoreline reaches within the City's iurisdiction have eliminated historical wetlands and prevent connections between interior wetlands and the nearshore area One larger freshwater wetland is mapped at Dumas Bay as a Palustrine Emergent Scrub/Shrub wetland. This area is within Dumas Bay park and is unlikely to be impacted by future development Wetlands are associated with most of the lakes within the shoreline planning area As mentioned above shorelines within the City are more highly altered in comparison to those within the PAA. Habitat and Species Use The City's coastal and freshwater shorelines are used by a variety of aquatic and terrestrial species including salmonids and other fish, birds, mammals, and a wide variety of invertebrates (Characterization Figure 10). Of special interest are areas that provide habitat for federally listed species and species of local importance (primarily nearshore areas), including bull trout (threatened), Chinook salmon (threatened), coho salmon, as well as great blue heron nest sites. Forage fish such as surf smelt and sand lance (prey for salmonids) spawn on local beaches. Eelgrass beds are also present along the City's coastal/nearshore areas, specifically near Dash Point State Park and in the northern end of Dumas Bay and northward. Dumas Bay in particular has been identified as a pocket estuary with regional importance within the WRIA 9 nearshore habitat. Page 3 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis The freshwater shoreline lakes within the City and its PAA do not provide habitat for anadromous salmonids or habitat for federally listed species. However, these lakes do provide general habitat for waterfowl, trout, and other aquaticspecies important to the character of Federal Way and the Lakeshore residents. Also, good water quality in the freshwater takes is important for downstream salmonid habitat in streams such as Hylebos Creek, Joe's'Creek, Mill Creek, Lakota Creek, and the Green River. Land Use and Public Access The major land uses along the Federal Way coastal / nearshore shoreline are single-family homes, parks, and public facilities (Characterization Figures 12a to 12h). The City's most common shoreline use is single-family residential, which occupies 55 percent of the coastal shoreline. Parks and public recreational facilities occupy 18 percent of the shoreline. These uses include Dash Point State Park, Dumas Bay Park, Dumas Bay Centre, and Poverty Bay Park. Parks provide opportunities for beach access, fishing, hiking and recreation. Land uses along the City's freshwater lakes are primarily single-family residential and public parks._. Single-family residential use occupies between, 55 and 80 percent of the shoreline on most lakes, with the exception of North Lake (35 percent) and Five Mile Lake (32 percent). Parks, boat ramps, and public facilities occupy 9 to 39 percent of the lake shorelines. Public access to the lakes occurs via parks including Steel Lake Park, Lake Geneva Park, Lake Killarney Park and Five Mile Lake Park, as well as several boat ramps owned by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Use The City of Federal Way has an established land use pattern in the shoreline jurisdiction that predates the current regulatory regime. The pattern generally includes public waterfront parks and single-family residential development within the City's shorelines. Since 1999, at the time existing SMP regulations were adopted, the City has received an average of 3 building permits per year for residential construction within the shoreline (including new residential construction, residential remodel and addition, and residential accessory structures). A total of 34 building permits were issued in the shoreline jurisdiction since 1999. In addition, there are only two residential piers on the Puget Sound coastal shoreline and no public marina within the City. Currently, the Puget Sound shoreline within the City is largely developed. Of the total number of parcels along the City's Puget Sound shoreline, few undeveloped parcels remain (Table 1) and most of these are located in areas of residential zoning. On the other hand, a greater number of undeveloped parcels are found along the freshwater lake shorelines, particularly along North Lake and lakes within the City's PAA. However, critical areas and their buffers encumber high proportions of the undeveloped parcels within the freshwater lake shorelines- (Table 1), particularly within the PAA2. These lots may not be developable except through the shoreline variance process. For example, approximately 70 percent of the undeveloped parcels along the shorelines of North Lake and Lake Dolloff are completely encumbered by critical areas. Critical areas in this analysis refer to wetlands, streams, their required buffers, and steep slopes (over 40 percent). Although PAA areas have not yet been annexed to the City of Federal Way, there 2 Lots entirely encumbered with critical areas are those lots where developable areas are not available without major impacts to critical areas and their required buffers. Encumbered lots could contain wetlands, steep slopes, streams, or critical areas, which collectively would cover all or the large majority of a parcel. Page 4 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis are plans to annex the entire PAA at some point in the future. All developed land along both the Puget Sound and lake shorelines, both within the City and the PAA, contains use patterns that are consistent with both the City's current zoning and vision of future land use as established by the City's Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Table 1. Total parcels, developable parcels, and completely encumbered parcels within the shnrPtine areas of Federal Wav and associated Potential Annexation Areas (PAAs). Based on the nature of the shoreline within the City limits, the lack of extensive vacant developable land and consistency among land use regulations and long-range plans, reasonable foreseeable development will likely primarily include redevelopment of property, as well as limited new development particularly near the lakes in the PAA. Redey e'�me"t a d fteshwateF lakes. BetweeR 12 and 39 p9FGeRt ef the total jets a!eRq these W. es 15 raefisider-ed , G.+moFeheRsive Pia," -r nranc ThP S1iRPSSPnant Waskeyed to looK atthese two lana use dULIVILICJ CIO II ICY IUPI cav111 G nt areas. Page 5 of 28 Total Number of Undeveloped Undeveloped Number Undeveloped Parcels (%) Parcels ,(%) Of Parcels considered encumbered Parcels (% of total) developable by Critical Areas Pu et Sound Shoreline 220 16 22 North Lake 96 778 97 26 74 Steel Lake 13T 37 38 61 Portion of Lake Killarneywithin Cit) 5 80 25 75 Portion of take Killarney within PAA 90 62 25 93 Dolloff Lake 105 91 755 27 63 Five Mile Lake 60 85 22 78 Lake Geneva 67 100 30 70 Star Lake 112 12 87 Based on the nature of the shoreline within the City limits, the lack of extensive vacant developable land and consistency among land use regulations and long-range plans, reasonable foreseeable development will likely primarily include redevelopment of property, as well as limited new development particularly near the lakes in the PAA. Redey e'�me"t a d fteshwateF lakes. BetweeR 12 and 39 p9FGeRt ef the total jets a!eRq these W. es 15 raefisider-ed , G.+moFeheRsive Pia," -r nranc ThP S1iRPSSPnant Waskeyed to looK atthese two lana use dULIVILICJ CIO II ICY IUPI cav111 G nt areas. Page 5 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis HE This analysis conducted in 2009 indicates that given the underlying zoning, there is potential for subdivision on 15 percent of the parcels along the City's marine shoreline, as well as greater potential for redevelopment In both cases the maiority of parcels identified were within the East Puget Sound reach of the shoreline area (see Map 1 attached for distribution of parcels identified by this analysis) It is likely that the 25 percent identified for redevelopment along this shoreline is substantially inflated due to the significant land values associated with the properties. Like the marine shoreline the analysis also indicates that subdivision could occur on six to 19 percent of the residential lots located in the City and PAA freshwater lake shorelines. The typical size and shape of these lots however, limits the amount of impact that subdivision and size of suoalvlaable lots woula allow ror a maximum four-ii i any other limitation on subdivision beyond inventoried critical areas and buffers, such as other un -mapped critical areas site restraints and access issues. In addition, as shown on Figure 8 narrow end fronting the marine and lake shorelines Given this parcel shape, new development associated with subdivision would likely occur behind the footprint of existing development or farther away from the lakeshore in most cases. 3 To determine subdivision potential, the buildable lot area of shoreline parcels was compared to the minimum lot square footage allowed by the underlying zoning; parcels were determined to have potential for subdivision when the lot area was greater than 2.5 times the minimum lot square footage allowed by the underlying zoning. To determine potential for likely redevelopment, the assessed value of each lot's improvements was compared to the assessed value of property; parcels were determined to have potential for redevelopment when the improvements were worth less than 50% of the value of the property — results exclude those parcels with no buildable area due to inventoried critical areas or other encumbrances. Page 6 of 28 Total parcels with Total Parcels with Parcels with Redevelopment or Number Redevelopment Subdivision Subdivision of Potential Potential Potential Parcels (% of total)) No of total) No of total 25 15 36 Puget Sound Shoreline 220 North Lake 96 7 8 14 Steel Lake 131 9 9 18 Portion of Lake Killarney (within 5 0 0 0 Cit 777=1 21 Portion of Lake Killarney (within 90 PAA Dolloff Lake 105 37 Five Mile Lake 60 11 17 23 Lake Geneva 67 13 6 16 Star Lake 112 6 15 18 This analysis conducted in 2009 indicates that given the underlying zoning, there is potential for subdivision on 15 percent of the parcels along the City's marine shoreline, as well as greater potential for redevelopment In both cases the maiority of parcels identified were within the East Puget Sound reach of the shoreline area (see Map 1 attached for distribution of parcels identified by this analysis) It is likely that the 25 percent identified for redevelopment along this shoreline is substantially inflated due to the significant land values associated with the properties. Like the marine shoreline the analysis also indicates that subdivision could occur on six to 19 percent of the residential lots located in the City and PAA freshwater lake shorelines. The typical size and shape of these lots however, limits the amount of impact that subdivision and size of suoalvlaable lots woula allow ror a maximum four-ii i any other limitation on subdivision beyond inventoried critical areas and buffers, such as other un -mapped critical areas site restraints and access issues. In addition, as shown on Figure 8 narrow end fronting the marine and lake shorelines Given this parcel shape, new development associated with subdivision would likely occur behind the footprint of existing development or farther away from the lakeshore in most cases. 3 To determine subdivision potential, the buildable lot area of shoreline parcels was compared to the minimum lot square footage allowed by the underlying zoning; parcels were determined to have potential for subdivision when the lot area was greater than 2.5 times the minimum lot square footage allowed by the underlying zoning. To determine potential for likely redevelopment, the assessed value of each lot's improvements was compared to the assessed value of property; parcels were determined to have potential for redevelopment when the improvements were worth less than 50% of the value of the property — results exclude those parcels with no buildable area due to inventoried critical areas or other encumbrances. Page 6 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis An analysis of development permits within existing City shoreline areas over the last four years supports a pattern of redevelopment as the primary reasonable foreseeable development and also suggests that significant amounts of property subdivision Is not likely to occur within the foreseeable future Table 3 documents the analysis queried from the City's permit database for all activity since 2005 Redevelopment and development will not likely result In significant changes in types of land use (e.g. single-family to multi -family, commercial or Industrial uses). Table 3 Development (numbers of permits) since 2005 based on permit activity within tha chnrpllinp areas of Federal MO. Portion of Lake1 — New office Killarney0 0 0 0 building within This data shows that limited development on vacant residential lots as well as on the areas of vacant commercial lots along Lake Killarney, has occurred over the last several years. Further, the permit history shows that the primary pattern of active development along the City's largely developed lake shorelines is redevelopment and accessory development of residential lots. These redevelopment activities have also occurred at relatively low levels within Federal Way shoreline areas For example less than two percent of the lots along the Puget Sound shoreline have received shoreline permits on an annual basis for the last 4 years. Within the PAA there is moderate potential for new development along the shorelines of freshwater lakes Between 12 and 30 percent of the total lots along these lakes are considered developable within the shoreline iurisdiction and between four and 20 percent have some potential for subdivision Due to existing land use patterns Klna County zoning and proposed designation for shoreline areas within the City's Comprehensive Plan new development will likely be single-family residential along the lakes in the PAA. Once annexed, additional lakefront residential development is anticipated. 4 Federal Way did not secure access to King County permit activity records. As such, shoreline areas within the PAA are not included in Table 2. Due to the similarity in zoning and land use between City and PAA lakes, it is anticipated that development trends have been similar to City shoreline areas within the PAA shoreline areas. Page 7 of 28 Single- Shoreline Other Permits New SF New SF Construction FamilyAccessory addition structure on Single- modification (number of i.e. dock,permits 7 Construction on vacant lot with and/ or Family lot bulkhead and t new bulkhead improvement demolition remodel e Portion of Lake1 — New office Killarney0 0 0 0 building within This data shows that limited development on vacant residential lots as well as on the areas of vacant commercial lots along Lake Killarney, has occurred over the last several years. Further, the permit history shows that the primary pattern of active development along the City's largely developed lake shorelines is redevelopment and accessory development of residential lots. These redevelopment activities have also occurred at relatively low levels within Federal Way shoreline areas For example less than two percent of the lots along the Puget Sound shoreline have received shoreline permits on an annual basis for the last 4 years. Within the PAA there is moderate potential for new development along the shorelines of freshwater lakes Between 12 and 30 percent of the total lots along these lakes are considered developable within the shoreline iurisdiction and between four and 20 percent have some potential for subdivision Due to existing land use patterns Klna County zoning and proposed designation for shoreline areas within the City's Comprehensive Plan new development will likely be single-family residential along the lakes in the PAA. Once annexed, additional lakefront residential development is anticipated. 4 Federal Way did not secure access to King County permit activity records. As such, shoreline areas within the PAA are not included in Table 2. Due to the similarity in zoning and land use between City and PAA lakes, it is anticipated that development trends have been similar to City shoreline areas within the PAA shoreline areas. Page 7 of 28 3 -Bulkhead 2 — Boundary Puget repairs (2) & line adiustment Sound 4 3 7 3 exemption for 1— Sewer Shoreline new bulkhead improvement 1 -project North 0 1 — Boundary Lake 1 1 line adjustment 1- Boundary line adjustment 1 0 1 3 1 — repair of 1— Proposal Steel Lake existing piers for 29 lot Portion of Lake1 — New office Killarney0 0 0 0 building within This data shows that limited development on vacant residential lots as well as on the areas of vacant commercial lots along Lake Killarney, has occurred over the last several years. Further, the permit history shows that the primary pattern of active development along the City's largely developed lake shorelines is redevelopment and accessory development of residential lots. These redevelopment activities have also occurred at relatively low levels within Federal Way shoreline areas For example less than two percent of the lots along the Puget Sound shoreline have received shoreline permits on an annual basis for the last 4 years. Within the PAA there is moderate potential for new development along the shorelines of freshwater lakes Between 12 and 30 percent of the total lots along these lakes are considered developable within the shoreline iurisdiction and between four and 20 percent have some potential for subdivision Due to existing land use patterns Klna County zoning and proposed designation for shoreline areas within the City's Comprehensive Plan new development will likely be single-family residential along the lakes in the PAA. Once annexed, additional lakefront residential development is anticipated. 4 Federal Way did not secure access to King County permit activity records. As such, shoreline areas within the PAA are not included in Table 2. Due to the similarity in zoning and land use between City and PAA lakes, it is anticipated that development trends have been similar to City shoreline areas within the PAA shoreline areas. Page 7 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis Redevelopment and development of primarily Single -Family residential uses will also include many activities that are exempt from requiring a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) (FWRC 15 05 130 and WAC 173-27-040) These activities include construction of single-family residences shoreline modification and construction of docks. Although a SSDP would not be required all of these development activities would still be required to meet the provisions of the updated SMP Requirements During permit review for land use and development activities the City will ensure compliance with the guidelines of the updated SMP (FWRC 15.05-130(l)). The details of specific SMP provisions are summarized- and discussed below in order to demonstrate how reasonably foreseeable exempt activities, as well as other activities will not lead to a net loss of ecological function within the foreseeable future. Potential Use Conflicts Key issues identified within the Federal Way SMP include redevelopment at more intensive areas increase impervious surface and otherwise modify shorelines. Although future redevelopment and subdivision may limit the City's ability to improve shoreline and riparian conditions the following sections detail how the updated SMP allows for planned and desired uses while ensuring that these uses will not lead to net loss of ecological function. Changes to Shoreline Environment Designations At the time of incorporation in 1990, the City of Federal Way adopted the King County SMP. In 1998 and 1999, the City developed and adopted its own local SMP. Shoreline management goals and policies are contained in the land use element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP, Section 2.8.5). Shoreline development regulations and permitting procedures are codified in Title 15 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). GhapteF 18, AFtOG18 111, The City's SMP established a system of "shoreline environment designations" that provide a uniform basis for applying policies and use regulations within distinctly different shoreline areas. Shoreline environment designations function like zoning overlays. That is, they do not replace the underlying zoning regulations for density, setbacks, etc., but they may impose additional development standards or regulations for portions of property within the shoreline jurisdiction. Generally, environment designations are based on existing and planned development patterns, biological and physical capabilities and limitations of the shoreline, and a community's vision or objectives for its future development. The existing (1999) SMP uses four shoreline environment designations — 1) Urban, 2) Conservancy, 3) Rural, and 4) Natural. Since the plan was adopted, the City's shoreline has expanded through the annexation of North Lake and a portion of Lake Killarney. These areas were originally designated as Urban Environment by the King County SMP and are currently being managed by the City using the County's SMP provisions. As a result of annexations, the City's SMP was left with several inconsistencies. Most notable, similar residential neighborhoods are designated differently (i.e. lakes with similar residential uses are treated differently under the City's SMP versus King County's SMP for recently annexed areas). The City's shoreline parks are similarly designated differently (Poverty Bay Park and Dash Point State Parks are designated Conservancy and Dumas Bay Park is designated Natural). Page 8 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis The proposed SMP addresses inconsistencies in the 1999 SMP by providing a new system of environment designations, in compliance with State guidelines (WAC 173-26-211). The new system applies designation criteria and management policies consistently across areas with similar current and planned land uses and resource characteristics. The new shoreline designations also pre -plan for future annexation areas so that future inconsistencies in shoreline development are avoided. Elimination of these inconsistencies will help the City reduce net loss of ecological function in the shoreline over time. The proposed SMP environment designations includes a "Shoreline Residential" environment for areas of the City that are characterized by single or multi -family residences or planned as such; an "Urban Conservancy" environment that includes waterfront park areas and residential areas, and an "Natural" environment which is designated for the purpose of protecting those shoreline areas that are relatively free of human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline functions sensitive to human use. The proposed SMP did not include an "Aquatic" shoreline environment, since all shoreline uses in the City are paired with an upland use and therefore another shoreline environment. The proposed environment designations are consistent with both the existing land use pattern and the Comprehensive Plan future land use designations. Changes to Development Standards and Use Regulations The proposed SMP offers several changes to the development regulations that encourage shoreline conservation and prohibit activities that would cause adverse impact to shoreline functions and processes. These changes include limiting shoreline modifications such as bulkheads and riprap revetments along much of the City's shoreline. These shoreline modifications have significantly altered the natural net -shore drift direction and the availability and local distribution of beach sediment. Further, the conservation of shoreline vegetation has been emphasized in the new shoreline regulations for the City to further stabilize shorelands and increase habitat functions. Other changes related to development of specific uses in the shoreline are also designed to protect shoreline ecological functions and processes, while continuing to allow legal uses, encourage public access, and allow sensitive development. The proposed changes are summarized in Table 2 Table 4 below. These proposed changes to development standards and use regulations are, in general, more protective than the existing SMP. Redevelopment would be allowed in all environments, but redevelopment of more intense water -dependent uses would be restricted to the Urban Conservancy environments. As redevelopment occurs in'other environments (particularly for shoreline stabilization), policies and development standards establish a preference for alternative "soft -shore" erosion control or stabilization designs. In some cases, project applicants would be required to demonstrate why a "soft -shore" design would not provide adequate protection of existing development. Over time these changes will likely have a net beneficial effect on shoreline ecological processes as properties are redeveloped. Page 9 of 28 Table 4. Proposed Chanqes to SMP Regulations DEVELOPMENT/ 1 1999 SMP USE REQUIREMENTS Bulkheads and I Conditional Use in all shoreline stabilization environments. Breakwaters Piers and Docks Jetties and Groins Accessory Structures Utilities Prohibited in all environments. Permitted on freshwater shorelines, excepf for in Natural Environment. Prohibited in all environments. Permitted in all environments Permitted in all environments. Permitted in all environments. Permitted in all environments. Permitted in all environments. Transportation/Parking I Permitted in all Facilities environments. City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis 2007 SMP UPDATE REQUIREMENTS (REVISED Permitted (P-) in Shoreline Residential and Urban Conservancy, but prohibited in Natural Requires applicant to demonstrate that softshore armoring techniques do not provide adequate upland protection. Bulkheads not permitted unless necessary to protect primary structures. Prohibited {x) in all environments. Permitted on freshwater and marine_ shorelines, except for in Natural Environment. ProhibitedkY4 in all environments.' Conditional Use Regia in Urban Conservancy environment. Prohibited in all other environments. Permitted in all environments. Permitted in all environments, except Conditional Use in Natural Environment. Permitted in all environments, except Conditional Use in Natural Environment. Permitted in all environments, except Conditional Use in Natural Environment. Permitted in all environments, except prohibited in Natural Environment. The 2009 revised SMP does allow for piers and docks on marine shorelines within Shoreline Residential and Urban Conservancy environments Piers and docks will continue to be prohibited within the Natural marine shoreline environments including the high functioning, unaltered shorelines of Dash Point State Park portions of Dumas Bay (Dumas Bay Park), and one reach of the City's eastern Puget Sound shoreline (along Poverty Bay Park). Although this change in regulations creates the potential for additional piers and docks along the marine shoreline significant development of piers and docks is not anticipated. Currently, the common residential mooring approach along the City's marine shoreline is use of mooring buoys. It is Page 10 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis anticipated that this existing pattern will continue within the foreseeable future for several reasons: • The updated SMP requirements specify a preference for use of residential mooring buoys over residential docks and piers including a provision that property owners must watercraft (FWRC 15 05 050 2(im)(ii)) Given tnat the existing pattern is preuu,11111culu mooring buoys it will likely be difficult for individual property owners to demonstrate that such moorage is inadequate for recreational boating purposes. • The marine areas along the Federal Way shoreline are a moderately high energy environment with significant wave current and tidal actions. This environment creates technical and financial challenges in designing building and maintaining a pier/dock. • Some portions of the marine shoreline are characterized by residential uses set behind_a high bluff. In these areas shoreline characteristics and hazards have and will continue to provide additional technical and financial constraints on the development of residential piers/docks. For these reasons significant development of new piers on the marine shoreline is not anticipated within the foreseeable future. Changes to the Treatment of Non -conforming Uses and Structures Much of the development in the Federal Way shoreline predates incorporation of the City and or adoption of the Washington Shoreline Management Act in 1971. Several properties and developments in the City's shoreline do not conform to current zoning or SMP regulations. The 1999 SMP addresses "non -conforming" uses or structures in the shoreline jurisdiction. However, the proposed SMP includes policies and regulations that are designed to increase protection of shoreline resources over time. Under the proposed SMP, structures or uses that were legally established, but which now do not conform to the City's zoning code or are non -conforming with regard to the use regulations in the proposed SMP may continue as long as they do not increase or expand in their non- conformity. The policies and regulations related to non -conforming structures and non- conforming uses in the shoreline are also consistent with the City's zoning code regulations. Restoration Planning Consistent with state guidelines (173-26-186), the proposed SMP includes a new section of goals and policies addressing shoreline restoration within Federal Way. The goals and policies for restoration have also been modified to acknowledge that the City's intent is to meet the "no net loss" standard, and result in an overall improvement to the condition of the habitat and resources within the shoreline jurisdiction of the City. The draft Restoration Plan dated December 2006 addresses the shoreline restoration element of the SMP. The proposed SMP identifies restoration opportunities that include programmatic opportunities (e.g. surface water management; water quality improvement; ,public education), site-specific opportunities (e.g. protection of feeder bluffs, restoration of stream mouth deltas and pocket estuaries), regional plans and policies for Puget Sound restoration, and potential funding and partnership opportunities. The SMP's restoration planning is focused on areas where shoreline functions have been degraded by past development activities. These areas Page 11 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis with impaired functions were identified in the City's Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. The implementation of these restoration opportunities will have the effect of improving shoreline ecological functions within the City over time. Beneficial Effects of Any Established Regulatory Programs under Other Local, State, and Federal Laws The City's SMP is meant to be consistent with and work in conjunction with several City, State and federal programs and planning documents to protect the functions and values of shoreline resources and protect the health and safety of City residents. These programs include, but are not limited to, the following: City Programs arra) Planning Documents City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan General goals and policies established in the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan2( 007 2992) relate to the preservation of existing residential neighborhood character, protection of environmentalresources,. and the: promotion of economic_development. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to balance these social, environmental, and economic goals through land use and zoning regulations, critical areas regulations using best available science, and development regulations. In relation to shorelines, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve or develop shorelines and adjacent areas in a manner that assures a balance of shoreline uses with minimaladverse effect on the quality of life, water, and environment (City of Federal Way, 2007 2982). The City's existing Shoreline Master Program goals and policies are included as an element in the land use chapter of the City's current Comprehensive Plan. These goals and policies encourage water -oriented uses and existing residential uses in balance with protection of the Puget Sound shoreline's natural resources (City of Federal Way, 2007 2092). This document also establishes shoreline environment designations as Natural, Conservancy, Rural, or Urban Environments; depending on the land use and intensity of development. The proposed SMP environmental designations are consistent with the land use vision expressed in the Comprehensive Plans. Following adoption, the City's proposed SMP goals and policies will be incorporated as a chapter of the City's Comprehensive Pian. h�+nfer 77 Federal Way Revised Code Title 19:�i`�� Zoning —Title 19 22of the FWRC IVIURiGipal Cede establishes zoning designations. Zoning implements the Comprehensive Plan's vision for future land use. Zoning designations near the Puget Sound shoreline' include Single Family Residential, and Multifamily Residential. Zoning designations near the freshwater lake shorelines include Single Family Residential and Corporate Park. Shoreline zoning is consistent` with the designations in the proposed SMP. Federal Way City Code chapter22 ^ 4iG1e X4V. Title 19 Division V Critical Areas — GhapteF 22 Title 19, Division V of the MAICC-FWRC establishes development standards, buffers and permitted uses in designated critical areas. Critical areas include geologic hazardous areas, streams, regulated lakes, regulated wetlands, regulated wellheads and critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. Standards in this chapter are designed to protect these areas from adverse impacts. The City updated it Critical Areas code in 1999. Designated critical areas are found throughout the City's shoreline jurisdiction, particularly streams, flood Page 12 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis hazard areas, and geologic hazard areas. Consistent with state guidelines, development standards for critical areas that are physically located in the shoreline jurisdiction have been fully incorporated into the proposed SMP by ,-ofd,% including these regulations as part of the shorelines regulations. City of Federal Way Surface Water Management Division The City's Surface Water Management Utility is guided by the Comprehensive Surface Water Facilities Management Plan (19941995) and the City's Comprehensive Pian (29Q2007). The Surface Water Management Division (SWM) is responsible for the comprehensive management of the City's surface water systems. This involves protecting developed and undeveloped properties from flooding, runoff and water quality problems, while continuing to accommodate new development. The SWM Division also promotes the preservation of natural drainage systems, protection of fishery resources and wildlife habitat. The City's Surface Water Capital Improvement Program identifies, funds, and implements site-specific projects intended to provide flood control or alleviation, improve and enhance riparian habitat, replace culverts to improve fish passage, and improve water quality from stormwater runoff. The Surface Water Management restoration program is currently focused on stream resources, with limited emphasis on restoration of lakes and marine shorelines. City of Federal Way Aquatic Vegetation Management Programs and Lake Manaaemenf Districts The City is currently administering aquatic vegetation management programs for Steel and North Lakes. The Steel Lake program is funded through lake management district fees, while the North Lake program is currently funded by DOE grant funds. The City works with both Steel Lake and North Lake residents to control -invasive aquatic vegetation and conduct public education and outreach in an effort to maintain the beneficial uses of these lakes. The SWM Division works with Lake Management Districts established for North Lake and Steel Lake to control invasive aquatic vegetation and maintain water quality for recreational enjoyment. The LMDs fund periodic treatment of invasive aquatic weeds with herbicide application and/or physical removal of weeds. Two advisory groups are actively engaged in the management of these lakes: 1) the Steel Lake Advisory Committee, and 2) the North Lake Steering Committee. Restoration efforts on the lake shorelines should be coordinated with the activities of the aquatic vegetation programs LMDs for North and Steel Lakes in particular. State and Federal Regulations A number of state and federal agencies may have jurisdiction over land or natural elements in the City's shoreline jurisdiction. Local development proposals most commonly trigger requirements for state or federal permits when they impact wetlands or streams; potentially affect fish and wildlife listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA); result in over five acres of clearing and grading; or affect the floodplain or floodway. As with local requirements, state and federal regulations may apply throughout the City, but regulated resources are common within the City's shoreline jurisdiction. The state and federal regulations affecting shoreline -related resources include, but are not limited to: Endangered Species Act The federal ESA addresses the protection and recovery of federally listed species. The ESA is jointly administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH) Fisheries (formerly referred to as the National Marine Fisheries Service), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Puget Sound marine shoreline along with the lower portion of several of the tributaries streams and Hylebos Creek which several of the Citv's lakes drain to, provides significant migration spawning and rearing habitat to several salmonid species. The Page 13 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis WDFW SalmonScape database (WDFW 2006) PHS Data as well as A Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization - Volume I Puget Sound Region (Williams et al. 1975), identify the known presence of salmonids in local streams. Nearshore habitat is an important environment for juvenile salmonids where the shallow water depth obstructs the presence of larger predator species (Kerwin and Nelson, 2000). All shoreline segments within the City's shoreline iurisdiction are known or expected to contain iuvenile salmonids including Chinook which are listed by the ESA as Threatened, as well as bull trout cutthroat chum coho pink and sockeye salmon based in the knowledge of species life histories (KCDNR, 2001). Clean Water Act (CWA) The federal CWA requires states to set standards for the protection of water quality for various parameters, and it regulates excavation and dredging in waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Certain activities affecting wetlands in the City's shoreline jurisdiction or work in the adjacent rivers may require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Washington State Department of Ecology under Section 404 and Section 401 of the CWA, respectively. Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) The Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) regulates activities that use; divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of the beds or banks of waters of the state and may affect fish habitat. Projects in the shoreline jurisdiction requiring construction below the ordinary high- water mark of Puget Sound or streams inr the city could require an HPA from WDFW. Projects creating new impervious surface that- could substantially increase stormwater, runoff to waters of the state may also require approval. HPA requirements include incorporation of best managementpractices (BMPs) to avoid and minimized impacts to waters of the -state. BMPs include measures to be incorporated during proiect construction, such as consideration of fish windows management of erosion and site runoff, and monitoring as well measures to be incorporated into the design and ongoing use of a proposed development, such as consideration of in water materials and stormwater treatment and detention. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Ecology regulates activities that result in wastewater discharges to surface water from industrial facilities or municipal wastewater treatment plants. NPDES Phase II permits are also required for stormwater discharges from industrial facilities, construction sites of five one or more acres, and municipal stormwater systems that serve . census -defined Urbanized Areas which include any urbanized areas with more than 50,000 people and densities greater than 1,000 people per square mile The future beneficial effects of this program in terms of ecological functions are discussed within Tables 5 and 6 below. Page 14 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis Summary of Current and Future Performance of Shoreline Ecological Functions Current performance of shoreline ecological functions are ranked "low" "moderate", and "high" depending on the level of alteration within Federal Way city limits. The Shoreline Characterization does not evaluate the current performance of ecological functions using this ranking system As such the evaluation system in the table is intended to summarize the information provided in the Shoreline Characterization; the full report should be evaluated for additional detail regarding existing conditions Future performance is ranked "reduction," "no change' anti"improvement" depending on'the expected changes from existing conditions ove th i' Page 15 of 28 City of Federal Way SMP Cumulafive Impacts Analysis Tabie 5. Pu et Sound Shoreline — Assessment of Shoreline Functions o .�_a � �� urr�n �1�.�, ca►�m: : . ��a..: " a� � ° .a�� c�t :- � ��i '�1'iin � �. ,� �Q � i � . ,.... Ecolog;ical Function from WAC173-26-201(3)(d)(i)(C): HydPOlOgy — Transportin� and stabilizing sediment; Attenuatin� wave and tidal energy Pu�et Sound West: High P: Replacement or rehabilitation of existin�armorin� and/or bulkhead All reaches: Potential Imnrovement Si�nificant and intact feeder bluffs structures is allowed however mustbe moved to or iandward of the Redevelopment of residential shorelines wrthin this segment, includin area OHWM if structure failure has caused OHWM to move beyond will increase use of bulkhead within State Park. Feeder bluff existing bulkhead (FWRC 15.05.050�1)(bZii�iii�2 alternatives and result in a net makes up 61% of shoreline. Intact P: New shoreline stabilization structures are allowed on� when improvement in attenuation functions. and unimpaired Drift Cells. necessary to protect existin dg evelopment. New stabilization Reduced use of hard shoreline Geomomhic �rocesses have been structures are prohibited within the Natural environmen�FWRC stabilization will hydrolo ica11X substantiallv altered by shoreline 15.05.050(1)). reconnect shoreland areas with the modifications. P: When shoreline modification is required, soft shore brotection shoreline. Critical areas eologic-hazard (bioengineering) shall be nrioritized over structural o�tions such as standards requirin¢ buffers and building Dumas Bav: Moderate to Hi�h bulkheads and riprap (FWRC 15.05.050(ll�a��ii�). setbacks from the top of coastal bluffs Shoreline is highlY modified in areas P: Jetties and groins are prohibited throughout the marine shoreline will benefit hydrologic functions in high of residential development; over environment (FWRC 15.05.070(4)1. bluff areas. Increased vegetation at the tvc�o-thirds of reach is modified with P: Dredging and fill activity requires a CUP when waterward of the top of bluffs will stabilize soils and bulkheads or riprap. Low to OHWM and is entirely prohibited in Natural environrrient (FWRG imnrove existin� and potential stee� moderate bank shoreline with verv 15.05.050(5)). slope erosion and failure issues. little feeder bluf£ Two streams are P: Develo�ment activities, clearin� and ading„modifications or the th� primarv sources of sediment to installation and maintenance of landscaping normally associated The restoration projects nrioritized by this �ortion of the shoreline. with residential, commercial or vark use may not occur on or within the Restoration Plan and identified in 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area (including coastal bluffs and this table will im�rove the beach Pu�et Sound East: Low to steep slope areas) unless no reasonable alternative exists and then only functions. As these restoration projects 1Vloderate if the development activitv or clearin or adin� will not lead to or are im,�lemented, beach functions will Geomor,phic processes in this reach create any increased slide, seismic or erosion hazard (FWRC improve. have been substantially altered bv 15.10.160. shoreline modifications. most P: New development on steep sl0pes and bluffs is required to be set associated with residential back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be development. This shore is exposed necessary during: the life of the project as dernonstrated by a to the eatest amount of fetch and/or eotechnical anal sis 15.05.050 1 c iii . Page 96 of 28 wave energy throughout the study P: Mooring buoys are preferred form of moorage where allowed (not area. in Natural environment) (FWRC 15'.0 5.050(2)(1)(ii)). R: Conservation of intact feeder bluffs within Puget S6und West and East reaches (Restoration Plan Table 2). R: Work with King and Pierce Counties, Washington State Parks, Des Moines, and other entities, or private landowners to develop direct linkages to the waterfront to restore ecological function or natural ecosystems. R: Conserve and restore the tributary mouths and associated wetlands of Dumas Bay (emphasis on west -end streams and wetlands area) as well as tributary mouth within State Park (Restoration Plan Table 2). R: Removal of fill bulkheads and other derelict intertidal shoreline structures and restoration of shoreline between Poverty Bay Park and the Dumas Bay Center, as well as at eastern edge of State Park (Restoration Plan Table 2). Ecological Function from WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i)(C): Water Quality: Removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds Puget Sound West: High Significant and intact feeder bluffs within this segment, including area within State Park. Moderately functioning streams enters the State Park shoreline (although erosion issues have become more prevalent), and marine riparian is largely intact with mixed coniferous and deciduous forest community. Dumas Bay: Moderate to High Shoreline is highly modified in areas of residential development; over P: All activities and development within the shoreline jurisdiction (includin cg learingand grading activities) shall incorporate water pollution control measures and best management practices.(BMPs) for stormwater management. Such measures shall address both temporary impacts to water quality from construction activities as well as the need for permanent stormwater management facilities in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of all applicable city and state regulations. (FWRC 15.05.040(3)). P• Mitigation is required for developments that create unavoidable impacts adverse to shoreline vegetation. Mitigation shall ensure that no net loss in the amount of vegetated area or the ecological functions performed by the disturbed vegetation (FWRC 15.05.040(1) and Critical Areas regulations incorporated into Title 15 — Shoreline City of Federal Wi AP Cumulative Impacts Anwysis All reaches: Potential Improvement Redevelopment of residential and recreational shorelines use will enhance marine riparian function and result in improved water quality. Redevelopment will also correspond with improved stormwater treatment and detention, as well as use of improved materials and techniques for in water structures. The restoration projects prioritized by the Restoration Plan and identified in this table will improve water quality Page 17 of 28 City of Federal Wa3 P Cumulative Impacts Anarysis two-thirds of reach is modified with P: Piers, docks, tnooring buoys or, floats must -be constructed out of remove creosote piers and other derelict bulkheads or riprap. Two streams materials that will not adversely affect water quality. Use of structures from the shoreline), and and associated wetlands within the chemically.treated wood is,prohibited.infreshwater shorelines. Use of restoration goals and policies will assist shoreline environment. creosote treated wood is prohibited in marine shorelines. (FW RC in identifying additional opportunities 15.05.050(2)(x)), and implementing water quality Puget Sound East: Low to P;. Shoreline stabilization must be constructed and maintained in a monitoring programs. Moderate manner that does not degrade the quality of affected waters (FWRC Riparian vegetation in this reach has 15.05.050(1)). been substantially altered by P: Transportation and parking facilities are allowed in the natural shoreline modifications, most environment only when necessary to serve an allowed use and subject associated with residential to the approval, of a CUP, Construction of transportation facilities must development. Residential practices, protect shorelands against erosion and uncontrolled or polluting including yard maintenance and non- drainage (FWRC 15.05.100(5)(a)6v) and 15.05.080/(5)(a)(y)). point pollution, areprimary sources R: Removal of creosote piles in intertidal zone on east and west edges of potential water quality issues. of Dumas Bay,Park (Restoration Plan Table 2). R: Encourage protection, enhancement, or restoration of native riparian vegetation through incentives and non -regulatory programs. (Restoration G4-Policy2). R: Work with: owners of other publicly owned land such as Washington State Parks to encourage restoration and enhancement projects, including funding strategies (Restoration G2 -Policy 3). R: Collect information to evaluate and,assess potential shoreline degradation and"impairments observed by the community. (Restoration G3 -Policy l). Ecological Function from WAC173-26-201(3)(d)(iffl. Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Space or conditions for reproduction, resting, hiding and migration,• and food production and delivery; Maintain characteristic plant community; Recruitment of large woody debris and other organic material Puget Sound West: High P:. Piers and, docks prohibited in Natural environment, may All reaches: No Change or Potential Significant and intact mixed forest permitted iii Shoreline Residential and Urban Conservancy Improvement riparian habitat extends along much environments (FWRC 15.05.OS0(2)1. Near term restoration actions identified of the reach and provides significant P: Public 12iers,and docks shall only be allowed for water -de endent in the Restoration Plan will imrove Page 18 of 28 connectivi1y with upland and stream habitats within the State Park. Open spaces associated with streams and ravines landward of the marine shoreline rovide significant habitat, including eagle perching habitat and anadromous fish (coho and cutthroat) habitat. Dumas Bay: Moderate Shoreline is highly modified in areas of residential development; over two-thirds of reach is modified with bulkheads or riprap. Two streams and associated wetlands within the shoreline environmentrp ovide significant habitat for salmonids, other fish, shorebirds, waterfowl, amphibians, and likely other species. Puget Sound East: Low to Moderate Riparian vegetation is mixed trees and grasses. Much of Reach I is armored with concrete and wooden bulkheads, and riprap seawalls. LWD or drift log accumulations have been mapped along unarmored portions of Reach IA. Eight species of native salmonids are documented as (or are likely to) using the nearshore environment (all uses and public access subject to a shoreline CUP, and must result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical salmonid habitat (FWRC 1505.050(2)(a)). P: Any pier, dock, mooring buoy or float must be constructed out of materials that will not adversely affect water quality. Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited in freshwater lake and marine shorelines (FWRC 1.5.05.050(2)(8)). P: Bulk of docks and piers, where allowed, is controlled: no dwelling unit may be constructed on a pier or dock; no covered pier, dock, moorage, or float, or other covered structure is permitted waterward of the OHWM: (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(b) and c)). P: Construction materials and methods required to minimize water quality and habitat impacts: Use of creosote treated wood is prohibited in marine shorelines (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(it)Ly new pier or dock must be constructed from materials (i.e.,grating) that allow light penetration through the structure (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(h)), any new pier or dock must be located generally perpendicular to the shoreline, and oriented to minimize shading impacts to the maximum degree feasible (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(i)). P: Residential mooring buoys are preferred over docks and piers on the Pug—,et Sound shoreline. Applicants for a residential dock or pier must demonstrate why a mooring buoy will not provide adequate moorage for recreational watercraft (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(1)(i)). P: Dimensional standards are specified for marine shoreline piers and docks: residential piers and docks located on marine shorelines shall conform to the dimensional limitations and functional grating requirements established by (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(1)( v)). P: Protection of shoreland areas provided by Geohazards CAO regulations, as detailed in Hydrology section of this table (FWRC 15.10.160). P: Vegetation conservation standards are specified for the required setback area in each of the shoreline environments FWRC 15.05.080(3)(e), 15.05.090(3)(e), and 15.05.100(3)(e). City of Federal W WP Cumulative Impacts Ai,.,ysis habitat if implemented: removal of derelict creosote_ pilings and other in - water structures would imnprove the intertidal habitat, and restoration and enhancement of stream micro -estuaries would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, impacts to vegetation functions must be mitigated to achieve no net loss of functions provided by vegetation. Allowing new piers within the marine environment could cause adverse impacts, however significant development of new residentialiep rs is not anticipated. Any new pier will be required to meet mitigation and design provisions of the SMP, as well as Federal and State permitting requirements. Critical areas geologic -hazard standards requiring buffers and building setbacks from the top of coastal bluffs will benefit hydrologic functions in high bluff areas. Increased vegetation at the top of bluffs will stabilize soils and improve existing and potential steep slope erosion and failure issues. Additional inc=orated CAO protections for wetlands and streams Page 19 of 28 chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon, and cutthroat, steelhead, and other; habitat areas within: the shoreline environment: impacts must be avoided, minimized, and mitigated consistent with the requirements of bull trout. Forage fish also use the the Critical Areas regulations (incorporated at Chapter 15.10 FWRCZ marine nearshore environment. See sections: 15.10.170(stream setbacks), 15.10.2 10 (stream rehabilitation), 15.10.170(intrusion into stream setbacks), 15.10.240 (wetland determination), 15.10.250 (wetland categories and buffers), ithin 15.10.260 (structures, improvements, and clearing and gradin within regulated wetlands), and 15.10.270 (intrusions into regulated buffers) for further detail on critical areas protection. P: Mitigation is required for all development activities (FWRC 15.0.5040). P: Transportation and parking uses require a CUP in the Natural environment; Parking is restricted to where required to serve a permitted shoreline use, and;must meet stormwater requirements (FWRC,.15.05.,100(5)(a)(iv)). R: Continue to work with the State, KingWatershed _County, Resource: Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, and other governmental and non- governmental organizations to explore how local p_ovemments can contribute to the preservation of ecological processes and shoreline functions (Restoration G1 -Policy 1). R: Continue to work with WRIA 9 to restore shoreline habitats and shoreline functions that support listed species, as well as other anadromous,fisheries. (Restoration 0l -Policy .2). G2 -Policy 1):, R: Work with owners of other publicly owned land such as Washington State Parks to encourage ,restoration and enhancement projects; including fundin strategies (Restoration G2-Policy3). R: Enhancement and restoration efforts directed toward improving overwater structures wily conform to Best Management Practices City of Federal Wa, ,'P Cumulative Impacts Analysis habitat conditions over time within shoreline jurisdiction. Page 20 of 28 not impacted. (Restoration UW7 Policy). R: Encourage protection, enhancement, or restoration of native riparian vegetation through incentives and non -regulatory programs. (Restoration G4-Policy2). City of Federal W VP Cumulative Impacts A,,aiysis Page 21 of 28 City of Federal Wad P Cumulative Impacts Anarysis Table 6: Freshwater Lakes — Assessment of Shoreline Functions x f' �A Ecological Function from WAC173-26-201(3)(d)(i)(C): Hydrology — Water storage; Sediment storage and 'maintenance of base flows All Lakes: Low to Moderate Drainage areas for lakes are highly P: Replacement or rehabilitation of existing armoring and/or bulkhead No Change or Potential Improvement The opportunity for significant structures is allowed however must be moved to be landward of the developed with SF residential uses, OHWM if structure failure has caused OHWM to move beyond existing with significant sources of inflow bulkhead (FWRC 15.05.050(l)(h)(ii —iii)), P: New shoreline stabilization structures are allowed only when necessary improvement to hydrologic conditions associated with the freshwater lakes is largely dependant on land use practices from stormwater and surface water runoff. Lakes stores input water to protect existing development. New stabilization structures are before being released to outlet systems. Semi -rural to moderate density prohibited within the Natural environment (FWRC 15.05.050(1)). P: When shoreline modification is required, soft shore protection throughout the associated basins. (bioengineering shall be prioritized over structural options such as Current City required stormwater bulkheads and riprap (FWRC 15.05.050(1)(a)(ii)). P: Dredging and fill activi1y requires a CUP when waterward of the practices, enforced throughout the residential uses and developments basin, will over time create basin surrounding the lakes have resulted OHWM and is entirely prohibited in Natural environment (FWRC hydrology that reflects pre - development conditions, in terms of in placement of bulkheads, removal 15.05.050(5)).. P: Mooring buoys are preferred form of moorage where allowed (not in of forested vegetation and other flow volumes and timing. In addition, implementation of restoration goals and policies would alterations. Significant number of Natural environment�(FWRC 15.05. 050(2)(1)(ii)l P: Protection of shoreland areas provided by Geohazards CAO regulations, as detailed in Ecological Functions —Hydrology section of residential parcels additionally have docks. Limited areas of forested encourage land owner stewardship riparian habitat minimize recruitment Table 5 (FWRC 15.10.160). P: Additional CAO protection for impacts to wetlands, streams, and other and provide resources and encouragement for shoreline and of organic inputs. Several of the lakes have long unaltered riparian shorelines with habitat areas within the shoreline environment: impacts must be avoided, basin properly owners that elect to minimized, and mitigated consistent with the requirements of the Critical improve their stonnwater practices Areas regulations (incorporated at Chapter 15.10 FWRC). See sections: (through reductions in impervious associated significant wetland areas, 15.10.170 (stream setbacks), 15.10.2 10 (stream rehabilitation), 15.10.170 surfaces and lawn areas, and planting of native and drought including North Lake, Lake Dolloff, (intrusion into stream setbacks), 15.10.240 (wetland determination), Lake Killarney, and Five Mile Lake. 15.10.250 (wetland categories and buffers), 15.10.260 (structures, tolerantarg dens), Removal and replacement of shoreline bulkheads with softer The wetland complexes and vegetated communities associated improvements, and clearing and grading within regulated wetlands), and 15.10.270 (intrusions into regulated buffers) for further detail on critical with these lakes enhance hydrologic areas protection. R: Continue to work with the State King Coun1y, Watershed Resource functions. shoreline alternatives will enhance Page 22 of 28 City of Federal W MP Cumulative Impacts A, ,.iysis Generally, however, loss Inventory Area (WRIA) 9, and other governmental and non-governmental the hydrologic connection between /disturbance of wetlands in the basin organizations to explore how local governments can contribute to the the lake and the ad iacent shorelands eliminates essential storage, preservation of ecological processes and shoreline functions (Restoration over time. recharge, or waterquality G1 -Policy 1). improvement functions. _R: Promote shoreline vegetation restoration, and the control of invasive weeds species, to enhance marine riparian and, freshwater lakeshore habitats (Restoration G2 -Policy 2). R: Encourage voluntary restoration projects in degraded shoreline environments (Restoration Goal 4 — see Restoration Plan for additional details on G4 policies). Ecological Function from WAC173-26-20l(3)(d)(i)(C-. Water Oualitv: Removing excessive nutrients and toxic compounds: Attenuating wave ener All Lakes: Moderate - P: All activities and development within the shoreline jurisdiction Improvement Lakes generally show the following (includingclearing earing and grading: activities) shall incorporate water pollution Asxedevelopment occurs along the conditions: control measures and best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater lake shorelines, toxic materials in • Moderately high water management. Such measures shall address both temporary impacts to the water and pollutants entering clqfijy water quality from construction activities as well as the need for the water will be reduced. Upland • Generally low phosphorus and algae concentrations Despite stormwater inputs from developed basin, lakes maintains a moderate overall level of water uality. This suggests that the system performs moderately well in receiving and removing, nutrients and toxic compounds. Attenuation of wave energy is not a significant issue due to the small lake areas, although wind mixing is a permanent stormwater management facilities in compliance with the requirements and restrictions of all applicable cijy and state regulations. (FWRC 15.05.040(3)). P: Mitigation is required for developments that create unavoidable impacts adverse to shoreline vegetation. Mitigation shall ensure that no net loss in the amount of vegetated area or the ecological functions performed by the disturbed vegetation (FWRC 15.05.040(1) and Critical Areas regulations at FWRC Chapter 15.10. P: Piers, docks, mooring buoys or floats must be constructed out of materials that will not adversely affect water qualityt Use of chemicallx Jr: Shoreline stabilization must be constructed and maintained in a manner that does not degrade the quality of affected waters (FWRC 15.05.050(1)). BMPs will help reduce nutrient sources fromenteringstormwater runoff, and sedimentation and erosion impacts will be reduced by implementation of BMPs during construction. New development will be required.to meet City stormwater requirements FWRC 15.05.040(3)). Redevelopment of SF residential properties will require enhancement of the lake's riparian shoreline. (FWRC 15.05.040(1)) Tree and. vegetation protections within the Page 23 of 28 City of Federal Way ;P Cumulative Impacts Analysis riparian vegetation around many of P: Construction of transportation facilities must protect shorelands ajZainst riparian area will improve wave the lakes. erosiorrand uncontrolled or polluting drainage (FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(v) attenuation functions, reducing and FWRC 15.05.100(5)(a)(iv)). wind mixing_ In addition, ve cg tated P: When shoreline modification is required, soft shore protection buffers will aid in removing (bioengineering) shall be prioritized over structural options such as excessive nutrients and toxins from bulkheads and riprap (FWRC 15.05.050(1)(a)(ii)). shallow groundwater entering the R: Encourage protection, enhancement; or restoration of native riparian lake. vegetation through incentives and non-regulatory programs. (Restoration Stabilizing shorelines with G4-Policy2). vegetation will increase overwater R: Work with; owners of other publicly owned land such as Washington vegetation, moderating lake State Parks to encourage restoration and enhancement projects, including temperatures by providing shading funding strategies Restoration G2-Policy 3). (FWRC 15.05.050(1)(a)(xi)). R: Collect information to evaluate and assess potential shoreline degradation and impairments observed by the community_(Restoration G3-Policy 1). . Ecological Function from WAC173-26-201(3)(d)(i)(C): Fish and Wildlife Habitat: Space or conditions for reproduction, resting, hiding and migration; and food production and delivery; Recruitment of large woody debris and other organic material. All Lakes: Low to Moderate P:.Setbacks, when required by: redevelopment activities per the SMP, must Improvement be maintained and managed as vegetation conservation areas. A portion of Development surrounding the lakes Impacts to vegetation functions has highly modified riparian the vegetation. conservation, area may be cleared and used to provide must be mitigated to achieve no net shoreline access. (FWRC 15.05.080(3)(d),,(e), (e) and-.090(3)(d), (e), loss of functions provided by vegetation. Redevelopment of SF residential vegetation on the majorfty of the Federal Way freshwater shorelines. specific to residential development see FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(i)(C) and - The vegetation of the majority of 090(5)(a)(i)(A)). P: Impacts to wetlands, streams, and other habitat areas within the shoreline environment-must be avoided, minimized, and mitigated parcels fronting the shoreline is properties will require enhancement characterized by residential lawns of the lake's riparian shoreline, and and landscaping. Maintained lawn consistent with the requirements of the: Critical Areas regulations in the SMP includes required setbacks extends to the lake edge on several FWRC Chapter 15. 10. Stream and wetland regulations incorporated into for new Single -Family and Multi- parcels at each lake. However, the the SMP apply to shoreline areas where streams and wetlands occur; stream and wetland, setback and, buffer, standards do not apply to lake Family residential development.. majority of parcels contain at least Tree and vegetation protections some overhanging vegetation. shorelines. See sections: 15:10.1:70 stream setbacks 15.10.210 stream within the riadan area will Page 24 of 28 City of Federal Wr VP Cumulative Impacts Ai,,.,ysis MEN rehabilitation), 15.10.170 (intrusion into stream setbacks) 15.10.240 improve organic material Threats to the native aquatic (wetland determination), 15.10.250 (wetland categories and buffers), recruitment, will provide habitat, and will help regulate water vegetation communities in the lakes, 15.10.260 (structures, improvements, and clearing and grading within where present, include removal by regulated wetlands), and 15.10.270 (intrusions into regulated buffers) for temperatures by providing property owners and recreational detail on critical areas protection. overwater shading. users, and the spread of invasive P: There can be no net loss in the amount or ecological function of aquatic vegetation via recreational vegetated area within shoreline jurisdiction and nonTnative vegetation must Although some residential use or waterfowl. be replaced with native vegetation. Mitigation is required for subdivision is anticipated to occur within the freshwater shoreline developments that create unavoidable impacts adverse to shoreline areas, especially on lots within the vegetation. (FWRC 15.05.040(1) 1 PAA area, the regulations of the P: New shoreline stabilization, where required, must be bioengineered to SMP will ensure that any increases include natural features such as native vegetation (FWRC 15.05.050(l)) in actual residential densi will P: Piers and docks prohibited in Natural environment: may be permitted in , correspond with enhanced riparian Shoreline Residential and Urban Conservancy environments (FWRC and shoreline conditions. 15.05.050(2)). P: Public piers and docks shall only be allowed for water -dependent uses and public access subject to a shoreline CUP, and must result in no net loss Critical areasgeologic-hazard of ecological functions associated with critical salmonid habitat (FWRC standards requiring buffers and building setbacks from the top of 15.05.050(2)(a)). steep slopes will benefit hydrologic P: Any pier, dock, mooring buoy or float must be constructed out of functions in areas where steep materials that will not adversely affect water quality. Use of chemically slopes are adjacent to shorelines. treated wood is prohibited in freshwater lake shorelines. Use of creosote Increased vegetation at the top of treated wood is prohibited in marine shorelines (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(g)). bluffs will stabilize soils and P: Bulk of docks and piers, where allowed, is controlled: no dwelling unit may be constructed on a pier or dock, no covered pier, dock, moorage, or improve existing and potential steep slope erosion and failure issues. float, or other covered structure is permitted waterward of the OHWM: (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(b) and (c)). Additional incorporated CAO P: Construction materials and methods required to minimize water quality protections for wetlands and and habitat impacts: use of chemically treated wood is prohibited in streams within the shoreline area will improve habitat conditions over freshwater lake shorelines (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(8)); any new pier or dock time within shoreline jurisdiction. must be constructed from materials (i.e.,rg ating) that allow light penetration through the structure (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(h)), any new pier or dock must be located generally perpendicular to the shoreline, and oriented to minimize shading im acts to the maximum degree feasible Page 25 of 28 City of Federal Wa, P Cumulative Impacts Anarysis Page 26 of 28 (FWRC 15.05,-00(2)611. P: Dimensional,standards=are specified for lake shoreline piers and docks: The maximum waterward intrusion of any_portion of My pier or dock on a lake shoreline shall not extend further waterward than the average length of the piers or docks on lots abutting the location of the new dock as measured perpendicularly from the ordinary_high water mark unless an alternative dimension is required in order to prevent impacts to critical areas. In nocircumstancesshall the maximum water ward intrusion of any portion of @ny pier or dock extend more than 36 feet from the ordinary high water mark, or the point where the water depth is 8 feet below the elevation of the ordinary high water mark, whichever is reached first; maximum width of 6 feet, 8 feet for joint use docks: grating shall be provided on at least 30 percent of the dock or pier, surface. (FWRC 15.05.050(2)(1)(y)(A),_(B), and (C)). P: Mitigation is required for all development activities (FWRC 15,05.040). P: Transportation and parking uses require a CUP in the Natural environment, Parking is restricted to where required to serve a permitted shoreline use, and must meet stormwater reauirernents (FWRC 15.05.080(5)(a)(v) and-090(5)(a)(iv), FWRC 15.05.100(5)(a)(iv)). R:.Continue to work with the State. King County, Watershed Resource Inventory Area RIA) 9, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations fo explore how local governments can contribute.to the preservation of ecological, processes and shoreline functions (Restoration Gl-Policy 1): R: Continue to work with the WRIA 9 to restore shoreline habitats and shoreline functions:that.support listed endangered and threatened species, as well as other anadromous fisheries. (Restoration Gl-Policy 21. R: Prioritize restoration.and enhancement first based upon the greatest net ecological benefit, as compared:to the project cost (Restoration G2 -Policy R: Work with owners,of other,publiclyowned land such as Washington State Parks ;to encourage restoration and enhancement projects, including funding strategies LRestorati6n,G2-Policy 3 . , R: Enhancement and restoration efforts directed toward im rovin Page 26 of 28 ecological functions along the nearshore using Best Available Science are required of all new development or redevelopment activities. All overwater structures will conform to Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure salmonids can use the nearshore corridor along this shoreline and that forage fish spawning beaches and eelgrass beds are not impacted (Restoration UW7 Policy). R: Encourage protection, enhancement, or restoration of native riparian vegetation through incentives and non-regalatory programs. (Restoration City of Federal Wdb4p Cumulative Impacts AlWsis Page 27 of 28 • City of Federal Way SMP Cumulative Impacts Analysis Conclusion The Federal Way shoreline, particularly the Puget Sound coast, is largely developed in residential uses. There are few opportunities for new development within the coastal shoreline jurisdiction. On the other hand, there is a greater potential for future development along the freshwater lake shorelines, particularly for the lakes within the PAA. Therefore, change within the Puget Sound coastal shoreline will primarily be the result of redevelopment activities, whereas development along the lakes will likely be a mix of new development and redevelopment. Shoreline development along the lakes in the PAA may require a shoreline variance process due to the presence of critical areas within the undeveloped lots on these lakes. The system of shoreline environment designations and use regulations in the proposed SMP is consistent with the established land use pattern, as well as the land use vision planned for in the City's comprehensive plan, zoning, and other long-range planning documents. Based on this consistency it is unlikely that substantial changes in the type of shoreline land uses will occur in the future. However, increased residential density is anticipated for the lake shorelines within the PAA. The proposed SMP provides a new system of shoreline environment designations that establishes more uniform management of the City's shoreline. The updated development standards and regulation of shoreline modifications provides more protection for shoreline processes. SMP regulations (FWRC Chapter 15.05) detailed and referenced in Tables 5 and 6 above identify key regulations that will ensure no net loss and/or potential improvement of the City's most at risk shoreline ecological functions. The SMP provides standards that will require use of softer shoreline stabilization approaches wherever feasible regulates where overwater structures may be allowed as well as the number, size, and character of overwater structures where they are allowed The SMP requires incorporation of water pollution control measures and best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management for all development activities which will limit water quality impacts on marine and lake waters from adjacent shoreland uses. The updated standards and regulations are more restrictive of activities that would result in adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. The restoration planning effort outlined in the proposed SMP provides the City with opportunities to improve or restore ecological functions that have been impaired as a result of past development activities. In addition, the proposed SMP is meant to compliment several City, state and federal efforts to protect shoreline functions and values. Based on assessment of these factors, the cumulative actions taken over time in accordance with the proposed SMP are not likely to result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions from existing baseline conditions. Page 28 of 28 9 • Attachment D1 Janet Shull From: Karen Walter [KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 3:20 PM To: Janet Shull Subject: Update to Federal Way's Shoreline Master Program, 05 -104946 -UP Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Janet, On behalf of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, I reviewed the City of Federal Way's draft Shoreline Master Program documents. I have several questions about these documents which are noted below and described by section and page number from the specific referenced documents: Shoreline Master Program Questions 1. Section 11.3, page 4 Please explain which Tribes the City coordinated with in developing the SMP and how the City coordinated with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The MIT Fisheries Division has no record of receiving information about the City's SMP process, the shoreline inventory and other draft documents. We had to obtain the information via the City's website after we received a notice in July 2010. 2. Section 11.5 Shoreline Use Element, SMPP20, page 9 What is commercial aquaculture? There is no definition in the definition section of the SMP. Why should commercial aquaculture be prohibited if aquaculture is an activity of statewide interest? 3. Section 11.5, Shoreline Use Element, SMPG4, pages 9 and 10 Why isn't there a policy in this section that requires new or expanded utilities in regulated shoreline areas to achieve no net loss of ecological functions? 4. Section 11. 7 Conservation Element, SMPP 76, page 18 Critical salt and freshwater salmonids habitats also support treaty protected tribal fisheries, not just recreational and commercial fisheries as noted on this page. Shoreline Regulations Questions 5. Chapter 15.05.040 General development standards, subsection 5, page 15. Why isn't boring or horizontal drilling underneath critical salmonids habitats (where applicable) priority construction methods for utilities that are underground, particularly if mitigation sequencing is required? 6. 15.05.050, Environmental Designations, page 34 Why isn't there an aquatic environment designated? 7. 15.05.070 Summary of Uses, Approval Criteria, and Process, subsection 3, (i) and (ii), page 25- Why is both commercial and non-commercial aquaculture prohibited in all designations (including aquatic) if aquaculture is an activity of statewide interest? 8. 15.05.070 (6) Standards Table, page 27 What is the technical rationale for a 50 foot setback area in the shoreline residential and urban conservancy environments with a minimum 50-60% vegetation conservation buffer as a general development standard? Assuming there could be construction with the landslide hazard and steep slope areas along Puget Sound, this standard could potentially translate to a 25 foot vegetated native vegetation buffer on the majority of Puget Sound shorelines in Federal Way where there are single family residences. In addition, accessory structures are allowed in the setback area. In addition, there is language that would allow further reductions in the setback to 30 feet based on adjacent lots. How will these allowances ensure a no net loss of marine and freshwater riparian functions? 9. Standards Table, continued (page 28) Mooring buoys (which should be a preferred use per the SMP goals and policies) is missing from the piers, docks, mooring buoys section of the table. Is this intentional? 10. Section 15.05.120 Permit processing and public notice. How does the City intent to notify the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (the division responsible for reviewing projects within the Tribe's area of interest for impacts to fisheries resources? This code section refers to Chapters 19.65 and 19.75 of the FWRC, which does not describe any notice procedures to affected Indian Tribes. We look forward to the City's responses to our questions. Thank you, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 253-876-3116 Attachment D2 ...................... rise Building communities �'� a. •' a Protecting the land `si�Rr®,ar August 27, 2010 Mr. Merle Pfeifer - Chair City of Federal Way Planning Commission c/o Janet Shull, Senior Planner A1CP PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Sent by email to: Janet shull(&cityoffederalway com Subject: Comments on the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program Update Dear Mr. Pfeifer and Planning Commissioners: Futurewise appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Shoreline Master Program (SMP). We apologize for this late letter, and hope the Planning Commission will still consider it in their deliberations. Futurewise is a statewide citizens group that promotes healthy communities and cities while protecting working farms, working forests, and shorelines for this and future generations. We have members in the City of Federal Way, as we do throughout Washington State. While there are many good protection strategies in the draft SMP, there are some areas that need to be strengthened to protect water quality and meet the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the SMP Guidelines. The Puget Sound and its tributaries and lakes are home to three threatened species: the Puget Sound Chinook salmon, the Puget Sound Steelhead, and the Bull Trout.' Business -as -usual has resulted in the loss of habitat that has contributed to the listing of these threatened species. We cannot afford a business - as -usual shoreline master program. What the City of Federal Way needs is a sustainable shoreline master program. That is what we urge you to adopt. Our primary concern relates to the issue of buffers, or (as used in the Federal Way SMP) setbacks and vegetation management. With this letter, we have attached the following: • Our guidance document on using smaller buffers for existing developed areas while still meeting the SMA and SMP Guidelines requirements for using science and no -net -loss of ecological functions. This guidance document explains why small buffers don't work Puget Sound Steelhead ESU map accessed on April 27, 2010 at: l7ttR'/lv ..,,� � nwr noaa9ov/ESA-Salmon- Listings/SalmonPopulations/Mans/ulload/Steelhead%20Puget%20Sound%20mao.12 Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU map accessed on April 27, 2010 at: fittl2://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/mal2s/map chinpuua pdf and Tom Kahler, The Watershed Company, and Martin Grassley and David Beauchamp, Washington Cooperative Fish Et Wildlife Research Unit, Final Report. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA -listed Salmonids in Lakes p. 5 (Prepared for the City of Bellevue: 13 July 2000). Accessed on April 6, 2009 at: r Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 2 to protect ecological functions unless they are accompanied by built-in mitigation in the form of enhancement requirements to offset the built-in impacts that come with small buffers. We must caution you however, that the small buffers in this guidance document are not consistent with the buffers in the National Marine Fisheries Service - Northwest Region's Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion for Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region! So you should carefully consider the potential consequences of using such small buffers. • Our guidance document on meeting the restoration requirements of the SMP Guidelines and the SMA requirement to protect ecological functions. Changes are Needed to the Environment Maps to Protect Remaining Intact Areas WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) requires that "[1]ocal master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions." Since the draft SMP bases its buffer system on shoreline environments, it is important to ensure that areas designated with different environments match with the protection system established in the setback/buffer system. Equally important is that allowed uses need to be limited to prevent intact areas from being converted to human uses that eliminate ecological functions. According to the SMP Policies (page 24 and 25), the Natural environment is to be used for areas that are ecologically intact. The Urban Conservancy environment is to be used for areas that have potential for ecological restoration, or retain important ecological functions, even though partially developed. We have reviewed the environments map and compared it to the development patterns we observed using Google Earth. In reviewing these areas, we observed discrepancies between the environment designations and the environment criteria. There are several areas that appear to be completely undeveloped and intact and should be Natural, and several areas that are developed but have intact vegetation and should be Urban Conservancy. Below are changes we recommend to better conform to the environment designation criteria in the SMP policies: - The approximately 2000' (over 1/3 mile) segment from the north end of 50`" Ave SW to the west end of SW 307"St. is nearly completely undeveloped. There appears to be only one residence that is well setback from the water. The other nearby development is outside shoreline jurisdiction. This area, or at least most of it, should be Natural. - The segment of Shoreline Residential in the vicinity of SW 300`" Pl. does not appear to match the area that is actually developed and should be limited to the developed area. - The segment of Urban Conservancy near the end of 23Td Ave. SW has no development within shoreline jurisdiction, and should be Natural similar to the adjacent Natural segment. - The segment of Urban Conservancy between the ends of 12`" and 7`" Avenues SW has no development within shoreline jurisdiction, and should be Natural. - The west tip of Steele Lake and its associated wetlands is designated Shoreline Residential, but is completely undeveloped. It should be Natural. - The east tip of Lake Dolloff and the associated wetlands are completely undeveloped. It should be Natural rather than Urban Conservancy. 2 Accessed on August 27, 2010 through: http " w nwr noaa gov/Salmon Habitat/ESA-Consultations/FEMA- BO.cfm Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 3 - The remainder of Lake Dolloff is highly rural in nature with areas of remaining riparian vegetation. Almost all development around the lake is outside shoreline jurisdiction. It should be Urban Conservancy rather than Shoreline Residential. - Almost the entire east half of North Lake is undeveloped and intact. Most if it should be designated Natural, and the remainder as Urban Conservancy. - The southernmost tip of North Lake is Shoreline Residential, yet there is intact vegetation and large setbacks. This area should be Urban Conservancy. - Most of the east side of Lake Geneva is developed at low densities with much intact vegetation and large setbacks. This area from S 347`' St. to 4e Ave. S. should be designated Urban Conservancy. - Part of Lake Killarney is designated Urban Conservancy. Some of this is appropriate, but some areas are intact and in a natural state and should be designated Natural, especially the north tip of the lake. - The north tip and associated wetlands of Five Mile Lake are intact, undeveloped, and should be designated Natural. Proposed Setbacks are Inadeguate to Protect Remaining Ecological Functions Based on the environment configuration described above, and our recommended map changes, the setback and vegetation management system needs to protect the ecological functions remaining within the city's shoreline jurisdiction as required by the SMP Guidelines' The proposed setback for the Natural environment is only 100 feet. Yet the proposed Natural areas and the areas we recommend to be Natural are undeveloped with intact vegetation throughout shoreline jurisdiction. Our guidance document summarizes the scientific basis for buffer widths, which shows that no less than 150 feet of vegetation is needed to protect these shorelines. Areas designated as Natural are capable of meeting such a width. A science -based buffer should be established for Natural areas, and would be at least 100 feet wide, with a preferred buffer of 150 feet on Puget Sound. Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound. • An Interim Guide recommends buffers from 100 to 600 feet to protect the functions of Puget Sound! National Marine Fisheries Service - Northwest Region's Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion for Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region calls for riparian buffer zones 250 wide feet measured perpendicularly from ordinary high water for Type S (Shorelines of the State) streams, 200 feet wide for Type F streams (fish bearing) greater than 5 feet wide and marine shorelines such as Puget Sound, and 150 feet for Type F streams less than 5 feet wide and for lakes.' The Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion for Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document — Puget Sound Region calls for riparian buffer zones. For type N (nonsalmonid-bearing) perennial and seasonal WAC 173-26-186(8)(b). EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group, Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound.- An Interim Guide pp. 11-38 to 11-41 (October 2007) accessed on November 5, 2009 at: http•//wdfw wa_govlhab/nearshore guidelines) National Marine Fisheries Service - Northwest Region Second Notice of Error and Correction in Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the on-going National Flood Insurance Program carried out in the Puget Sound area in Washington State p. 5 1HUC 17110020 Puget Sound: May 14, 2009). Accessed on August 27, 2010 from: htti2 /)www nwr noaa-gov/Salmon Habitat/ESA-Consultations/FEMA-BO.cfm Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 4 streams a 150 foot or 225 foot buffer applies, depending on slope stability (the 225 foot buffer applies to unstable slopes) If Natural environment setback is not changed, the loss of ecologically functioning lands outside the 100 foot setback that can be developed (likely the privately held lands) needs to be accounted for in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and mitigated, which will be very difficult or impossible to do. The proposed setback for Urban Conservancy is 50 feet for residential development (the most common development), and 30% of this area can be cleared and developed with yard features. This is the equivalent of a 35 foot setback. The proposed segments of Urban Conservancy usually have approximately 100 feet of intact vegetation. The areas we recommend for Urban Conservancy have similar vegetation characteristics or have rural character with large setbacks and partial vegetation. Under the proposed setbacks, these areas with 100 feet of intact vegetation would loose 65% of their area even though they can accommodate a 100 foot setback that more closely matches the scientific literature. Furthermore, no set percent should be allowed to degrade the buffer other than what is needed for water dependent facilities and access to the water. if Urban Conservancy environment setback is not changed, the loss of functioning area outside the 50 foot setback needs to be accounted for in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and mitigated, which will be very difficult or impossible to do. The segments that are designated Shoreline Residential have a 50 foot setback, and 30% of this area can be cleared and developed with yard features. The 50 foot setback appears to be a good average for these highly developed areas, and is thus an appropriate setback. However, the allowance to clear and develop 50% of the setback area results in the equivalent of a 25 foot setback, which is inappropriate. Development in the setback area should be limited to water dependant facilities and access to the water. If Shoreline Residential environment setback is not changed, the impacts of the allowed 50% development area in the setback needs to be accounted for and mitigated in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis. Using Small Setbacks in Degraded Shoreline Residential Also Needs Compensation The SMP Guidelines include special emphasis on "no -net -loss of ecological functions." This, in tum, is accomplished by the concept of mitigation sequencing. While the draft SMP policies discuss no -net -loss of ecological functions several times, the corollary — mitigation sequencing — is not discussed. This is an important link that needs to be closed, as we recommend below. Mitigation sequencing also ties into how small buffers can be allowed in degraded areas of existing development. As described in our guidance document, the use of small buffers alone will not adequately protect the ecological functions of shorelines. Over time, urban shorelines will continue to be developed and redeveloped, and existing uses will be expanded and intensified. Shoreline areas will be subject to more and more adverse impacts. The scientific evidence shows that full-sized intact buffers are needed to adequately mitigate the impacts of adjacent development on water features. Small intact buffers are incapable of doing so. And degraded buffers are unable to perform their buffering function. if existing developed and 6 Id Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 5 degraded areas are to have small buffers applied to them, the only justification for doing so is that enhancement will offset the new impacts of the new development. Thus, small buffers may be acceptable if done right, as described in the guidance document. Using such a system will help reduce the impacts of new development and redevelopment on shoreline resources. It will also result in a gradual increase in vegetation and habitat for fish and small animals over time. This will meet the SMP Guidelines requirement' for no -let -loss of shoreline functions, the requirement$ to plan for restoration of the jurisdiction's degraded shorelines, and meet the requirement9 to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions. It will also help improve the water quality of the Puget Sound. Making the connection for mitigation sequencing and also compensating for impacts of using small buffers with enhancement needs to be incorporated into the SMP policies. We recommend that Policy SMPP75 be supplemented to add a new section (c) that addresses both issues: (c) In preventing a loss of ecological functions, new development projects shall follow the process of mitigation sequencing. Compensation for impacts of new development projects should use enhancement of degraded conditions to offset the impacts the development. In addition, regulations are needed to implement these concepts. The proposed regulations adequately address the mitigation sequencing component. We recommended adding a new section (g) to the mitigation sequencing regulation 15.05.040(1) to implement the compensation needed to offset the adverse impacts on shorelines that will result from small buffers. (g) When compensation for remaining impacts is necessary after the use of the mitigation priority sequence above, the development shall provide mitigation for any remaining impacts through the submittal and approval of a project mitigation plan that is prepared by qualified professional and is consistent with this SMP. Compensation should take the form of vegetation enhancement and improvements to ecological functions, and should be different for different environments. At a minimum, mitigation shall include: i. In the Shoreline Residential environment where development is near the water and little vegetation remains, un -vegetated or lightly vegetated buffer areas within 20 feet of the ordinary high water mark (or top of shore armoring if applicable) or wetland edge shall be enhanced with dense native vegetation. The Administrator may require wider widths or other improvements to mitigate greater impacts. The revegetation area may be modified using area averaging when existing structures encroach into the required width, when access through the area to waterfront facilities is needed, or when water -dependent activities need to take place in the area. If setback reduction or encroachment is also proposed, additional compensation shall be required as described in Section XXX [referencing the reduction options]. ' WAC 173-26-186(8)(d). ' WAC 173-26-186(8)(c). 9 WAC 173-26-201(2)(fl. Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 6 ii. In the Urban Conservancy environment where vegetation is largely intact, new development on vacant or farm land shall provide vegetation enhancement to ensure that the final vegetation condition in the setback is capable of mitigating impacts from the new development and providing ecological functions. For expansions of existing development within shoreline jurisdiction, the Administrator shall determine enhancement compensation commensurate with impacts. if setback reduction or encroachment is also proposed, additional compensation shall be required as described in Section )= [referencing the reduction options]. If a reduced setback is unmodified and/or the vegetation is relatively intact, the mitigation plan shall provide alternatives, such as out -of -kind compensation by restoring other degraded ecological functions, or by using off-site compensation. iii. In the Natural environment where ecological functions are intact, development within the setback (including setback reductions) shall provide compensation in the form of out -of -kind compensation by restoring other degraded ecological functions, or in the form of off-site compensation. Additional Concerns Regarding Critical Area Protections Section 15.10.2 10 Rehabilitation allows for making corrections to degraded streams. However it only applies to removing detrimental materials. We recommend the following edits (in strikeout and underline) for to better allow enhancement for compensatory mitigation, to better match SMP Guidelines language, and to be more consistent with the similar language used for wetlands in Section 15.10.260(3). The shoreline administrator may permit or require the applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a stream by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, sediment and invasive, non-native vegetation. by requiring that native vegetation be planted or by requiring enhancement of degraded ecological functions.... Section 15.10.220 (Intrusion into stream setbacks) describes when it is acceptable to allow development within stream setbacks. The subsections for Minor Intrusions and Other Intrusions include criteria that do not use the concept of mitigation sequencing. Instead they allow intrusions for any purpose, as long as impacts are mitigated. But mitigation is expensive and uncertain and it is important to avoid and minimize impacts to resources that are highly valuable and difficult to replace.'° A criterion is needed in both sections that states: "Alternatives that avoid and minimize the need for a stream or buffer location are not feasible." Using the word "feasible" (which is defined) ensures some actual need will be demonstrated before approval. Under Section 15.10.250, wetlands under 2500 sq. ft. are not regulated or protected. Such exclusions must be eliminated from the SMP standards to ensure no net loss of shoreline resources as the SMP Guidelines require. In addition, wetlands are only rated into 3 categories using a non-scientific methodology that uses the primary criterion of size. We recommend ° ESA and Ross £t Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd., Making Mitigation Work. The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum p. 1 (Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington: December 2008 Publication No. 08-06-018). Accessed on August 27, 2010 at: httl2://www.egy.wa.gov/12ubs/0806018.�df Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 7 using the Dept. of Ecology four category wetland rating system." This system has the advantage of incorporating the current science on wetlands, which the SMA requires, and most wetland consultants and scientists are familiar with the system, potentially reducing costs for applicants and the city. While stream setbacks seem to be loosely based on science (using 100 foot and 50 foot buffers), the wetland buffer widths in Section 15.10.250 do not match the current scientific literature standards for protecting ecological functions. The proposed SMP wetland buffers are: 200 feet for Category 1; 100 feet for Category 2; and 50 feet for Category 3. The Ecology recommendations based on science are to use 4 categories, with buffers of 300 feet for Category 1 wetlands, 300 feet for Category 11 wetlands, 150 feet for Category 111 wetlands, and 50 feet for Category 1V wetlands.'Z Thus the proposed wetland setbacks are substantially lower than those recommended by science. We urge Federal Way to adopt one of the wetland buffer alternatives recommended by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Sections 15.10.260 (modifications of wetlands), 15.10.270(2) (wetland buffer averaging), 15.10.270(4) (minor improvements in buffers), 15.10.270(5) (wetlands buffer reductions), and 15.10.270(6) (wetlands buffer modification) all allow intrusions into the buffer. Like stream buffers, as discussed above, these sections include criteria that do not use the concept of mitigation sequencing. Instead they allow intrusions for any purpose, as long as impacts are mitigated. But as we documented before, mitigation is expensive and may not work." A criterion is needed in all of these sections that states: "Alternatives that avoid and minimize the need for a wetland or buffer location are not feasible." Using the word "feasible" (which is defined) ensures some actual need will be demonstrated before approval. Public Access Needs Changes to Meet the SMP Guidelines The SMP Guidelines include specific requirements for when public access is to be provided. The draft SMP (in Section 15.05.040(7)(a)(i) and (ii)) only requires public access when development generates demand for it, or impacts existing public access. Neither of these limitations is found in the SMP Guidelines." Both paragraphs (i) and (ii) need to be eliminated to comply with the SMP Guidelines. The SMP Guidelines also require that both Commercial and Industrial uses provide public access, even if they are water -dependent. Proposed 15.05.040(7)(a) includes this standard for commercial uses. Industrial also need to be added to the list. " Thomas Nruby, PhD, Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Revised Annotated Version August 2006 (Ecology Publication # 04-06-025). Accessed on August 27, 2010 at: http://w-ww.eEy.wa.gov/biblio/`0406025.'htmi 12 Granger, T., T. Nruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, E. Stockdale, Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 2. Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands Appendix 8-C Guidance on Widths of Buffers and Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation for Use with the Western Washington Wetland Rating System p. 4 (Washington State Department of Ecology, Publication #05-06-008, Olympia, WA: April 2005). Accessed on April 27, 2010 at: http://www.ea.wa.gov/12ubs/0506008.pdf. " ESA and Ross Et Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd., Making Mitigation Work. The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum p. 1 (Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington: December 2008 Publication No. 08-06-018). 14 WAC 173-26-221 Federal Way Planning Commission, August 27, 2010 Page 8 Special Treatment for Restoration Needs to Exclude Non -restoration Facilities Section 15.05.040(8) needs to address a common problem for restoration projects. Projects sometimes include non -restoration elements that actually degrade or eliminate ecological functions. Such project elements should not receive the same special treatment as true restoration projects. We recommend adding a new subsection (d): "When a restoration project includes non -restoration elements, such as docks, shoreline stabilization structures, etc., the non -restoration elements shall be reviewed separately from the remainder of the restoration project." Concerns Regarding Uses and Modifications Several shoreline uses and modifications sections seem to be incomplete. The summary table indicates that many uses and modifications are intended to be prohibited in the Natural environment. 'However, this is often not stated in the text. Since the draft SNIP specifically states that the table does not control the actual limits, and that uses not addressed are allowed as a conditional use permit, the situation is left unclear. We recommend that the uses and modifications that are listed as prohibited in the table be translated to specific statement in the text, especially for the Natural environment. Docks, Piers, and Boating Facilities Need Additional Limits Docks, piers, and boating facilities have significant adverse effects on lakes.15 The Final Report. A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA -listed Salmonids in Lakes recommends consideration "of `a no new piers' policy as the best option for protecting fish and fish habitat. Encourage the use of floats or buoys instead.s16 The report recognizes that this may not be politically possible and recommends as a backup no net increase in overwater coverage. In order to build a new dock, existing docks would have to be slimmed down to compensate for the increased coverage. So docks and piers should have carefully crafted standards to protect shorelines from their significant impacts. The SMP Guidelines for Piers and Docks" states: "New piers and docks shall be allowed only for water -dependent uses or public access. As used here, a dock associated with a single family residence is a water dependent use provided that it is designed and intended as a facility for access to watercraft..." So docks and piers are only allowed for water dependent uses and single-family residences, unless they meet the stricter requirements for Boating Facility uses, as described in the Guidelines. An important point is that the draft SMP uses the term Boating Facility, but only in terms of a launch facility. The SMP Guidelines also require" local SMPs to deal with recreational Boating Facilities as a specific use category. These can be public or private facilities, marina or mooring buoy field facilities, community or shared facilities, or large and small facilities. These multi-user facilities 5 Tom Kahler, The Watershed Company, and Martin Grassley and David Beauchamp, Washington Cooperative Fish £t Wildlife Research Unit, Final Report: A Summary of the Effects of Bulkheads, Piers, and Other Artificial Structures and Shorezone Development on ESA -listed Salmonids in Lakes pp. 47 — 49 (Prepared for the City of Bellevue: 13 July 2000). Available at: btip://ww-w.ci.bellevue.wa.us/12df/lJtilities/"dock bulkhead pdf " Id. at p. 51. " WAC 173-26-231(3)(b). 1e WAC 173-26-241(3)(c). Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 9 (excluding docks serving four single-family residences or less) are intensely used and need special provisions for dealing with such use. Consequently, the SMP Guidelines require that, when Boating Facilities are allowed, SMPs include regulations to deal with their extensive special issues, which are listed in detail in the Guidelines. We have several recommendations to ensure that the draft SMP accurately complies with the Guidelines on these subjects. • The draft SMP section 15.05.050(3) titled "Boating facilities — launching ramps, rails, and lift stations" needs to be re -titled to "Boat launch ramps, rails, and lift stations." • A new section is needed titled "Boating facilities." The definition and the section need to comply with the SMP Guidelines, including the addition of location standards, as well as safety and sanitation standards. • Boating Facility uses need to be added to the use table and environment use limits. • Section 15.05.050(2)(a) says that public docks and piers are only allowed for water dependent uses and public access. This requirement needs to be applied to ALL piers and docks — public and private — in a new paragraph (n). • The trigger for when accessory facilities become multi-user facilities needs to be added as a new paragraph (m) stating: "Multi-user recreational boating facilities, except those serving four or fewer single family residences, shall also be reviewed as a Boating Facility use." • A requirement for a compensatory mitigation plan for impacts of docks and piers needs to be added in a new paragraph (o) stating: "in addition to the minimization standards provided for docks, piers, floats, compensatory mitigation shall be provided for the remaining impacts from shading by structures and vessels, night lighting, human noise and activity, land and water disturbances, displacement by structures, and other impacts. A mitigation plan shall be included with the application to describe the compensatory mitigation. Preference shall be given to removing duplicate boating structures, removing existing man-made features, and the reestablishment of riparian vegetation." The draft SMP allows private boat ramps in the Shoreline Residential and Urban Conservancy environments. These are unnecessary convenience facilities for which there are alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts, and that unnecessarily and adversely impact the shoreline environment. Private boat ramps impact upland areas, the water -land interface, and in -water areas, and eliminate ecological functions even though there are other options. These impacts for convenience facilities are unnecessary given the availability of public ramps to perform the occasional launching and removal of watercraft. The use of public facilities is not a hardship, and greatly reduces the number of individual facilities. Consequently, private boat ramps should be prohibited. The issue of repair and replacement is not addressed as it relates to bringing piers and docks into conformance with the code as substantial parts are replaced over time. We recommend that you supplement the materials to fully address the issues. The City of Kirkland and City of Kent have thorough piers/docks provisions that we recommend you use as templates. Federal Way Planning Commission August 27, 2010 Page 10 Environment Maps Need to Also Cover Water Areas The SMA requires that cities and counties plan for and manage all shoreline areas within their jurisdiction. This includes the surface water of all lakes and marine areas, including when a city's city limits extend to the center of a water body. The SMP Guidelines recommends that water areas be given an Aquatic environment, but allows jurisdictions to develop alternate but equivalent environments. Our concern is that the Shoreline Environments Map does not provide environment designations for the water areas. It may be that the upland environments were intended to extend out into open water, but this is not indicated on the map or text. Even if this is the case, it will be difficult to accurately extend boundaries between upland environments across long distances of open water. We recommend one of three alternatives: • Alter the maps to show the upland environments extended across water surfaces, and define the boundaries between the different environments. • Apply upland environments to shallow water areas, and establish a new environment for deep water areas. Apply use limits and standards to the new environment. Apply the requirements for Shorelines of Statewide Significance to deep water marine areas. • Establish a new Aquatic environment that complies with the SMP Guidelines. Apply use limits and standards to the new environment. Uses in the Natural Environment Need to be Limited to Veru Low Intensitu Uses. The SMP Guidelines require that development in the Natural environment must be of very low intensity.19 A new standard is needed in Section 15.05.100(3) providing this limit, and also providing examples of low intensity uses for those categories of uses that are allowed. Paths and Trails Need to Protect Riparian Vegetation Like Other Uses Recreation paragraphs (G) and (N) are contradictory. Paragraph (G) requires upland facilities to be away from the water, which is appropriate. Paragraph (H) allows paths to be adjacent to the water, which is contrary to the concept of mitigation sequencing, and causes severe impacts to the functions provided by vegetation. Paths are not water dependent and can maintain their function while meeting the buffer requirement. Spur trails providing access to the water, or short segments closer to the water can be allowed without severely degrading the functions performed by vegetation adjacent to the water. Thank you for considering our comments. if you require additional information please contact me at deanafuturewise.org or 509-823-5481. Sincerely, / Dean Patterson Shoreline Planner Futurewise 79 WAC 173-26-211 Recommendations for Incorporating Restoration fut-Urewrvise Planning into ••......... .••*•' Pmtecdng the land Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) The Restoration Plan is one of several important documents that support the shoreline master Program (SMP). However it is not a stand-alone document. It is also important in the context of the other SMP documents, because they are all interdependent on each other. • Inventory and Characterization — This is the foundation of the SMP by establishing baseline conditions that are used in the other documents. • Restoration Plan — Uses the baseline conditions to identify opportunities for restoration, and identifies regulatory and non -regulatory programs that exist or are needed to accomplish shoreline restoration. • Land Use Analysis — Based on the inventory, assesses the existing and future demand for water -dependant, water -related, and water -enjoyment shoreline uses against the available shoreline lands. • Goals, Policies, and Regulations — Uses and influences the other documents in an iterative manner to establish regulatory standards for new shoreline development and non -regulatory courses of action for the jurisdiction (such as transportation planning). • Cumulative Impact Analysis — Assesses the ability of the regulatory program and restoration program to result in "no -net -loss of ecological functions" at full build out.' Restoration plans sometimes only address large stand-alone restoration projects. Yet this is not the limit of the requirement for restoration planning. One of the primary functions of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) is to protect the natural character of the state's shorelines. This is stated in the SMA policy statement in 90.58.020: "This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." In the history of shoreline development under the SMA, this protection hasn't been done very well because people did not fully understand, or did not care about the impacts of development on aquatic and riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands. As a result, extensive shoreline areas have been degraded over the last 30 years. The current SMP Guidelines try to address this problem in two ways: protecting existing shorelines with a requirement of no - net -loss of ecological function, and improving the condition of degraded shorelines with a requirement for restoration planning. These three subjects - SMA policy, no -net -loss of ecological function, and restoration planning - are intimately tied together, as described in 'WAC 173-26-186(8)(d). The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines [chapter 173-26 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)] can be downloaded from: littl2:1/wwvv.eQ(.wa.gov/12rogiam /sea /sma /guidelineslindex.himl Shoreline master programs must be consistent with the guidelines. RCW 90.58.090(2)(d); Samson v. City of&inbridge Island, _ Wn. App. _, 202 P.3d 334 (2009). Despite their name, the guidelines are binding Hiles. more detail below. A SMP and its supporting documents need to implement these requirements. No -net -loss is typically thought of in terms of avoiding and mitigating the impacts of permitted uses and activities. However, not all project impacts can be mitigated, since developments and activities convert habitat into human use areas or converts land to more intensive uses. NOT does site specific mitigation address the continual creep of existing human development that gradually encroaches on native vegetation and wildlife habitat. Without a method of offsetting this effect, shoreline wildlife will get displaced or driven off, habitat and native vegetation slowly disappear, and shoreline waters get slowly degraded - even with project specific mitigation. In addition to the one time impacts of the conversion of native vegetation to development, development can also cause continuing adverse impacts on shorelines. For example, development located along a river with narrow or non-existent buffers will continue to adversely impact the shorelines due to unfiltered water pollution, noise, glare, and other ongoing adverse impacts. Restoration offsets these lost functions and the creeping degradation caused by new development, and helps maintain the condition of no -net -loss of ecological functions. It also addresses the 30 plus years of historic unmitigated degradation since establishment of the SMA. This is why restoration planning is needed. The restoration plan "should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master Program."' One of the important functions of the shoreline master program restoration plan is to determine how the jurisdiction will accomplish the restoration of ecological functions over time in the face of historic and future degradation. This is indicated in the Restoration Planning requirements of WAC 173-26-186(8)(c), which states [emphasis added]: For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological functions, master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards. As indicated in the WAC above, a restoration plan needs to focus both on opportunities for restoration projects and on the regulatory programs. Restoration Plans that have come out recently have been thorough in assessing shoreline conditions and opportunities for future restoration projects. Such an assessment can be used ' WAC 173-26-201(2)(0. 2 by future restoration project proponents in targeting locations and improving conditions that have been degraded in those locations. Thus they do well in addressing restoration in the context of nonregulatory restoration projects. However, they typically do not address the regulatory programs. Most jurisdictions have vast areas of degraded shorelines; yet stand-alone nonregulatory restoration programs can only address a small fraction of those areas and are thus incapable of achieving overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time. The most effective method of addressing these large degraded areas in a programmatic way is through the regulatory program, which works jurisdiction -wide in the course of redeveloping land, expanding existing uses, infill development, and urbanizing undeveloped land on a project -by - project basis. Such everyday development review will encounter degraded areas on a scale that is hundreds of times larger and more common than normal restoration projects, and it is these degraded areas that is the very reason for the restoration planning requirement. To be clear, requirements for restoration should not be applied retroactively to the continued operation, maintenance, and repair of existing development —just to new development in degraded areas. In short the SMP Plays a critical role in development review, and restoration needs to be incorporated into development review. Whether the word "restoration, " "enhancement" or some other tern is used is immaterial, as long as the intent is to improve degraded areas and thereby offset the adverse impacts of development and redevelopment. The commonly understood first priority of shoreline regulation has been "protect what you have". This is traditionally done during the permit review process. Restoration needs to be incorporated into the permit process so that the priority becomes "protect what you have and improve what you can." Such a no -net -loss and restoration strategy would use the line of logic provided below, which integrates restoration efforts at the common smaller -scale permit level and the uncommon larger -scale restoration project level into a comprehensive strategy. Note that the first five bullets are about mitigation sequencing, and that it is only the last three bullets that are the focus of a typical Restoration Plan. • Set the shoreline environments and the uses allowed within them to limit uses appropriately' • Avoid impacts for allowed uses when possible — meeting buffers goes a long way toward accomplishing avoidance, though not entirely • Minimize impacts when avoidance is not possible. • Determine the impacts that are being caused — it can be difficult and very expensive to determine the exact impacts, especially for homeowners and smaller project proponents, since a report is required. The restoration plan and other technical studies can help by establishing a natural resource baseline. ' See WAC 173-26-191(1)(d). ` See WAC 173-26-201(2)(e). 3 • Mitigate for impacts caused. • Use restoration of degraded conditions to mitigate impacts — for example: removing structures or fill, removing sources of pollution, removing lawn at the waterline, etc. Judicious application of restoration also avoids the need to determine exact impacts and exact amounts of mitigation, which may be a basis for waiving a difficult and costly report. • Require that degraded buffers be restored and given long tern protection, so they are capable of protecting Puget Sound and marine waters, rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands they are meant to protect. • Where structures and uses already exist, and the critical areas or shorelines are degraded, provide restoration as much as possible to reduce the continuing and ongoing impacts of existing development, in addition to mitigating new development. • As required by law, the mitigation must be tied to the impacts of the proposed development and the extent of required restoration would have to be roughly Proportional to the extent of development being undertaken and its impacts. • Make stand-alone restoration projects easier to approve and review by providing properly limited exemptions, etc. Note: Structural elements (such as hard stabilization, etc.) should not normally be considered restoration for an exemption, and should obtain a permit. • Incorporate existing restoration efforts, programs, planned projects, and ongoing projects into the Restoration Plan. • Make Restoration Plan opportunities and Inventory documents available to guide future Proponents of restoration projects, and required mitigation. Summaru In both the Restoration Plan and the SMP, the restoration goals and policies need to address restoration comprehensively - in both the regulatory program and in non -regulatory programs. The goals and policies then need to be translated into the SMP regulations. For more information please contact: Dean Patterson, Shoreline Planner, Futurewise. E-mail: dean(&-futurewise.org. Direct Cell 509- 823-5481. Or contact the Futurewise main office at 206-343-0681. Web: www futurewise.org. 4 ............., fU,*--ture .••• Bunding communitles +. . • •' Ptvtect+ing the land Recommendations on Making Small Shoreline Buffers Work with Buffer Science March 2010 Note: this document will be updated with additional science citations in the future, please check our website for the current version Introduction In the course of reviewing Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs), Futurewise has seen several Proposals for small buffers in areas of existing development. Some of these proposals seem to be based on the belief that, if a small buffer is established based on existing development patterns, unlimited new development (including redevelopment, expansion, and more intensified uses) outside that small buffer will have no additional impacts to shoreline ecological functions, and thus no mitigation is necessary. This paper shows that there is no scientific basis for such a strategy, and provides a recommended strategy for the acceptable use of small buffers in existing intensely developed areas which we believe allows for reasonable development while also having a reasonable chance of protecting the existing shoreline functions, as the Shoreline Management Act and the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines require. Purpose of Regulatory Buffers — Avoiding & Minimizing, Impacts The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) policy statement in RCW 90.58.020 lists the primary policy objective of the act [with emphasis]: "This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic lire, while protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto." In addition, the SMA policy provides that "[p]ermitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water." To implement these policies to protect the ecology and to minimize damage, as well as other policies of the SMA, the SMP Guidelines require no -net -loss of ecological functions, stating specifically: "Local master programs shall include policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions."' This is accomplished through mitigation sequencing,' whereby the first task of mitigation is avoidance of impacts, the second task is minimization of impacts, and the third is compensation for remaining impacts. Stated another way, allowing development to impact the shoreline is supposed to be the last option not the first option. impacts should only be allowed to the extent that it is not practical to avoid damage to the environment and the WAC 173-26-186(8)(b) under Governing Principles of the Guidelines relating to ecological functions; and implemented in WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) under Basic Concepts. Despite being called `Guidelines,' the SMA, in RCW 90.58.080(1), requires that shoreline master programs shall be consistent with the SMP Guidelines. WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) under Basic Concepts and Protection of Ecological Functions; and implemented in WAC 173-26-201(2)(e) under Basic Concepts, Environmental Impact Mitigation. Page 1 of 10 March 2010 public's use of the water, and then the development should minimize and compensate for those impacts. Designing an SMP to achieve no -net -loss of ecological functions is largely a scientific exercise, and the SMA is specific in its requirements to use science in developing the SMP. It requires using "a systematic interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts."' This science requirement is similar to the Growth Management Act's "Best Available Science" requirement. While each has its own terminology, these two science requirements are functionally the same in that they require the use of current up-to-date science. The science literature on the impacts of development near water bodies provides the basis for jurisdictions to accomplish mitigation sequencing for shoreline waters (streams, lakes, wetlands, marine waters, etc.) and adjacent shorelands. One essential strategy for protecting the functions and values provided by intact riparian vegetation is using a regulatory buffer for a setback and vegetation retention area) of a width supported by science. An adequate buffer can provide many important functions and help protect water quality and water resources. While an adequate buffer can accomplish much, it cannot mitigate everything, especially impacts from degraded upland areas and the broader watershed - for example stormwater, erosion, habitat loss, etc. Other regulations are needed to deal with such impacts, including those areas outside shoreline jurisdiction! An adequate regulatory buffer can do much to provide mitigation sequencing: (1) It helps accomplish the first task of mitigation sequencing - avoidance. But this is only the case if the buffer is intact. An adequate buffer will help protect a large percentage of the functions that riparian vegetation provides, and will encompass the most important riparian habitat areas. (2) While an adequate buffer can do much, it can't accomplish everything. Thus, an intact buffer can be a first step in minimizing the adverse impacts of development to functions that extend outside the buffer. It also reduces or helps minimize those repeating or ongoing impacts from adjacent development, such as water quality, glare, and noise impacts, by filtering pollutants, screening glare, and reducing noise transmission. (3) For both degraded and intact areas, a science -based regulatory buffer also identifies an area within which new development will cause impacts that need compensation. In addition, when buffers are degraded, they provide a location where any impacts of the development can be compensated for by enhancing the degraded functions. Even when science -based buffers are degraded, they can still perform functions at a dampened level, depending on the amount of degradation. Even heavily degraded shorelines will perform ' RCW 80.58.100, with emphasis added. For example, to maintain the health of streams and salmon habitats, rivers basins should limit effective impervious surfaces to no more than ten percent and forest cover to no less than 65 percent. Derek B. Booth, Forest Cover, Impervious -surface Area, and the Mitigation of Urbanization Impacts in King County, Washington p. 16 (University of Washington, Seattle Washington: September 2000). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: http•11dents washington edulcuwrm/research/forest pdf Page 2 of 10 March 2010 functions at a very low level. This is specifically stated in the SMP Guidelines ,s and documented in the science literature (including those footnoted below) that compares developed and undeveloped sites. For example, even lawns can provide better animal feeding, runoff treatment, and other functions than paved surfaces and structures. New impervious surfaces and more intensive use will degrade these even further. Thus, if the regulatory buffer is not of adequate width to avoid and mitigate impacts, as is the case when using small buffers, new development outside the small buffer will still cause new impacts. Vegetative Buffer Areas Perform Many Functions The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has been reviewed and synthesized in several documents that show that intact buffers of adequate width are needed to mitigate the impacts of adjacent development on lakes, rivers, streams, marine waters, and wetlands.' An item of particular WAC 173-26-201(2)(c) under Basic Concepts and Protection of Ecological Functions. Lakes: Karen Cappiella and Tom Schueler, Crafting a Lake Protection Ordinance, Urban Lake Management, Watershed Protection Techniques 3(4) (2001). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: CRs//WWW cwR org/Resource Librai3t/Center Docslspecial/lakes/ulm lakeprotectionQMd Udf. Widths - p. 756; Functions - pp. 752-754. Lakes: S. Engel and J. L. Pederson Jr., The construction, aesthetics, and effects oflakeshore development: a literature review (Research report 177, Wisconsin. Dept. of Natural Resources, 1998). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: http://digicoll library wise edu/cgi-bin/EcoNatRes/EcoNatRes- idx?id=EcoNatRes.DNRReR177. Functions - pp. 9-24; widths not addressed. Streams Lakes and Marine: National Marine Fisheries Service - Northwest Region, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Biological Opinion for Implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program in the State of Washington, Phase One Document - Puget Sound Region (Sept. 22, 2008). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: htti2s://12ct5,nmf5.noaa.gov/pls/pcts-12ub/`biOI2 results detail?reg inclause in=('NWR')£tidin=29282.. Widths - pp. 222 - 223; Functions and development impacts: pp. 24 - 150. Streams and Lakes: Spence, B. C., G. A. Lomnicky, R. M. Hughes, and R. P. Novitzki, An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. (ManTech Environmental Research Services Corp., Corvallis, OR, Doc.#: TR -4501-96-6057, available from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon. 1996). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: htti2//www nwr noaa gov/Publications/Reference-Documents/ManTech-Report.cfm. Widths - pp. 215-230 (esp. p. 229); Functions - pp. 51-55. tr ams: K. L. Knutson Et V. L. Naef, Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA, 1997). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: ht2://wdfw was ov/hab/ripfinal 12df. Widths - p. 87; Functions - pp. 19-38. Wetlands: D. Sheldon, T. Nruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale, Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #05-06-006, 2005). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: hM://wwLm,gg3t.wa.gov/biblio/0506006.htmi. Widths - all of Chapter 5 Et p. 5-55; Functions - All of Chapter 2 Et parts of Chapter 3 and 4. Marine: EnviroVision, Herrera Environmental, and the Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group, Protecting Nearshore Habitat and Functions in Puget Sound., An Interim Guide (October 2007). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: fittp://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/nearshore guidelines/. Widths - pp 111-38 to 111-41; Functions - pp. 11-38 to 11-46. Marine: J. S. Brennan, and N. Culverwell, Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian Functions in Marine Ecosystems /(Nashington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, 2004). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: htti2://w-ww.wsg,wasbington.edu/Tesearcb/pdfs/brennan.12d Widths - p. 16; Functions pp. ii -iii Et 3-14. NOTE: if some links do not operate, removing the last item on the link may provide an alternate access path. Otherwise perform a search on that website or the intemet in general. Page 3 of 10 March 2010 note is that some studies' found that riparian vegetation performed similar functions for all types of water environments. Indeed, many of the science articles seeking numerical values for buffer widths are not based on any particular type of water feature (stream v. wetland, etc.). The buffer widths recommended to protect the wide variety of ecological functions in these synthesis studies are summarized in the following table. Specific functions are described in more detail below the table. Cappiella and Schueler, Crafting a Lake Protection Range from Ordinance (Review of Lake Ordinances) 50-150% Septic 100'+ Engel and Pederson, The construction, aesthetics, Only and effects oflakeshore development functions listed National Marine Fisheries Service, ESA Consultation Greater of: 100' 100' Biological Opinion for NRP in Wa. State Lg. rivers - 150'; or CMZ +50'; or floodwa Spence et al., An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid 1 site pot. 1 site pot. Conservation. (ManTech Report for NOAA) tree height tree height (up to 1501 (up to 150') Knutson Et Naef, Management Recommendations for 150-250' Washington's Priority Habitats: Riparian (WDFW) per str. type + floodplain Sheldon et al., Wetlands in Washington State - 150'-300' Volume 1: A Synthesis of the Science (Ecology) for most human uses EnviroVision et al., Protecting Nearshore Habitat and 150-200' Functions in Puget Sound.- An Interim Guide (Aquatic Habitat Guideline Working Group) Brennan and Culverwell, Marine Riparian: An >30m assessment of riparian functions (SeaGrant) (>1001 NOTE: See footnote 6 for full citations and links to the studies. These science reviews document that: (1) small buffers, even with intact vegetation, are incapable of fully mitigating development impacts; and (2) degraded buffers are unable to fully perform their buffering function! The science of intact buffer areas of adequate width shows that they perform many functions - some of which are provided below and grouped by similarity. ' Sheldon, et al., Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1, p. 5-25 to 5-26. Brennan and Culverwell, Marine Riparian, pp. 2 Et 16. EnviroVision, et al., Protecting Nearshore Habitat, p. 111-38. See particularly: Spence et al., An Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. (ManTech Report for NOAA) Chapter 6: Effects of Human Activities. Page 4 of 10 March 2010 Water Ouality and Infiltration • inhibiting surface erosion from surface runoff and flood flows. • Filtering sediment from surface runoff and flood flows. • Removing and transforming nutrients and harmful substances from surface runoff and flood flows. • Infiltrating and storing surface runoff and flood flows into groundwater for later release to water bodies. • Removing and transforming nutrients and harmful substances from groundwater passing through root zones. Stabilization • Providing stabilization to streambanks, lake shores, and marine waters against erosive water forces through root mats and root -strength. • Contributing in -water woody debris which reduces and slows erosive water forces against streambanks and lake shores through barriers and increased roughness. • Protects uplands from surface erosion caused by storms and rising sea levels. In -Water Habitat Contributions • Providing fish with over -water hanging cover from predators. • Providing shade to help cool the water, especially for shallow margins. • Contributing in -water woody debris needed for creation of fish habitat. • Contributing in -water organic matter to support fish food species (insects and invertebrates), and other aquatic life. • Screening or dampening noise, glare, and human activity from the water. Land Habitat • Providing refuge for fish from fast flows during floods, as well as access to new food sources. • Contributing large woody debris needed for amphibian, small mammal, bird, and insect habitat. • Providing wildlife habitat areas (for feeding, reproducing, resting, etc.) for riparian species, and for upland species that use riparian areas. • Providing a wildlife dispersal and migration corridor along the water to other areas. • Generating organic matter needed for foundation of food web. • Providing natural processes and food web functions to support wildlife. • Altering the microclimate near the water to be more suitable for aquatic and riparian species by sheltering from wind, holding humidity, etc. • Screening or dampening noise, glare, and human activity. • Providing separation from human activity for sensitive aquatic and upland species. While full-sized, intact buffers perform or protect almost the full level of the functions above, degraded buffers still perform low levels of functions, and additional development continues to impact these. It is not the case that degraded buffers have no functions; thus mitigation is needed for new development outside any buffer area which is too small to fully perform or Protect the full range of shoreline functions. Page 5 of 10 March 2010 Small Degraded Buffers Cannot Protect Shoreline Functions The currently available science shows that using the science -based buffer for avoidance and minimization in mitigation sequencing has several policy implications that bear on the use of small buffer regulations for existing development: 1. if the science -based buffers are intact, they can provide functions and protect the resource from many impacts from nearby development. 2. If the buffers are not intact, they cannot provide the functions nor protect the resource from adjacent development - even if it meets the science -based width - and there will be impacts. 3. If development takes place within the buffer area, there will be impacts. 4. In the case of existing development within the science -based buffer width, the vegetation is both degraded and there is not enough width. The presence of existing development does not mean that new development will not have impacts or even that existing development does not have ongoing impacts. Just as in #3 above, additional development in the science -based buffer area will increase the impacts. Simply making the regulatory buffer width smaller to match the existing development does not change the presence of impacts. 5. Using small regulatory buffer widths to accommodate existing development establishes built-in impacts in the SMP review system. 6. Since the normal path of development in urban areas over time is expansion and intensification, there will be a continual increase in impacts and degradation across shoreline jurisdiction in these areas. This creates additional impacts that must be addressed in both the Cumulative Impacts Analysis and the Restoration Plan. This information shows that just because the science -based buffer area is degraded, it is not the case that unlimited additional development has no additional impacts as long as it meets a small regulatory buffer or setback. It also shows that small buffers cannot be applied to areas that may still have intact functions, especially if it is possible to maintain or establish a scientific buffer width, as those areas need to be protected from loss. Some small buffer systems proposed in some SNIPS seem to assume that the smaller degraded buffer works the same as an intact science -based buffer, i.e. adequately providing functions and buffering against impacts as long as development is outside the buffer line. But the peer- reviewed scientific literature shows that a smaller degraded buffer is incapable of performing functions adequately and incapable of protecting the resource it is intended to protect. New Development and Existing Development Impact Shoreline Functions Expansion of existing development, redevelopment, and new development on vacant land all adversely affect shoreline resources and functions. In fact, even existing development can continue to cause impacts to ecological functions. As described above, this is the case even for development outside a small regulatory setback. Consider the following adverse impacts of development on the shoreline resources. Page 6 of 10 March 2010 New structures and impervious surfaces increase runoff volumes, remove vegetation, remove native soils that absorb water, and reduce the area available to infiltrate those volumes. Note that these impacts are partially mitigated through stormwater Ordinances. 'However, stormwater regulations generally only address increased peak runoff volumes, not the other impacts! In addition, small developments are only required to comply with some of the storm water requirements, thus reducing the ability of those regulations to address these impacts." a. The increased runoff is focused into smaller receiving areas, thus increasing the erosive power and sediment carrying ability of the surface runoff in those areas. b. Where infiltration can still occur, the focused runoff drives infiltrated water to the groundwater table more rapidly with less opportunity for soil treatment. c. Less vegetation area is available to filter sediment and nutrients from flood waters and the larger volumes of surface runoff passing over the site. d. Less native soils and vegetation root structure is available to treat groundwater. e. The trend of decreased infiltration in a drainage basin changes the hydrology of the basin by increasing winter flows and deceasing summer and fall flows adversely affecting water quality and aquatic habitats. Adding new structures, additions, or impervious surfaces, and removing or simplifying vegetation (cutting trees, replacing shrubs with lawn, paving, etc.) also adversely affect habitat: a. Nigher value habitat areas and migration pathways are eliminated or replaced with lower value areas, until the most simplified areas (open impervious surfaces) have only limited value for migration pathways and separation areas. More complex areas for nesting and refuge are most susceptible to loss. b. Substituting native vegetation with non-native species, or their total removal, results in a loss of food sources for the entire food web. For example, many native insect species cannot effectively use non-native vegetation for food. The reductions in insect populations then affect the fish that feed on them. c. Natural processes, insect food sources, and food web functions are reduced or eliminated with the progressive removal of complex vegetation elements. d. Species (large and small) capable of using degraded areas are greatly reduced with greater degradation. e. Microclimate is altered for species currently using.site. f. Reduces the organic matter input to the water from drifting and blowing wind that supports the aquatic food web and aquatic life. g. Reduces the large woody debris input from trees and branches falling into the water that is needed to form and diversify fish and aquatic life habitat. 9 Washington State Department of Ecology, Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume 1 — Minimum Technical Requirements pp. 1-20 — 1-26 (February 2005). Accessed on March 10, 2010 at: bttp://w,ww.ecy.wa.gov/"biblio/0510029.html 10 Id. at p. 2-9. Page 7 of 10 March 2010 • In addition removing or simplifying the vegetation near water also: a. Reduces the root strength and root mats that provide bank stabilization. b. Increases sun exposure on shallow water areas and heats them. • Residential uses have additional impacts, not directly related to construction, that increase with enlargement or expansion of the use. Aside from lighting, very little can be done to mitigate these impacts — they are a function of the existence of the development. Non-residential uses can have impacts similar to residential uses that vary depending on the activities and the level of use. a. Human presence and activity that impacts or drives off fish and wildlife. Bigger residences usually mean more people on the property, whether family members or guests. b. Pets that prey on or drive off fish and wildlife. More family members increase the likelihood of having more pets. c. Machinery and vehicular noise that impacts or drives off fish and wildlife. More people on the property increase the likelihood of having more machines and vehicles - including automobiles, watercraft, yard machinery, and recreational vehicles. d. Use of chemicals and fertilizers for house and yard. Larger structures and grounds increase the use of chemicals. e. Use of night lighting that impacts or drives off fish and wildlife. Larger structures and grounds typically increase the use of night lighting. Existing development that has inadequate buffers can also have ongoing impacts or impacts that increase over time. While shoreline master programs do not apply to most existing uses, these impacts show that allowing an expanded, redeveloped, or new use that continues to rely on existing, degraded buffers or non-existent buffers will result in an increased loss of shoreline functions, contrary to the requirements of the SMA. Further, shoreline master programs do apply to ongoing activities that require five year permit renewals. The SMP should require measures to protect shoreline functions when those permits are renewed. a. Inadequate buffers allow larger pollutant loads to pass than intact buffers. Thus the receiving waters become more and more contaminated as pollutants build up in aquatic sediments and the water body year after year. Some pollutants are removed or transformed by flushing and biological processes, but others build up over time. b. Inadequate buffers allow larger sediment loads to pass than intact buffers. Thus aquatic life and habitat areas continue to be smothered by sediment, and water turbidity continues to impact organisms. c. Buffers degrade over time, so existing uses increase their pollution loads as the buffers degrade. The degraded buffers also provide fewer functions and mitigate fewer impacts. Page 8 of 10 March 2010 Recommendations for Using Small Buffers, or Setbacks with Planting Based on the discussion above, regulatory systems that use small buffers alone are ineffective and fail to comply with the SMA. While a science -based regulatory buffer can provide a means of avoidance and minimization, small degraded regulatory buffers and setbacks do not, and result in a system with built-in adverse impacts to ecological functions. Since a system that uses small buffers or setbacks alone cannot accomplish avoidance, or otherwise mitigate the impacts of a development, the only other acceptable strategy for their use is if the built-in impacts are offset by built-in mitigation measures, including mitigation for habitat impacts. This is best accomplished by an improvement of the existing degraded buffer or habitat conditions. While this approach can be used with validity, it must be only one part of a system that addresses the range of different shoreline conditions in a logical and systematic manner. Below is our recommended strategy for jurisdictions to use small buffers or setbacks for existing developed areas. 1. The shoreline area should be carefully mapped, and the existing level of development should be characterized. This should be part of the inventory and characterization step of the SMP update. When broad variations exist in setback and vegetation, the areas should be categorized based on the character so the protection measures can consider such variations. 2. Science -based regulatory buffer widths need to be adopted for areas with intact functions or with consistently large setbacks. These areas need to be protected from further degradation. 3. Small regulatory buffers widths or setbacks, along with built-in mitigation (as described below), can be used for areas of existing development, and should be based on the vegetation and setback categories identified during mapping. These areas need to be wide enough to function, and function over time. For example, the narrowest high qualitybuffer that can filter nutrients is 13 feet, and for filtering pollutants you need 33 to 52 feet." And buffers degrade over time as they filter out nutrients and pollutants. The area needs to be at least 20 feet wide (enough for a fully grown tree) to provide minimum functions. Wider buffers are needed to protect other important shoreline functions. 4. Built-in mitigation requirements need to be included when an intact science -based buffer cannot be used to mitigate impacts of new development. This should include various means of enhancing the degraded shoreline areas where doing so is possible — such as planting native shoreline vegetation, removal or reduction of unnecessary shore armoring or other near -water structures, etc. Where native vegetation is planted, it needs to include native groundcover, shrub, and tree planting; and needs to extend across the shoreline with allowances for water access. 5. Even if a science -based buffer can be used in some places, it will be ineffective if it is degraded or non -vegetated. In such cases, the buffer or setback must be planted and maintained in order to buffer the impacts of the new development. This must include native understory, shrub, and tree planting and extend across the shoreline with allowances for water access. " K. L. Knutson £t V. L. Naef, Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats. Riparian p. Xl, pp. 164 (Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA: 1997). Page 9 of 10 March 2010 In addition to built-in mitigation in the form of enhancement, the use of small buffers means other impacts need to be carefully controlled, which means the use of additional standards. 1. Only very limited uses should be allowed in the setback and no uses can be allowed within the planted areas if they are to function. Encroachments into a buffer or setback vegetation should be limited to those that are water -dependent and water - related. Water -enjoyment and non -water -oriented uses and facilities can function without being in the buffer area. 2. Low impact development (LID) techniques should be required to minimize storm water runoff and help maintain a more natural hydrologic system. This is needed to help reduce the polluted storm water that would otherwise overwhelm the narrow planting strip. 3. Major redevelopments and changes in use, which usually result in great intensification, must established scientific based buffers to ensure no net loss of shoreline functions. 4. When permits for activities are renewed every five years, buffers or setbacks and vegetation plantings should be required. While small buffers can be made acceptable for highly developed urban areas and rural areas, there needs to be policy support for not basing the buffer width on the available scientific information - of course science -based buffers should be used for intact areas. Such justification can be provided in the jurisdiction's policy that supports the use of shoreline buffers. We recommend a policy similar to the following: BUFFER POLICY.• While buffers widths based on science are necessary to protect ecological functions, using them is not possible in existing heavily developed areas, such as along some parts of [FILL IN THE BLANK]. In such areas, an alternative strategy is established using smaller buffers [OR setbacks] that are based on the existing development pattern, in combination with mitigation requirements for new development that provide enhancement of the smaller buffer and other degraded features to address impacts of the new development outside the small buffer areas. For more information please contact: Dean Patterson, Shoreline Planner, Futurewise. E-mail: dean 02futurewise.org. Direct Cell 509- 823-5481. Or the Futurewise main office at 206-343-0681. Web: www.futurewise.orcl. Page 10 of 10 March 2010 Attachment D3 Janet Shull From: kutscha@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:11 PM To: Janet Shull Subject: Addition to Shoreline Master Program Attachments: ADDITION TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Janet: Please forward the attached two pages to just the Land Use and Transportation Committee for its meeting on September 20. Thank you for meeting with us today. We appreciated your input. Norm and Lois ADDITION TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Norm and Lois Kutscha 1. My wife and I feel very strongly that a small addition needs to be made to the Shoreline Master Program. This small addition will protect the rights of existing lake front home owners. The addition does not alter the proposed Master Program for marine shorelines. 3. The current program specifies that new homes will be set back 50 feet or that distance necessary to protect designated critical areas, whichever is greater. The addition would specify that if existing homes on the adjacent lake front property are greater than 50 feet back, the new home will follow the stringline setback rule, but not requiring more than a 100 -foot setback. (See Attached.) 4. This addition would prevent the new home from drastically altering the view from the existing homes on either side of the new home. For example, if existing lake front homes on adjacent lots are now 100 feet back, a new home at 50 feet would block the existing homes' views. 5. The Shoreline Master Program already allows a new home to be built closer to the lake, using the stringline rule, if adjacent existing homes are closer than 50 feet from the shoreline, improving its view. 6. This same problem will undoubtedly come up again and again, as lots are developed and older homes replaced, on existing lakes within Federal Way and on other lakes to be annexed in the future. 7. This addition would not affect the proposed change for a minimum setback from marine bluffs. 8. This addition readily meets the overall goal of "no net loss of ecological function" on the City's lakefront shorelines. 9. Furthermore, discussion with the Department of Ecology indicated that they are definitely concerned with aesthetic issues of our shorelines, including issues that deal with view. They find nothing objectionable about this addition. 10. We request that this addition be made before the Shoreline Master Program is submitted to the City Council. ADDITION TO SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (UNDERLINED) Norm and Lois Kutscha The first sentence of Section 15.05.080, Shoreline residential environment, paragraph (3)(d)(page 30 of 84) shall read: Setbacks. Development shall: [11 maintain a minimum marine and lake front shoreline setback of the first 50 feet of property landward from the ordinary high water mark, or [21 if at least one single-family residence exists on an adiacent lakefront property that is greater than 50 feet back shall follow the stringline setback rule but not more than 100 feet as defined in FWRC 15 05.030 or [31 maintain other designated minimum setback necessary to protect designated critical areas per FWRC 15.05.040 [4], whichever is greater. This minimum setback area shall be retained as a vegetation conservation area, subject to provisions referenced in subsection (e). Attachment E7 `CITY OF Federal Way September 14, 2010 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 172°d Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 RE: FILE #05 -104946 -00 -UP; SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Dear Ms. Walter: CITY HALL Q0[PV 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Thank your for your comments on the proposed revisions to our Shoreline Master Program Update. Our update process has been underway since 2005, with the bulk of the work on the SMP Update being completed in 2006 and 2007. During that time, the City of Federal Way made numerous contacts with the Muckleshoot Tribe and other agencies. Our records indicate that we invited the Tribe to participate on our Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in early 2006 (invitation declined). We requested comment on our Draft Inventory and Characterization Report in August 2006; provided notice of Planning Commission Meeting in February 2007; provided a CD with draft SMP documents in February 2007; provided notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission in March of 2007; and notice of City Council Land Use Transportation Committee Public Meeting in May of 2007. In June of 2007, the Federal Way City Council approved the draft SMP Update and it was forwarded to the Department of Ecology for review and approval. The revised SMP documents currently being considered by our elected and appointed officials and the public, reflect changes that have been made in response to Department of Ecology review and comment. We realize that a lot of time has passed since the bulk of the work was done on our SMP Update and you may not have retained record of these earlier contacts. Response to comments from your email dated August 26, 2010, about SMP, is provided below in the order presented in your email: 1. See background above. 2. As there is no commercially -zoned land on the Marine shoreline, commercial aquaculture use is not anticipated nor compatible with existing residential uses — the predominant land use along our marine shoreline. On the other hand, the SMP encourages recreational and tribal harvest of shellfish from City tidelands. 3. Goal 4 does state that there be "no net loss" for utility facilities. 4. Comment noted. Response to comments about SMP Regulations: Ms. Walter September 14, 2010 Page 2 5. The "boring or horizontal drilling" method suggested is not specifically precluded. Specific methods employed would likely be dependent on the specific proposal and condition of the subject property. 6. Whether or not to have an "aquatic' designation was discussed at length during the development of the SMP with our consultant, our Citizen Advisory Committee, and Ecology staff. There was concern about the complexity of the shoreline regulations related to projects that involve multiple shoreline environments. For example, a dock will cross through an "upland" designation as well as the aquatic environment, should one be used. Within each shoreline environment designated in the City (i.e., Natural, Urban Conservancy, and Shoreline Residential), in -water habitats are already specifically protected through the critical freshwater and critical saltwater habitat provisions. The addition of an "aquatic' designation did not appear to add protection to in -water habitats. 7. Aquaculture is not a desired use in Federal Way given the character of our marine shoreline — largely developed with residential uses. 8. The setback was determined by analyzing existing development patterns and potential development/redevelopment of the shoreline. The setback is drawn from the ordinary high water mark on low bank shorelines and varies from 50 to 100 feet depending upon shoreline environment designation. In addition, in the case of marine coastal bluffs, a 50 -foot setback is required from the top of bank. The cumulative impacts analysis evaluated the potential impact of these proposed regulations. 9. Mooring buoys are listed in the uses table but not the development standards table because there are no detailed development standards to summarize. 10. The city would notify the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe when the action required review under SEPA or in other cases where required by state law. Thank you for your comments. If you have any additional questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 253- 835-2644 orjanet.shull@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, 446d etJ Shull, AICP or Planner 05-104946 Doe. I.D. 55610 Attachment E2 CIT A�k Federal Way September 13, 2010 Mr. Dean Patterson Futurewise 814 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104-1530 RE: File #05 -104946 -00 -UP; SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM Dear Mr. Patterson: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Thank you for your comments on proposed revisions to the City of Federal Way Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update. Your e-mail message requested that staff forward your letter and two guidance documents on to the members of the Planning Commission for consideration during their deliberations. However, your email and attached comments were received two days after the Planning Commission public hearing and action on the topic. Therefore, staff will forward your comments and the two guidance documents: "Recommendations for Making Small Shoreline Buffers Work with Buffer Science" and "Recommendations for Incorporating Restoration Planning into Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)", on to the City Council for their consideration. The City Council Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) will conduct a public meeting on September 20, 2010, where they will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation on revisions to the SMP Update. We will continue to notify you via email of upcoming opportunities to comment on the revisions to the SMP Update. Thank you for your comments related specifically to the Federal Way Draft SMP. Please note that the Draft SMP was locally adopted by resolution in June 2007 and forwarded to Ecology for formal review in July 2007. Ecology provided comments to the City in January 2009. Revisions to the Draft SMP now under consideration are largely in response to State comments. For example, Ecology had no comments on shoreline environment designations; therefore, these have not been changed from the locally adopted version in 2007. We will review your comments in earnest prior to the LUTC meeting. Sincerely, n V;1'�% Janet Shull, AICP, CSBA Senior Planner Doc. I.D. 55616 Attachment F CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION August 25, 2010 City Hall 7.00 p.m.__ Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tim O'Neil and Tom Medhurst. Staff present: Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Deb Barker, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Darlene LeMaster. Council Member Jeanne Burbidge was also present. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL All commissioners present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 21, 2010, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT `` Director of Community Development Services will address the commission during the `Additional Business' section of the agenda. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING — Shoreline Master Program Update Chair Pfeifer explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Senior Planner Janet Shull stated that the intent of tonight's meeting was to consider revisions to the draft Shoreline Master Plan (SM4.Sh& introduced the City's consultant, Teresa Vanderburg with ESA Adolfson and David Pader with the Department of Ecology. She also stated that there was a sign up sheet at the back that serves two purposes. The first was to sign in if you would like to testify and secondly, to sign up if you would like to be on an e-mail notification list. Ms. Shull gave a brief overview of the SMP, which serves to regulate development along shorelines of the state and establishes a comprehensive vision of how the shoreline area will be used and developed over time. She also stated that local jurisdictions are required to prepare a local SMP to carry out the requirements of the Shoreline Master Act (SMA). The SMP also includes goals and policies that are part of the City's comprehensive plan and regulations that are part of the city code. The SMP includes information about existing conditions and analysis about the potential cumulative impacts of future development and opportunities for restoration. Ms. Shull then showed a map of the City's shorelines explaining that there were two categories — marine shorelines and shorelines associated with lakes. There are two lakes, Steel Lake and North Lake within the City GAPlanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 25, 201U and a number of additional lakes within the Potential Annexation Area (PAA). The City is required to plan for the lakes within the PAA, however, the regulations will only apply when the area is annexed into the City. Ms Shull then summarized the SMP process to date. She explained that work on the SMP began in early 2006. At that time a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) and a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) were formed to provide input on the update. The City held a public open house in June 2006 and set up a website with information on the SMP update. In 2007, the Planning Commission held three public meetings after which they forwarded their recommendation to the City Council, who approved the draft SMP update in June 2007. In July 2007, the draft SMP update was submitted to the DOE for review and comments were received from DOE in January 2009. City staff and their consultant ESA Adolfson have been working with DOE on revisions based on DOE's comments for the past year. Because the draft SMP update has been changed since the Planning Commission and Council last saw it, staff decided to bring it back to both Planning Commission and City Council. The City mailed notice to all shoreline property owners within the City and P`AA"About the public comment process and the availability of draft documents. The City also mailed notice to former"C7AC and TAC members. This City's website was also updated and links to the revised draft SMP were provided, Hard copies of the revised documents were placed in libraries and were made available at City Hall. A copy was also made available in the City Council Conference Room and council members were made aware of it54ilability. Ms Shull then went over highlights to the revisions. She explained that Section 2 — Inventory and Characterization and Section 4 - Shoreline Environment had not been updated as DOE had no comments on these sections. Section 2 is very bulky so it was not included in the Planning Commission's blue binder, but is on the website, however the Shoreline Environment Designations, which is a' single page map, was included. Ms Shull explained that Section One - Introduction was revised to'k present a better linkage between our local SMP and the Statewide SMA. Four.new policies were added to Section Three -- Goals and Policies. Ms Shull stated that we modified existing policies to add emphasis on the SMA goal of "no net loss" of ecological function of the city's shorelines, the ' Purpose and Responsibility section was expanded and a section summarizing Public Participation was added. Ms Shull stated that in Section Five -- 9hotelinleegulations, numerous revisions were made for clarity. For example, city staff added a Development StandardsTable; integrated critical areas regulations instead of having them be appendices; added requirement for a 50 -foot setback from top of marine bluffs; and added a staff proposed change to allow piers and docks on the Marine Shoreline. In Section Six -- Restoration Plan, City staff added and updated information on regional programs that help with shoreline restoration; ,Added information on restoration opportunities for freshwater lakes; and added two tables that summarize and prioritize restoration opportunities. In Section 7, staff added definitions that are required to make the City's SMP consistent with the SMA. Ms Shull also stated that in Appendix A -- Cumulative Impacts Analysis, staff added a table that summarizes land development activity in the past five years within the shoreline area and added a section that analyzes the potential cumulative impact of allowing docks and piers on the marine shoreline. Ms Shull mentioned that staff had scheduled a study session with the planning commission and interested citizens for August 4, 2010, however it was changed to an informational meeting when only one Planning Commissioner, Commissioner Carlson, attended. There were eleven citizens, the City's Consultant and the DOE staff in addition to staff in attendance. During the meeting, there was discussion on proposed setbacks from marine bluff and proposed standards for bulkheads. There was also one written comment, Exhibit 2, a request from the Kutschas to modify the stringline provisions for lakes only. Ms Shull stated that since the stringline setback provisions had already been approved by Council, staff is not recommending any changes. GAPlanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 25, 2010 Ms Shull then went over some modifications proposed by staff. These included clarifying that the 50 -foot minimum marine bluff setback is from the "top" of the marine bluff. It also included modifying Section 15.05.050(1)(a)(i-iii) to make it clear that hard shore armoring (bulkheads/riprap) is subject to proof of imminent damage and a shoreline conditional use permit in the Urban Conservancy Environment and that no conditional use permit is required for soft shore armoring regardless of zone. Ms Shull ended her presentation by stating that staff recommends approval of the proposed revisions to the draft SMP Update with staff modifications as depicted in Exhibit 1 to the August 25, 2010 staff report. The public hearing was opened for public testimony. Norm Kutscha, 33021 38`h Ave S, Federal Way — Submitted a document dated August 25, 2010 and also read from the document requesting that the Planning Commission takeanother look at the shoreline setback regulations for lakes in order to make them more equitable for existing homes in relationship to new homes. Peter Townsend; 29508 12`h Ave SW, Federal Way — He feti "that it is important to know what staff considers the problem areas under the SMA for the past five years and what should` t* done to solve the problems. The public hearing was opened to questions from the commissioners: Commissioner Bronson asked what changes are being made because of DOE requirements and what changes are being made by the City, such as setbacks, that we could change later. Ms: Shull replied that most of the changes in the binder are required changes, except for piers/docks and setbacks. Shenoted that the Kutscha's request would not be opposed by DOE. However, staff didn't feel it was their place to make changes to what the City had already approved. David Pater with Department of Ecology from the Bellevue office introduced himself and noted that he has worked with the city to resolve issues and believed that they have resolved them. The state recognizes the unique distinction of each jui iction, and there is some, flexibility. The shoreline stabilization section is the most rigid. The state uses a checklist to make sure each jurisdiction has met requirements, and that there is room for modifications to setbacks, piers And decks. . He further added that there was a lot of back and forth negotiations between the City and DOE. Commissioner O'Neil wondered what the changes meant for the taxpayer and how might the use of waterfront property be changed. Ms. Shull noted that the goal was to make as few changes as possible, and that the changes appear reasonable,, Teresa Vanderburg with ESA/Adolfson noted that there is a new focus on conserving and preserving vegetation within the setback zone and also"to avoid impacts to resources in the water. There are also provisions for dimensions of docks and piers. She clarified that the changes are only for new development and not existing development. There is a provision for tear -down houses or expanding existing uses. Commissioner Medhurst asked if variances were available. Ms. Shull replied that yes, shoreline variances are subject to hearing examiners recommendation that is forwarded to the State, which has the ultimate approval. Commissioner O'Neil asked whether the DOE had the final say just for variances. Ms. Shull answered that DOE would have the final say only for variances and conditional use permits. However, these decisions are appealable to the Shoreline Hearings Board. Commissioner Carlson was concerned about the length of time it took for the DOE's response to proposed changes to the City's shoreline code. Ms. Shull noted that the state experienced staff shortages, and that once their comments were available, the amendment was prioritized and brought to commissioners as complete as 6:0anning Commission\20IO Meeting Summary 08-25-1O.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 25, 2010 possible. Commissioner Carlson also had questions about the value of the cumulative impacts analysis as the analysis is quantitative but the conclusions are qualitative. David Pader, with DOE responded, that the cumulative impacts analysis is adequate Chair Pfeifer asked if there were any more questions from the commissioners, and seeing none called for the motion. Commissioner Bronson moved to recommend adoption of the code amendment as prepared by staff. Commissioner Medhurst seconded the motion. Discussion — Commissioner Elder urged Commissioners to consider item #4 of the Kutscha's request regarding setbacks. Commissioner Carlson disagreed with Commissioner Elder noting that the Kutscha's request, if approved, might penalize property owners who have not yet exercised theirdevelopment rights. Commissioner Carlson also acknowledged that critical areas need greater setbacks. The motion carried, 6-1 (Elder dissenting). The public hearing was closed. PUBLIC HEARING — Amendments Related to Submittal Requirements for Plats and Commercial Projects Chair Pfeifer explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Senior Planner Deb Barker delivered the staff report. Proposed amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) include: • Short Subdivisions — Chapter'1$.30.030 Content and form of application; • Preliminary Plat — Chapter 18.35.020 .Content and farm of application; • Permits and ReviewF Process Chapter 19.15.040 Development Application Submittal Requirements; • Permits and Review. Processes" 'Chapter 19.15,045 :Completeness of Applications; and • Permits and Review Processes —Chapter 19.1 5.030(1)(19 Review Processes for improvements and additions, to developed site The public hearing was opened for public testimony. There was no public comment. The public testimony was,qlgse&,, The public hearing was opened to questions from the commissioners: Commissioner O'Neil said he agreed with the checklist concept and feels that it is much easier for the public to use. He inquired whether this information was available on-line. Ms. Barker replied that submittal requirements checklists are available on the City's website and staff can assist the applicant to locate the requirements and the checklists. Commissioner O'Neil asked if the applications are tracked on-line. Ms. Barker noted that the current permit tracking system is not set up to track these applications on-line. Commissioner Medhurst wanted to understand if the requirements have changed, or if some have been eliminated. He feels that the checklist is more confusing and could be arbitrarily applied. He prefers code as written. Ms. Barker said that the code does not give any discretion to waive submittal items that may not be GAPlanning Commission\2010Weeting Summary 08-25-10.doe Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 25, 2010 necessary, while the checklist provides flexibility. Chairman Pfeifer noted that there is lots of support from Master Builders for the checklist and bulletin concept. Commissioner Medhurst asked for clarification as to which codes were eliminated. Chairman Pfeiffer stated that none of the codes were eliminated and the code is still there. The checklists provide a place to go to find out what their specific application requires. Ms Barker pointed out that the code states that the director may waive any requirements that are determined to not be reasonably necessary. Commissioner Medhurst replied that language addressed his concerns and he is satisfied. Commissioner Carlson is also in support of the checklist format. However, he is still concerned that submittal requirements can be modified at the stroke of a pen. He believes that any types of changes to the submittal process should go through the public process, especially the planning commission. He supports the amendments only if substantive changes to application submittal requirements go through public process. Ms. Barker stated that substantive changes to the code do come from code amendments that have already gone through a public process. She noted that recent changes to the clearing and grading codes contained very substantive changes to performance standards, and those changes to code went through a very public process. Substantive code changes are not administratively made, but are approved through the code amendment process. Commissioner Carlson stated that allayed some but not all of his concerns. Commissioner Bronson agreed that the checklist is a wonderful idea. He asked why projects can't be submitted electronically. Ms. Barker replied the City's permitting system is only equipped to recce -electrical permits electronically. Commissioner Bronson asked why applications could :nqt be submitted o* 'a thumb drive. Planning Manager Conlen agreed that these types of projects do take a lot of paper and the City would love to reduce paper. However, the City does not have the technology to review applications on a computer screen, to mark it up or make comments. If applications are submitted electronically, the City has added copying costs that should be borne by the applicant. Commissioner Bronson is amazed that City does not have enough equipment to review the plans electronically. Planning Manager Conlen said that it would be great if we did but currently we do not have that technology. Commissioner Long thanked staff.ior bringing this topic to the Commissioners. He feels that this concept will be a big benefit to developers., He inquired if plans were required for Process I and 11 before they were determined to be complete, lids. Barker confirmed that pians were required and gave examples of typical process I and I1 applications. Commissioner Long; inquired about, the differences between existing code and proposed changes to the completeness aection of the code. Planning Manager Conlen stated that there is no change to current practices. The intent is to clarify the code s9 it ,is clear what the practice is. There is no change from current practice for proboss i and 11 completeness review, which is done at counter; and there is no change for process III and IV completeness review, which take a more lengthy review process and includes a follow-up letter. Commissioner O'Neill said that he > understands that the proposed amendment clarifies when an applicant becomes vested. IVIS. Barker confirmed that as the current code is vague, it is important to clarify that a complete application is a vested application. Commissioner Long observed;that currently the City's Traffic Division determines if a submitted traffic study is acceptable, and therefore if an application is complete. With the proposed language, an application would be considered complete even if the submitted traffic study was later found to be unacceptable. Ms. Barker noted that was an on-going topic of concern by staff since reports are not always professionally prepared. Commissioner Long recommends that the checklists be changed to add that traffic impact analysis shall be stamped by a professional engineer. This was clarified so that the report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer in State of Washington. Chairman Pfeifer thanked staff for putting the amendment together. He believes that the code amendment makes sense and will save developers time in the long run. Commissioner Long moved to recommend adoption of the code amendment as prepared by staff. GAPlanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 25, 2010 Commissioner Carlson seconded the motion. There was general discussion and agreement that Commissioner Long's recommended changes to the checklist do not need to be reflected in the motion. The motion carried, 7-0. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Director of Community Development Services Greg Fewins addressed the Commission with the following items: Administrative Assistant Piety will be on medical leave for an undetermined period of time. During her absence, Tamara Fix will be the person to communicate with regarding Planning Commission. Ms. Fix will be assembling the Planning Commission agenda packet and corresponding with all Planning Commissioners and Stakeholders. Darlene LeMaster will be staffing all Planning, om&ssion meetings and drafting meeting minutes October 20, 2010 Planning Commission Public Hearing will be on Urban Chickens. Theee ,are no topics for either the Sept. 1 or the Sept. 15, 2010 Planning Corifmission meetings, therefore, those -'meetings will be cancelled. Staff would like to propose a study session for the fulllarning Commission on Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. to talk about the urban chicken t { c. All Commissioners said they would be able to attend the special study session. 2011-2012 Budget — Director Fewins explained to the commissioners how to access all of the 2011-2012 City Budget documents from the City's website. Director Fewins also highlighted the proposed budget cuts to impact the Department of Community Development Services should Council approved the proposed budget. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:0"0` Pxn: GAPImming Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 08-25-10.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19 "Zoning & Development Code," related to residential off-street parking. POLICY QUESTIONS: Should the city: (1) clarify an existing single family residential off-street parking provision regarding acceptable impervious surfaces; (2) remove the large lot exemption from residential parking regulations; and (3) provide housekeeping changes? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) ❑ Consent ® Ordinance ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution MEETING DATE: September 20, 2010 ❑ Public Hearing ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner DEPT: Community Development Services Item Note — Staff presented this item to the LUTC on August 2, 2010, with no public comments received. The committee recommended approval and forwarded the ordinance to full council for first reading. During the September 7, 2010, City Council meeting, two citizens provided comments concerning the proposed ordinance, whereby the council referred the item back to the LUTC for further deliberation. Exhibits: (1) Approved minutes of the July 21, 2010, Planning Commission meeting; (2) Planning Commission staff report with Exhibits A -C; and (3) Draft adoption ordinance. Background: (1) The city's existing residential off-street parking regulations allow parking within a garage, carport or "approved impervious surface." FWRC does not define approved impervious surface and has resulted in conflicting interpretations between staff, Municipal Court and Hearing Examiner. The proposed amendment would replace the term "approved impervious surface" with "driveway or parking pad." Surfaces permitted outright for parking pads would be asphalt or concrete. Applicants may apply for a no -fee modification of those outright standards that may include, but are not limited to: gravel, pavers or Low Impact Development (LID) methods such as pervious concrete and pervious asphalt. (2) The existing residential off-street parking ordinance exempts all residential lots in excess of 20,000 square feet (0.45 acres) from compliance with single-family residential off-street parking regulations. Staff could not find justification for the exemption nor any instances of a similar exemption in surrounding jurisdictions. The proposed amendment would apply equitably to all residential uses. (3)Proposed housekeeping amendments would combine all residential parking standards into one article and replace code redundancies with cross references. Options Considered: 1) Adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as contained in the draft adoption ordinance; 2) adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as modified by the LUTC; 3) do not adopt the proposed policy; or (4) refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Option # 1, adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: a Wl ti 64/44114 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: C7 Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on October 5, 2010. Dini Duclos, Committee Chair Jim Ferrell, Committee Member Jack Dovey, Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE (10/5/2010): I move to forward the ordinance to a second reading for enactment on the October 19, 2010, consent agenda. Continued on following page 2" READING OF ORDINANCE (10/19/2010): "1 move approval of the L UTC's recommendation to approve the code amendments contained in the adoption ordinance. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED 1sT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED— 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION July 21, 2010 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, Tim O'Neil and Tom Medhurst. Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Associate Planner Matt Herrera, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Ann Dower, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Darlene LeMaster. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL All commissioners present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 7, 2010, have been delayed and will be presented at the August 4, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting for approval.. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen recalled the July 7, 2010 meeting where City Manager/Police Chief Wilson offered to provide a budget update for all Planning Commissioners. City Manager/Police Chief Wilson has chosen two dates and will be inviting all committee members and commissioners to attend. These budget briefings will be delivered in a town hall format at will be held on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 and Monday, September 30, 2010 in City Hall Council Chambers at 6:30 PM. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING — Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code Related to Vehicle Storage Requirements in Residential Areas Chair Pfeifer explained the guidelines for the Public Hearing. Associate Planner Matt Herrera delivered the staff report. Proposed amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) include: • Addition of "nonmotorized vehicles" to Section 19.05.140 (N definitions) • Changes to text of Article VII (Commercial Vehicles, Recreational Vehicles, and Boats) of Chapter 19.130, Off -Street Parking GAPlamung Commission\2010Weeting Summary 07-21-10.doc EjXH IT PAGE-1.._OF - Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 21, 2010 • Addition of Section 19.130.2XXX (Purpose and Intent) to Chapter 19.130, Off -Street Parking • Addition of Section 19.13 0.2XXX (Parking and storage of motor vehicles and nonmotorized vehicles) to Chapter 19.130, Off -Street Parking • Deletion of Article V (Outdoor Activities and Storage) and Section 19.130.230 (Residential Uses) The proposed zoning and development code amendment replaces the phrase, "approved impervious surface," with a more clear definition of allowable impervious surfaces, removes the exemption for lots greater than 20,000 square feet, provides a purpose and intent for residential parking and storage standards; and consolidates code sections and removes redundant language. The public hearing was opened for public testimony. Clara McArthur; 31026 20`h Ave S — Ms. McArthur spoke against the proposed text amendments, stating that she felt these code changes are very untimely. Ms. McArthur is concerned that she and others that have been affected by the poor economy will be unable to comply with proposed code amendments. Buck Pedigru; 31033 20`h Ave S — Mr. Pedigru asked if the requirement to pave a driveway was a local, county or state law. Mr. Pedigru also asked what would happen if a resident could not afford to pay to pave their driveway... would they be penalized. Chair Pfeifer stated that the proposed amendment is a City Code revision. It has not been mandated by the County or the State. The intent of the ordinance is educating residents on where parking is allowable. Lastly, Mr. Pedigru asked why Federal Way residents' property tax is substantially higher than that of Bellevue residents. Mr. Pfeifer deferred that question to another time as it was unrelated to the topic at hand. Rhonda Pedigru; 31033 20`h Ave S— Ms. Pedigru stated that her existing driveway is compact gravel and wants to know if the proposed amendment means that her driveway will have to be paved. If a resident has a trailer in the back yard, will a parking pad be required? Chair Pfeifer responded that if a recreational vehicle is parked in the back yard and is not in view from the front, it will not require a parking pad. The public hearing was opened to questions from the commissioners: Commissioner Carlson said he was empathetic to what he heard during the public testimony. Commissioner Carlson stated his interpretation of the ordinance is that as far as an existing gravel driveway is concerned, if it met at least one of the criteria (which it should), it would be allowed and grandfathered in. In comparison, if a resident had been parking on the grass, they could install a gravel driveway with approval from the Community Development Services (CDS) Director. Mr. Herrera confirmed Commissioner Carlson's interpretation. In addition, for residents of existing homes where a grass, gravel or dirt driveway was allowed at the time the home was permitted, these property owners would be protected by "non -conforming development" standards and this new ordinance would not affect them. This ordinance is for new development or for property owners who did not have prior approval to park on their grass. If a neighbor were to complain, a code compliance officer would visit the site and enforce that. The City's Code Compliance division is complaint driven. The only way a code compliance officer would come to your home is if a complaint was received. Allowable parking surfaces are asphalt, cement, a carport or a garage. There is a design standard for gravel. Gravel is also allowed with a modification (written approval from the CDS Director). GAPlanning Commission\2010Wm ing Summary 07-21-10.doc EXHIP1T PAGE�-.O 3 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 21, 2010 From the audience, Ms. McArthur asked about a hard -pan dirt surface. Mr. Herrera answered that hard -pan dirt is no an allowable surface, however, if the lot had originally been approved with hard -pan dirt as the approved driveway surface, then staff would grandfather that property in through a written administrative decision. Because a material isn't listed as allowable does not mean it won't be allowed. It means that staff would like to review the proposal and then decide whether or not to allow it. Commissioner Elder spoke against the proposed ordinance and in support resident testimony. Commissioner Elder is bothered that our Code Compliance system is complaint driven. Why would we ask people to invest money in making require improvements during our current poor economy? The residential audience applauded Commissioner Elder for her statement. Commissioner Bronson recalled the Planning Commission talking of considering semi -pervious streets. Mr. Herrera clarified that semi -pervious surfaces on private and commercial property is on the Long Range Work Program. Due to staffing, this item will not be brought forward any time soon. At this time, there is no policy that allows pervious street surfaces. Commissioner Bronson expressed concern over a resident having to go back and search through King Co. permit records to verify what had been permitted. King Co. didn't require permits for many things prior to Federal Way incorporating. If a resident needed to prove a permit did exist in order to make a modification, how would they if the permit had not existed in the first place? Mr. Herrera reiterated what is meant by "non- conforming development" and that any existing property that originated prior to city incorporation was fall under the non -conforming development clause. Commissioner Medhurst commented on the Hylebos Creek Park use of pervious surface in the parking lot. Commissioner Mehurst suggesting using feedback on the success of this surface in the parking lot as back up information to this ordinance. Commissioner Medhurst asked for clarification for an existing vehicle, recreational vehicle, etc. parked either in the backyard or side yard. If it is not visible from the street, what would be the requirement for a parking pad? Mr. Herrera explained that a vehicle on a driveway in the backyard would not be required to sit on a pad; however, it can not be parked in the grass. Commissioner Medhurst asked how a vehicle parked in the backyard that is not visible to the public could be considered "neighborhood blight" or reduces one's property value. Mr. Herrera responded that the way the ordinance is written, if a citizen called code compliance to complain that a neighbor was parking a vehicle on the grass in the backyard, code compliance, under this ordinance, is required to come out and site that resident. Commissioner Medhurst stated that in his interpretation of the ordinance, there is still quite a bit of ambiguity that needs clarifying. Commissioner Medhurst concurs with Commissioner Elder in her dissatisfaction of Federal Way's code compliance being complaint driven and not from being out of compliance. Mr. Herrerra stated that this parking issue at hand is likely the number one complaint that code enforcement handles. The ordinance came about in order to clarify the existing phrase "approved impervious surface." It would simplify enforcing this code to have approved impervious surface more clearly defined. Commissioner Medhurst asked that for lots greater than 20,000 s.f., would a certain amount of impervious surface trigger stormwater mitigation? The 2009 SWDM states the trigger is 2,000 s.f. Commissioner O'Neil questioned staff about his neighbor who parks his motor home on grass behind his fence. Mr. Herrera noted that under the current code, the neighbor would be in violation (if reported), because you may not park on grass. The proposed ordinance clarifies what is meant by "approved impervious surface." Commissioner O'Neil asked if the impervious surface have to be permanent. Could it be wood? Does it need GAPlanning Commission\2010uvieeting Summary 07-21-10.doc EXHIPIT ( �� PAGE,. _'S ..GF.aSQ.._ d�` ` ..'. �. , Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 July 21, 2010 to be permitted? Mr. Herrera stated a concrete or asphalt parking pad does not have to be permitted. Anything outside of what is defined as approved could be requested in writing for approval by the CDS Director. There is no charge for an administrative decision. Commissioner Long feels the City is sending mixed messages. In 2009, the Surface Water Division presented Low Impact Development. The purpose was to reduce impervious surfaces. Now staff is saying that more impervious surface needs to be added as parking surfaces. Another point of the LID ordinance was that it was illegal to wash your vehicle on your driveway as soapy and dirty water flows into the catch basins. Educational materials were distributed encouraging residents to wash their cars on their lawn. Staff is now saying it is illegal to park on your lawn, the same lawn that you should park on to wash your car. Mr. Herrera clarified that staff wants and encourages residents to wash their car on the lawn. The intent of the ordinance is that cars should not be parked on the lawn for any length of time. The car washing ordinance was a result of the City adopting a Federal standard as part of the NPDES permit. The code is in effect as part of the permit. As it stands today, parking on grass is in violation of the code. The intent of the proposed ordinance is to clarify what is meant by "approved impervious surface." This ordinance applies to new development. Commissioner Carlson clarified that LID and pervious pavement may not always be the preferred application for all sites. Commissioner Medhurst understands the intent of the ordinance and supports the ordinance that wants to prevent visual blight. However, Commissioner Medhurst is strictly against putting boundaries on what can be parked on the side or rear of a home, especially if it is not in public view. Mr. Conlen also wanted to clarify that this ordinance doesn't apply to City right of way. This ordinance and the changes to this ordinance don't apply to the surface of driveways. The point to this ordinance applies to the parking surface that is not on the driveway. Mr. Conlen also asked the commissioners to consider the other side of the argument when it comes to blight. Unfortunately, there was no public comment heard from citizens that are in favor of this ordinance, but based on the number of complaints that are received, the concern over neighborhood blight is very strong. Commissioner Elder voiced her frustration with this ordinance and that she feels there is not consistency in the City Code. Commissioner O'Neil asked about non -motorized vehicles. Mr. Herrera confirmed that non -motorized vehicles include campers, trailers, etc. Mr. Herrera again stated that this modification to the proposed ordinance is not a policy change. All of the scenarios brought forth into discussion would be treated today, not differently than they have been treated up until now. Staff is merely asking to clarify what is meant by "approved impervious surface". And if a citizen wanted to use something other that what is listed as approved, a written request needs to be made and approved by the CDS Director in the form of an administrative decision at no cost to the citizen. Staff was not prepared to discuss a policy change. Should the commission request staff to do that, it would need to be requested to add to the work plan. Commissioner O'Neil also inquired if non -conforming development is transferred with tile when a property is sold. Assistant Atty. Beckwith noted that what is being proposed actually broadens what can be exceptions to the rule with approval from the CDS Director. The discussion of non -conforming development applying to future property owners when a property is sold is a separate and legal topic that is not a part of the issue at hand. Commissioner Bronson asked if staff has researched ASTM standards that defines impervious surface. Mr. Herrera stated that the City has adopted the ASTM standards in its Development Standards Manual. What is missing is the definition of what is approved impervious surface. Commissioner Bronson was unhappy that what is defined by ASTM as impervious is not automatically also approved. He feels that staff should follow the national standard, period, and that staff needs to revisit this issue in its entirety. Lastly, if there are so many GAPlanning Convnission\2010%4eeting Summary 07-21-10.doc EXHIPIT PAGE_.'± .GF z M.� t x _. _ ,.., y s �'.. ..i a.n p..,, X Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 July 21, 2010 people against others parking on lawns, why aren't they present and making comment. Mr. Herrera noted that asphalt and cement were defined as approved based on what other neighboring local jurisdictions have in their codes. Chair Pfeifer summarized the intention of the revision to the ordinance as presented. More examples and scenarios were brought into the conversation by commissioners with the same reiteration of the ordinance as it has existed since it came into being over eleven years ago. The proposed changes to the ordinance clarify what is meant by "approved impervious surface." The process and policy surrounding code compliance procedures have not changed. Assistant City Atty. Beckwith stated that if a permit wasn't required at the time (e.g. parking on a gravel or dirt driveway) and it was okay then, then it is okay now. Commissioner Medhurst supports taking out the ambiguity in the ordinance but feels other issues have been raised and should be revisited in its entirety. There are a number of open issues the public has a legitimate concern with (i.e. side yards, driveways, backyards, etc.) Commissioner Carlson concurred with Commissioner Medhurst. He would like to reconsider what is defined as visual blight. Mr. Herrera said that if directed, staff could put this on their work plan. Chair Pfeifer invited additional public comment. Clara McArthur; 31026 206 Ave S — Ms. McArthur is still unclear on what it means to be grandfathered in. Chair Pfeifer explained non -conforming development standards as it applies to this ordinance. Ms. McArthur thanked the Commission and staff and feels that the requirements are reasonable for new development, not for established property owners. Mary Francis Painter; 3102120th Ave S— Ms. Painter wanted to request that the issue of grandfathering in is not left to the discretion of the code enforcement officer. Ms. Painter also suggested a public stakeholder group that discusses visual blight. Rhonda Pedigru; 31033 20th Ave S— Ms. Pedigru asked about an easement on the side of one's property. Asst. City Atty. suggested that this issue is a separate issue. Commissioner Medhurst explained that he believes Ms. Pedigur to be speaking of a setback, not an easement. Norma Blanchard; 31039 7th Ave SW— Ms. Blanchard stated she feels that the City's code compliance officers are ineffective and gave examples to back up her opinion. Commissioner Long inquired about a penalty for those not in compliance with this ordinance. How much time is given for a resident to get into compliance. Mr. Herrera stated he is not familiar with the fines or their amounts. The intent of code compliance is not to fine or penalize residents; rather, it is to educate residents and give them an opportunity to become compliant before any further action may be necessary. Commissioner Long expressed he is in favor of clarifying the existing ordinance as it applies to approved impervious surface. The public testimony was closed. GAPlamung Commission\2010UMeeting Summary 07-21-10.doc EXIT! P IT Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 21, 2010 Commissioner Carlson moved to approve the ordinance as presented by staff with one amendment: Exhibit A, Page 1, Seciton 19.130.2xx, (1) All motor vehicle and nonmotorized vehicle parking and storage for residential uses containing either detached or attached dwellings shall be in a garage, carport, driveway, or a parking pad except for recreational vehicles to be used as a temporary dwelling as specified in FWRC 19.130.290(1). A parkingpad shall accommodate the size of the vehicles and be composed of asphalt or cement. The director may grant a modification of parking pad surface materials to include gravel, pavers, LID methods (pervious asphalt, pervious concrete, etc.) or other suitable materials pursuant to criteria set forth in FWRC 19.130.100. Commissioner Medhurst seconded the motion. There was brief discussion by Commissioner Bronson, advocating the need to accept the ASTM standards. As such, Commissioner Bronson will not vote to approve this proposed ordinance. The motion carried, 4-3. Commissioners Long, Elder and Bronson dissenting. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. GAPlanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 07-21-10.doc IT EXSM PAGE--L�._GF--La-.. d.r'- . � ... _ . � .r' .. . X41 CITY OF Federal Wal PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: July 14, 2010 TO: Chair Merle Pfeifer and Members of the City of Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner Greg Fewins, Director of Community Development Services SUBJECT: Zoning and Development Code amendments related to residential off-street vehicle parking requirements. FILE: 10 -102049 -00 -UP MEETING DATE: July 21, 2010 A. POLICY QUESTIONS (1) Should the City replace "approved impervious surface" with prescriptive requirements for residential vehicle parking and storage surface material; (2) remove the exemption for all lots greater than 20,000 square -foot to comply with the residential motor vehicle parking and storage regulations; (3) provide a purpose and intent statement for residential parking and storage standards; and (4) make housekeeping amendments to consolidate code sections and remove redundant language from the existing residential vehicle storage standards. B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends amending Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapters 19.05 and 19.130 reflecting affirmative responses to the policy questions above and as shown in strikeout/underline format in Exhibit A. C. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A — Proposed code amendment to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," Chapters 19.05 and 19.130 Exhibit B — Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued June 30, 2010 Exhibit C — Community Development Services Stakeholder Group D. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS The substantive portion of the proposed code amendments were requested by the department's code enforcement staff to provide clarification of suitable surface materials for vehicle storage in EXMIPIT`-" PAGE-L-.0F�- b :� ' v"a -...,..... H � �° �..... ps a �, � residential areas. Additionally, code enforcement staff has requested the commission to consider the removal of an exemption from the City's motor vehicle and non -motorized vehicle storage regulations provided to single-family lots greater than 20,000 square feet (approximately 0.45 acres). While drafting the proposed code language, planning staff recognized the benefit of providing a purpose and intent statement; consolidating the code section with a similar residential code section related to residential commercial and recreational vehicle storage; and several housekeeping amendments that will provide a cross reference to applicable standards and the removal of redundant language. Surface Materials As shown in the strikeout version of the existing code (page 1 of Exhibit A), there are currently three acceptable methods to store vehicles on residential properties; garage, carport, or on an approved impervious surface. Garage and carport are clear methods for vehicle storage, but FWRC does not provide reference to what constitutes an "approved impervious surface." Staff recommends replacing "approved impervious surface" with "[... ] driveway, or a parking pad." Further explanation of the parking pad would include: "[a] parking pad shall accommodate the size of the vehicle and be composed of asphalt or concrete." Citizens would also be given the option to request a modification of those standards if the alternative material(s) would not leave the property, is usable year-round, and will not deteriorate air or water quality as shown in the cross-reference on the underline version of the proposed amendment and existing FWRC 19.130.100 provided for reference (pages 2 and 4 of Exhibit A, respectively). The result of the amendment will provide a clear and consistent requirement for citizens, applicants, and staff. Code Enforcement staff receive complaints from City residents regarding the unappealing aesthetic impacts of neighboring residents that park vehicles on vegetated and unpaved surfaces. Additionally, parking areas composed on unpaved surfaces can contribute to erosion and water quality deterioration during times of heavy rainfall. Staff is able to enforce the current code for complaints of vehicles parked on vegetated surfaces as the existing code language refers to garages, carports, and approved impervious surface that are appropriate for vehicle storage. It is the instances of vehicles parked on gravel and hard packed dirt surfaces that staff has had difficulty administering a clear and defensible enforcement of the code provision. As mentioned previously, the Zoning and Development Code does not provide guidance of what an approved impervious surface represents. Over several years this has resulted in inconsistent determinations made by staff from several departmental divisions. Residential complaint calls to the City regarding vehicles parked on gravel or dirt have been difficult to resolve as there is currently no clarifying language as to whether the surfaces are considered an "approved impervious surface." A recent Federal Way Municipal Court ruling dismissed a Notice of Violation order as it determined a graveled area qualifies as a pad, but the city's Hearing Examiner disagreed and suggested that a parking pad is an impervious surface such as concrete. The intent of this proposed amendment is to provide the public and staff an unambiguous description of an appropriate residential off-street parking surface. Lot Size Exemption Current off-street parking regulations related to residential uses exempt all lots greater than 20,000 square feet, or approximately 0.45 acres, from compliance with vehicle storage requirements (Exhibit A, page 1). Code enforcement staff responding to perceived violations, such as vehicles, boats, and RVs parked on lawns, are unable to act on the complaint due to the exemption. Staff did not find lot Residential Off -Street Parking File #10 -102049 -UF Planning Commission Staff Report f5 mZ EXH-104t PAGE ;-7 �.. �y` �.. .. .. ' � ,,gyp size exemptions for vehicle storage at the five jurisdictions referenced below. Further, staff could not find justification for including the exemption in historical records related to the original code adoption in 1999. As citizen complaints concerning the vehicle storage regardless of the lot size continue to be made and there does not seem to be a defensible justification for the distinction, staff recommends an equitable enforcement of the regulation by removing the 20,000 square -foot lot exemption. Jurisdictional Comparisons Staff has reviewed residential off-street parking code language in the following five jurisdictions: City Surface Material Requirement Large Lot Size Exemption ACC 18.52.060 - off street parking spaces for SF dwelling shall be All weather Paved with asphalt concrete or cement concrete. surface may be Auburn used for lots >4 acres KCC 15.05.090 — paved w/ asphalt or equivalent material unless Kent waived by the planning director, but the first 20 feet of the driveway No must be paved. Des DMMC 18.44. 100 - asphalt or concrete for driveways and parking No Moines pads. RCC 4-4-080(G) - asphaltic concrete, cement or equivalent material No Renton of a permanent nature as approved by the Public Works Department. TCC 13.06.5 10 - asphalt concrete or cement. Alternatives with No Tacoma approval from City Engineer. Purpose Statement Planning staff recommends the addition of a purpose and intent statement to the new Article VI "Residential Parking and Vehicle Storage" code section that provides a background and justification for the regulations. The statement provides a layperson summary of the intent of the regulations and clear basis for enforcement when needed. Housekeeping Amendments While researching and drafting a proposal to the Planning Commission, staff has proposed the following non -substantive code amendments: Consolidation — The relocation of the existing residential off-street parking regulations titled "Residential Uses" to a new article titled "Residential Parking and Vehicle Storage." The proposed article would consolidate parking regulations for typical motorized and nonmotorized vehicles, commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles, and boats. (Exhibit A, page 2) Definition — The relocation of the nonmotorized vehicles definition from within the text of the standards to the Zoning and Development Code definition section in Chapter 19.05 FWRC. (Exhibit A, page 1) Redundancies — Planning staff recommends removing language regarding the emergency use of RVs as temporary dwellings and replacing it with a cross reference to the applicable code section. Staff Residential Off -Street Parking Planning Commission Staff Report File #IU -IU MY -UF Page 3 of 5 EX14-1PI ' PAGE... OF ,Y "8 jF . .i4 y q a `:.y „ s i E �, . ., also recommends removing redundant language regarding junk and inoperable vehicles. (Exhibit A, page 2) E. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) (Exhibit B) was issued for the proposed code amendments on June 30, 2010, pursuant to State Environmental Policy Act Rules 197-11-340. Notice of the environmental determination was provided in the Federal Way Mirror, City designated bulletin boards and emailed to the department's stakeholder group (Exhibit C). The comment period ended on July 14, 2010, with no comments submitted to the City. Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was emailed to the department's stakeholders June 30, 2010, published in the Federal Way Mirror July 3, 2010, and posted on the City designated bulletin boards July 7, 2010. This staff report was emailed to the department's stakeholders on July 14, 2010. F. BASIS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.80, "Process VI Review," establishes a process and criteria for development regulation amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the proposed development regulation amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed development regulation amendment meets the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130 (Item G below). 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed development regulation amendment. G. DECISIONAL CRITERIA FWRC 19.80.130 provides criteria for development regulation amendments. The following section analyzes the compliance of the proposed amendments with the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.130. The city may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies: LUG] Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. LUGS Preserve and protect Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods. L UP14 Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single-family neighborhoods through strict enforcement of the City's land use regulations. HP4 Maintain a strong code enforcement program to protect residential areas from illegal land use activities. Residential Off -Street Parking Planning Commission Staff Report File #10 -102U49 -UP Page 4 of 5 EXFIPIT PiGE_.�...-C��-!? . ....._ f r '3T ... � r'� ��. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment bears a substantial relationship to welfare as it will remove ambiguity regarding what is and what is not considered appropriate vehicle storage. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. Staff Response — The proposed code amendment is in the best interest of the city as it provides clarity to an existing code provision, aesthetic value to residential areas, and equity among all single-family property owners. H. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed development regulation amendments: 1. Recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 3. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. Residential Off -Street Parking Planning Commission Staff Report File #IU-IUM49-Ur Page 5 of 5 EX14 �'�'--�-�'._..-. 1=- 19.05.140 N definitions. "Native vegetation" includes native, undisturbed areas or rehabilitation of previously disturbed areas that consist of trees, plants, forest litter, and understory indigenous to the Pacific Northwest or near natives that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. Invasive species, such as Himalayan Blackberry or Scotch Broom, are not native species. "Natural features " means physical characteristics of the subject property that are not manmade. "Natural materials" means materials chemically unaltered from their natural state. "Natural surveillance " means easy observation of buildings, spaces, and activities by people passing, living, working, or recreating nearby. "Nonconformance " means any use, structure, lot, condition, activity or any other feature or element of private or public property or the use or utilization of private or public property that does not conform to any of the provisions of this title or that was not approved by the city of Federal Way through the appropriate decision-making process required under this title. "Nonliving groundcover" means gravel, chipped bark or similar nonpolluting material through which water can freely percolate to the soil beneath. "Nonmotorized vehicles " include but are not limited to travel and camp trailers, utility trailers truck campers and boat or vehicle transport trailers. "Normal maintenance " includes interior and exterior repairs and incidental alterations. "Normal maintenance and repair" includes, but is not limited to, painting, roof repair and replacement, plumbing, wiring and electrical systems, mechanical equipment replacement and weatherization. "Incidental alterations " includes, but is not limited to, construction of nonbearing walls or partitions. "Notice of determination " for sign regulations means the determination that the city issues as to whether a sign conforms to this title and other sections of this Code. "Nuisance vegetation " shall mean any tree or vegetation that, in the opinion of the city or an expert approved by the city (such as, but not limited to, a professional forester, certified arborist, or landscape architect), is an invasive variety, is an allergen, or due to its location is causing or is likely to cause damage to a permanent structure, or other economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health that cannot be mitigated without removal of the tree or vegetation. "Nursing home" means the same as "convalescent center." (Ord. No. 09-610, § 3(Exh. A), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-593, § 24, 1-6-09. Code 2001 § 22-1.14.) EXHIBIT PAGE_! ___0F 3____ I Article VII.0 "' V' h l n BeMs Residential Parking and c I V l_' 1 R oar eat.; iaTrcrircz�" Vehicle Storage 19 130 2XX Purpose and intent The purpose of this article is to establish standards for parking and storage of vehicles for residential zones and uses These standards are intended to protect property values by reducmg visual blight caused by vehicle storage located on lawns and other vegetated areas and to provide reasonable size limitations for storage of commercial and recreational vehicles. 19 130 2XX Parking and storage of motor vehicles and nonmotorized vehicles (1) All motor vehicle and nonmotorized vehicle parking and storage for residential uses containing either detached or attached dwellings shall be in a garage carport driveway, or parking pad composed of asphalt cement pavers or gravel except for recreational vehicles to be used as a temporary dwelling as specified in FWRC 19.130.290(1) (2) Any eg_carport or parking pad shall have direct driveway access. (3) All vehicles considered junked wrecked dismantled or inoperable must be stored in a completely enclosed building. 19.130.250 Parking and storage of commercial vehicles in residential zones limited. Parking or storage of commercial vehicles is prohibited on residentially zoned lots except as follows: (1) A maximum of one commercial vehicle based on standard pickup, light duty trucks, or passenger vehicles, that does not exceed a maximum of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR as defined in RCW 46.25.0 10) may be parked on any residentially zoned lot; (2) A maximum of one commercial vehicle regardless of GVWR may be parked or stored on any lot in a single-family residential zone (RS 35.0) or a suburban estates zone (SE); (3) Commercial vehicles may be parked on any lot in a residential zone for a maximum of 48 hours for the exclusive purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle; (4) Commercial vehicles may be parked on any lot in a residential zone for construction purposes pursuant to a valid development permit; (5) A maximum of one commercial vehicle not more than nine feet in height and 22 feet in length may be parked on any lot if used for private construction purposes and when it is not visible from a right-of-way or access easement and not parked in the driveway; (6) Parking or storage as allowed by FWRC 19.130.270. Except for commercial vehicles used for loading and unloading purposes and commercial vehicles for construction purposes with a valid development permit, no more than one commercial vehicle is allowed per lot. (Ord. No. 09-607, § 3(Exh. A-1), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-595, § 12,1-6-09; Ord. No. 04-457, § 3, 2- 3-04. Code 2001 § 22-1176.) EXH l P 17T PAGE..�.05 ..-- EXHIBIT h PAGEJ�__OF�_ L,7 Wall Article VII.0 "' V' h l n BeMs Residential Parking and c I V l_' 1 R oar eat.; iaTrcrircz�" Vehicle Storage 19 130 2XX Purpose and intent The purpose of this article is to establish standards for parking and storage of vehicles for residential zones and uses These standards are intended to protect property values by reducmg visual blight caused by vehicle storage located on lawns and other vegetated areas and to provide reasonable size limitations for storage of commercial and recreational vehicles. 19 130 2XX Parking and storage of motor vehicles and nonmotorized vehicles (1) All motor vehicle and nonmotorized vehicle parking and storage for residential uses containing either detached or attached dwellings shall be in a garage carport driveway, or parking pad composed of asphalt cement pavers or gravel except for recreational vehicles to be used as a temporary dwelling as specified in FWRC 19.130.290(1) (2) Any eg_carport or parking pad shall have direct driveway access. (3) All vehicles considered junked wrecked dismantled or inoperable must be stored in a completely enclosed building. 19.130.250 Parking and storage of commercial vehicles in residential zones limited. Parking or storage of commercial vehicles is prohibited on residentially zoned lots except as follows: (1) A maximum of one commercial vehicle based on standard pickup, light duty trucks, or passenger vehicles, that does not exceed a maximum of 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR as defined in RCW 46.25.0 10) may be parked on any residentially zoned lot; (2) A maximum of one commercial vehicle regardless of GVWR may be parked or stored on any lot in a single-family residential zone (RS 35.0) or a suburban estates zone (SE); (3) Commercial vehicles may be parked on any lot in a residential zone for a maximum of 48 hours for the exclusive purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle; (4) Commercial vehicles may be parked on any lot in a residential zone for construction purposes pursuant to a valid development permit; (5) A maximum of one commercial vehicle not more than nine feet in height and 22 feet in length may be parked on any lot if used for private construction purposes and when it is not visible from a right-of-way or access easement and not parked in the driveway; (6) Parking or storage as allowed by FWRC 19.130.270. Except for commercial vehicles used for loading and unloading purposes and commercial vehicles for construction purposes with a valid development permit, no more than one commercial vehicle is allowed per lot. (Ord. No. 09-607, § 3(Exh. A-1), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-595, § 12,1-6-09; Ord. No. 04-457, § 3, 2- 3-04. Code 2001 § 22-1176.) EXH l P 17T PAGE..�.05 ..-- EXHIBIT h PAGEJ�__OF�_ �: r . . ,,, �, a 19.130.260 Parking and storage of recreational vehicles and boats in residential zones limited. Parking or storage of any recreational vehicle or boat more than nine feet in height and more than 22 feet in length is prohibited in residentially zoned lots except as allowed by FWRC 19.130.270 or 19.130.290(1). (Ord. No. 09-607, § 3(Exh. A-1), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 09-595, § 13, 1-6-09; Ord. No. 04-457, § 3, 2- 3-04. Code 2001 § 22-1177.) 19.130.270 Exceptions. The city may, using process III, approve a request to park or store a vehicle or boat of any size on a lot in a residential zone if (1) The parking or storage of the vehicle or boat will not be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood; (2) The property abutting the subject property will not be impacted by the parking or storage; (3) The placement of the vehicle or boat will not create a potential fire hazard; and (4) The parking or storage is clearly accessory to a residential use on the subject property and the vehicle or boat is operated by a resident of the subject property. (Ord. No. 09-607, § 3(Exh. A-1), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 04-457, § 3, 2-3-04; Ord. No. 00-375, § 25, 2000; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.145(2)), 2-27-90. Formerly 22-1177. Code 2001 § 22-1178.) 19.130.280 Additional requirements. The city may impose screening requirements, limit the hours of operation and impose other restrictions to eliminate adverse impacts of the parking or storage. (Ord. No. 09-607, § 3(Exh. A-1), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 04-457, § 3, 2-3-04; Ord. No. 90-43, § 2(115.145(2)), 2-27-90. Formerly 22-1178. Code 2001 § 22-1179.) 19.130.290 Limitation on use. It is a violation of this chapter to sleep in, or use for any other residential purpose, a vehicle, recreational vehicle, or boat parked in a residential zone for more than 14 days in any 180 -day period, except as allowed by subsection (1) of this section. (1) Based on a written request, the director may permit a recreational vehicle of any size to be used as a temporary dwelling on a single-family residential lot where the primary dwelling unit is unsafe to occupy by reason of disaster or accident such as fire, wind, earthquake, or other similar circumstance, provided: (a) The recreational vehicle may be occupied for a maximum of 12 months from the date the primary dwelling was damaged. One 12 -month extension may be granted by the director based on demonstration of continuing hardship and documented good faith efforts to complete construction. (b) Occupancy of the recreational vehicle shall cease within 30 days of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for reconstruction of the primary dwelling unit at the property. (c) The recreational vehicle may be located within the required front yard setback but may not obstruct sight distance at driveways and intersections. The recreational vehicle may not be in required side or rear yards setbacks. (d) Generators shall not be utilized. (e) The director's approval is revocable if the requirements of this section are not met. (2) The director shall provide a copy of the approval letter to the applicant, pro ��jjuu owner (if different from the applicant), and all adjoining property owners.JtI� { 7 2 (Ord. No. 09-607, § 3(Exh. A-1), 4-7-09; Ord. No. 04-457, § 3, 2-3-04; Ord. No. 90-43PAGE—a.—VF § 2(115.145(3)), 2-27-90. Formerly 22-1179. Code 2001 § 22-1180.) S 4 1% CITY OF Federal Way DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Related to Vehicle Storage Requirements in Residential Areas (Non -Project Action) File No 10 -102049 -00 -UP Description: Proposed text amendments to the City's zoning and development code include the addition of prescriptive requirements of asphalt or pavement for residential vehicle storage surface material; the removal of exemption for all lots greater than 20,000 square foot to comply with the residential vehicle storage regulations; and housekeeping amendments to remove redundant language from the existing residential vehicle storage code section. Location: Non -project action — Citywide Applicant: City of Federal Way Lead Agency: City of Federal Way Staff Contact: Associate Planner Matthew Herrera, 253-835-2638 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act pursuant to RCW 43.31 C.110. This information is available to the public on request. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request from the Department of Community Development Services. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on July 14, 2010. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. You may appeal this determination to the Federal Way City Clerk, at the City of Federal Way (address below), no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 28, 2010, by a written letter stating the reason for the appeal of the determination. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Greg Fewins Title: Director, Department of Community Development Services T Address: 33325 8"' Avenue South, PO Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 EXI 4u 1PI 7 PAGE.`_GF.7 Date Issued: June 30, 2010 Signature:, Doc. I.D. 54655 EXH I ,T PAGE --L ..GF 1. 4 Bob Cooper Lloyd Enterprises Inc. PO Box 3889 Federal Way, WA 98063-3889 bobc@llovdenterprisesinc.com Chris Carrel Friend of the Hylebos PO Box 24971 Federal Way, WA 98093 ccarrel@att.blackberry net Dan Biles SBI Developing PO Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373 danbp_soundbuilthomes. com Kurt Wilson SBI Developing PO Box 73790 Puyallup, WA 98373 (253)539-8116 kurt@.soundbuilthomes.com Julie Ramseth Harsch Investment Properties 13010 NE 20th Street, Suite 450 Bellevue, WA 98005 julier@harsch.com Julie Ramseth Harsch Investment Properties 13010 NE 20th Street, Suite 450 Bellevue, WA 98005 (530) 450-0778 julier@—harsch.com Don Perry Lakehaven Utility District PO Box 4249 Federal Way, WA 98063 dpegy@lakehaven.org Tim Osborne, PE Lakehaven Utility District 31627 1St Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (253)946-5540 tosbome@lakehaven.org KA2010 Code Amendments\06-21-10 Stakeholders List.doc Stakeholders List Updated June 21, 2010 John Bowman Lakehaven Utility District PO Box 4249 Federal Way, WA 98063 (253) 946-5401 jbowman&lakehaven.org Gil Hulsmann Abbey Road Group PO Box 1224 Puyallup, WA 98371 (253) 435-3699 gil hulsmann@abbe ry oadgrM-com Jennifer Dovey Windermere 33405 6th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 423-8000 j sdovey@windermere.com John Norris Norris Homes 2053 Faben Drive Mercer Island, WA 98040 (206) 275-1901 j ohnnorri s@,comcast. net Mark Clirehugh GVA Kidder, Mathews, Segner 1201 Pacific Avenue, #1400 Tacoma, WA 98402 (253)722-1416 marckc@avakm.com Paul Lymberis Quadrant Homes PO Box 130 Bellevue, WA 98009 (425)452-6556 Paul.lyLnberis@quadranthomes.com Paul Manzer Pacland Development Consulting 11235 SE 6th Street, Suite 220 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 453-9501 pmanzer@pacland.com Rod Leland Federal Way Public Schools 31405 18th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 rleland@fwsd.wednet.edu Sid White Federal Way Public Schools 1066 South 320' Street Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 945-5935 swhite@fwps.org Gordon Olson South King Fire & Rescue 31617 1 st Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 227-9301 gordon.olson@southkin firg e.ore Tom Raymond South King Fire & Rescue 31617 1' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 (253)946-7241 Tom.ra and @southkingfire.oru Tom Pierson Federal Way Chamber of Commerce PO Box 4220 Federal Way, WA 98063 (253) 838-2605 toml2@federalwaychamber.com Sam Pace Sea/King County Assoc of Realtors 29839 154th Avenue SE Kent, WA 98042-4557 (253) 630-5541 sampace@concentric.net Ron Tremaine Redstone Development Land Acquisition and Development 17417 433' Street SE North Bend, WA 98045 redstoneron@hotmail.com 425-831-7730(w 206-353-1761 (ce�.XHIPI 7 T 2 425-831-7783 ("PAGE t 111.1.11"ISF- EXH-11PITC PAGE -3 ....,.. 1 of 33 .�� .' _ e >. ",� y an,, p . .. .. _, � s� ,. Gary Martindale Monte Powell The Commons of Federal Way Powell Homes Bill McCaffrey 1928-B South Commons Blvd 29607 8h Avenue South WJM Studio Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 1911 SW Campus Drive, Suite 116 253-839-6156 monte@powell-homes.com Federal Way, WA 98023 gmartindaleatcafw.com wjmccaffrey@comcast.net Garrett J. Huffman Jeff Greene Master Builders Association Tom Barghausen Greene Gasaway Architects of King/Snohomish Counties Barghausen Consulting Engineers PO Box 4158 335 116th Avenue SE 18215 72nd Avenue South Federal Way, WA 980634158 Bellevue, WA 98004 Kent, WA 98032 253-9414937 P-huffman@mbaks.com tbarghausen@barehausen.com jeffggarch@seanet.com 425-460-8236 (MBAKS) Peter Townsend Steve Hammer Brant A. Schweikl, P.E. 1648 South 310d` Street, Suite 6 Browleit Peterson Hammer Architects Managing Member Federal Way, WA 98003 6920 220`h SW, Suite 200 Schweikl and Associates, PLLC 253-839-2947 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 705 South 96 Street, Suite 303 petert8ng.me.com steve@bpharch.com Tacoma, WA 98405 Auburn, WA 98032 bschweiklp_comcast.net Mel Easter 253-272-4451 (wk) Mike Baily Johnson Braund Design Group 253-272-4495(fax) LDG Architects 15200 52nd Avenue South, Suite 200 1319 Dexter Avenue, Suite 260 Seattle, WA 98188 Mike Behn Seattle, WA 98109 206-766-8300 Quadrant, Development Manager 206-2834764 com mele@jbda.com 14725 SE 36`i' Street, Suite #200 mike@ldgarchitects.com PO Box 130 Koong Cho Bellevue, WA 98009 Chad Weiser Royal Hospitality mike.behn@quadranthomes.com OTAK (Hampton Inn) 425-452-6563 10236 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 15901 West Valley Highway 425-753-4866(cell) Kirkland, WA 98033-7897 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-442-1359 253-318-0908 Bob Roper chad.weiserna,otak.com koonp-c@comcast.net bob.roper@comcast.net 253-941-6954 Christine Balyeat Jim Jordan New Concept Homes (Saghalie Heights developer) Dale A Roper PO Box 1229 jdordan@isomedia.com The Roper Company Issaquah, WA 98027 Landscape Architecture/Site Planning hcbalveatng,hotmail.com Mike Hovland 816 Cherry Avenue, #3A Hovland Architects Sumner, WA 98390 Mark Freitas 900 Meridian Avenue East, Ste 408 253-891-1030 33516 9`h Avenue South Milton, WA 98354 253-826-3891 (fax) Federal Way, WA 98003 hovarcht@comcast.net roperdalela_aol.com e 253-838-8327 markfccim@cs.com Dave Thorstad Gary Hering 406 South 289`h Place 1439 SW 296`x' Street Tres Kirkebo Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98023 Apex EnEineering ditarchitect@comcast.net gjhering@a,comcast.net 2601 35 Street, Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98409 Dan Coxall Tim Atkins 253-473-4494 Hammes Co. XH!'�°' Z Big Mountain Enterprises kirkebona,apexen ineering net (St. Francis Hospi 77 PO Box 1001 1325 46' Avenue, Q Enumclaw, WA 98022 Seattle, WA 98101 tim ebijimountainent.com dcoxall@hammesco.com EXHIP1T C K:\2010 Code Amendments\06-21-10 Stakeholders List.doc PAGE _ �� s Tony Starkovich 1611 9b Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 425-775-6552 vintag-ec4pital@hotmail.com Gareth Roe BCRA 2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300 Tacoma, WA 98402 253-627-4367 groe@bcradesip-n.com BrettThomas brett@mountainconst.com Connie Boyle connie.boyle@colliers.com James Pate jameW@—harsch.com Jeff Oliphant jlo55@aol.com Jerry Heinz _jepy.heinz@weyerhaeuser.com Jon Potter potter.nmT@amail.com Randy Lloyd randylloyd@Urint.blackberry net Rick Olson RickOlson@fhshealth.ore Rob Aigner roba@harsch.com Rob Rueber arrueberncomcast.net Scott Rhodes rhodesarchitecture@%zmail.com Sheppard Cutler swc@fishersons.com Gordon Olson Gordon.olson@southkin firg_ e.or>; Steve Honeycutt shoneycutt@wildwaves.com KA2010 Code Amendments\0621-10 Stakeholders List.doc Heidi Swartz Swartz Development 5724 30'h Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 730-6933 cell (206) 527-8999 fax lbpswartz &comcast.net EXH��'1T PAGE 9,-.� EXM!PIT PAGE 3.,�l a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to residential off-street parking; amending FWRC 19.05.140; amending FWRC 19.130 Article VII; and repealing FWRC 19.130.230. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 09-610, 09-607, 09-595, 09- 593, 08-585, 07-573, 04-457, 00-375, 99-341, and 90-43) WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify Title 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), "Zoning and Development Code," in order to conform to state and federal law, codify administrative practices, clarify and update zoning regulations as deemed necessary, and improve the efficiency of the regulations and the development review process; and WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to development regulations and the text of Title 19 FWRC, has complied with Process VI review, chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to clarify appropriate residential off-street parking surface materials within the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would remove the undefined term of approved impervious surface and replace with driveway or parking pad; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would remove the large lot exemption and provide equitable regulation; and WHEREAS, non -substantive changes would consolidate similar code sections and eliminate redundancies; and Ordinance No. 10- Page I of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXHIPIT_L1 PAGE_LGF.�a. WHEREAS, an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was properly issued for the Proposal on June 30, 2010, and no comments or appeals were received and the DNS was finalized on July 28, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on July 21, 2010; and forwarded a recommendation of approval with modification to the City Council as follows: pervious asphalt and pervious concrete as examples for alternative surfaces that may be granted a modification from the director; WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered these code amendments on August 2, 2010, and September 20, 2010. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Federal Way makes the following findings with respect to the proposed amendments. (a) These code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and will benefit the City as a whole by clarifying existing policies and intent. (b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management. (c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Title 19 FWRC and will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. (d) These code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. 10- Page 2 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXHIP1T� PAGE LG' rt� .... .. ... ,.., � �.4 �` ' ... (e) These code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC and chapter 19.35 FWRC, and based upon the recitals and the findings set forth in Section 1, the Federal Way City Council makes the following Conclusions of Law with respect to the decisional criteria necessary for the adoption of the proposed amendments: (a) The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially implement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: LUG1 Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. LUG3 Preserve and protect Federal Way's single-family neighborhoods. LUP14Maintain and protect the character of existing and future single-family neighborhoods through strict enforcement of the City's land use regulations. HP4 Maintain a strong code enforcement program to protect residential areas from illegal land use activities. (b) The proposed FWRC amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare as it will remove ambiguity regarding what is and what is not considered appropriate vehicle storage. (c) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way as it provides clarity to an existing code provision, aesthetic value to residential areas, and equity among all single-family property owners. Section 3. FWRC 19.05.140 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.05.140 N definitions. "Native vegetation" includes native, undisturbed areas or rehabilitation of previously disturbed areas that consist of trees, plants, forest litter, and understory indigenous to the Pacific Ordinance No. 10 - Page 3 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXH I P IT 3 PAGE_ GF "�` a "� � .� ,� �,, �q Northwest or near natives that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. Invasive species, such as Himalayan Blackberry or Scotch Broom, are not native species. "Natural features" means physical characteristics of the subject property that are not manmade. "Natural materials" means materials chemically unaltered from their natural state. "Natural surveillance " means easy observation of buildings, spaces, and activities by people passing, living, working, or recreating nearby. "Nonconformance " means any use, structure, lot, condition, activity or any other feature or element of private or public property or the use or utilization of private or public property that does not conform to any of the provisions of this title or that was not approved by the city of Federal Way through the appropriate decision-making process required under this title. "Nonliving groundcover" means gravel, chipped bark or similar nonpolluting material through which water can freely percolate to the soil beneath. "Nonmotorized vehicles" include but are not limited to travel and camp trailers, utility trailers truck campers and boat or vehicle transport trailers. "Normal maintenance " includes interior and exterior repairs and incidental alterations. "Normal maintenance and repair" includes, but is not limited to, painting, roof repair and replacement, plumbing, wiring and electrical systems, mechanical equipment replacement and weatherization. "Incidental alterations" includes, but is not limited to, construction of nonbearing walls or partitions. "Notice of determination" for sign regulations means the determination that the city issues as to whether a sign conforms to this title and other sections of this Code. "Nuisance vegetation " shall mean any tree or vegetation that, in the opinion of the city or an expert approved by the city (such as, but not limited to, a professional forester, certified arborist, or landscape architect), is an invasive variety, is an allergen, or due to its location is causing or is likely to cause damage to a permanent structure, or other economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health that cannot be mitigated without removal of the tree or vegetation. "Nursing home " means the same as "convalescent center." Section 4. FWRC Chapter 19.130 Article V is hereby repealed in its entirety. Ordinance No. 10 - Page 4 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXHIPI ' 3 PAGE1�G -�-- IN �._ POP _ Ordinance No. 10 - Page 4 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXHIPI ' 3 PAGE1�G -�-- Section 5. FWRC Chapter 19.130 Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows: Article VII. r -- ' Vehieles, D ' VMile and Parking and Vehicle Storage Section 6. Chapter 19.130 Article VII of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended to add a new section Purpose and intent to read as follows: 19.130.245 Purpose and intent The pMose of this article is to establish standards for parking and storage of vehicles for residential zones and uses These standards are intended to protect property values by reducing visual blight caused by vehicle storage located on lawns and other vegetated areas and to provide reasonable size limitations for storage of commercial and recreational vehicles. Section 7. Chapter 19.130 Article VII of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended to add a new section Parking and storage of motor vehicles and nonmotorized vehicles to read as follows: 19.130.246 Parking and storage of motor vehicles and nonmotorized vehicles (1) All motor vehicle and nonmotorized vehicle parking and storage for residential uses containing either detached or attached dwellings shall be in a garage carport, driveway, or a parking pad except for recreational vehicles to be used as a temporary dwelling as specified in FWRC 19 130 2900). A parking pad shall accommodate the size of the vehicle and be composed of asphalt or cement The director mqY grant a modification of parking pad surface materials to include gravel pavers LID methods (pervious asphalt pervious concrete etc.), or other suitable materials pursuant to criteria set forth in FWRC 19.130.100. (2) Any garage carport or parking pad shall have direct driveway access. (3) All vehicles considered junked wrecked dismantled or inoperable must be stored in a completely enclosed building. Section 8. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall Ordinance No. 10- Page 5 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXHIPIT 3 PAGE=..��-�--- ..4 a ,.,� � .. ; 4 not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any other persons or circumstances. Section 9. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of scrivener/clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any references thereto. Section 10. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 11. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five (5) days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. 10 - Page 6 of 6 Rev 1/10 LU EXPIPI'T PAGE..1-�,GF-�--- ... _.. t... .. � `� r ..R � COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2010 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments POLICY QUESTION: Should the City approve amendments to the text and Map VI-5 (City Facilities) of Chapter 6 — Capital Facilities; the text and Map VII-2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7 — City Center; and Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8 — Potential Annexation Area; and three citizen-initiated requests (Request #I — Lloyd/Valiani Request, Request #2 — Song Request, and Request #3 — ST Fabrication Request) for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: September 20, 2010 CATEGORY: ❑ Consent ® Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing ❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other STAFF REPORT BY: Principal Planner Mar aret H. Clark AICP DEPT: Community Development Services _.._............_..._.__..._............_...— -.........._......._..._.._..._.. - _................ .._....__.._................................._..._............_...._.._._._. - _ - .__._........_..._...�._._..-._ -- Background: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July 7, 2010, at the close of which they recommended to the council approval of the staff recommendation shown as s4ikethfough (deletions) and underline (new) text with further amendments to Chapter 6 — Capital Facilities shown as double strike-out (deletions) and double underline (additions or corrections). The Planning Commission's recommendation is as follows: 1) approval of the staff-recommended changes to the text and Map VI-5 (City Facilities) of Chapter 6 — Capital Facilities with a further recommendation to remove any reference to Camp Kilworth and to address inconsistencies with the size and cost of the Performing Arts Center (Planning Commission's changes are shown on Pages 11, 12, 14, and 18 of Exhibit A of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 2) approval of the staff-recommended changes to the text and Map VII-2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7 — City Center (Exhibit B of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 3) approval of the staff-recommended changes to Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8 — Potential Annexation Area (Exhibit C of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 4) approval of the Lloyd-Valiani Site-Specific Request (Exhibit D of the draft Adoption Ordinance); 5) approval of the Song Site-Specific Request (Exhibit E of the draft Adoption Ordinance); and 6) approval of the ST Fabrication Site- Specific Request (Exhibit F of the draft Adoption Ordinance). Attachments: 1) Draft Adoption Ordinance with Exhibits A-F; 2) June 29, 2010, Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits D-G (Composite Map and Vicinity Maps of site-specific requests) and two public comments; 3) Draft Minutes of the July 7, 2010, Planning Commission Public Hearing; 4) July 7, 2010, Comment Letter from the Lakehaven Utility District (received July 8, 2010). (Please note that due to their bulk, Exhibits A—C of the Planning Commission Staff Report are not included in the City Council packet, but are available in the City Council Conference Room.) Options Considered: 1) Adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendments as shown in Exhibits A-F to the Draft Adoption Ordinance; 2) Adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendments as further amended by the LUTC; 3) Do not adopt the amendments. - --.................._.....-- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve option #1; adopt the Planning Commission recommended amendments as shown in Exhibits A-F to the Draft Adoption Ordinance. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: /J. g ,I J10 DIRECTOR APPROVAL:_ Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: "I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on October 5, 2010. " Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE (10/05/2010): "I move to forward the ordinance to a second reading for enactment on the October 19, 2010, consent agenda. " 21YD READING OF ORDINANCE (10/19/2010: "1 move approval of the L UTC's recommendation." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: ❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # ❑ DENIED 1sT reading ❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading ❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to amendments to the City's comprehensive plan, comprehensive plan map, and zoning map. (Amending ordinance no's. 90-43,95-248,96-270,98-330,00-372, 01- 405, 03-442, 04-460, 04-461, 04-462, 05-490, 05-491, 05-492, 07-558, and 09-614.) WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act of 1990 as amended (Chapter 36.70A RCW or "GMA"), requires the City of Federal Way to adopt a comprehensive plan which includes a land use element (including a land use map), housing element, capital facilities plan element, utilities element, economic development element, and transportation element (including transportation system map[s]); and WHEREAS, the GMA also requires the City of Federal Way to adopt development regulations implementing its comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Federal Way City Council adopted its comprehensive plan with a land use map (the "Plan") on November 21, 1995, and adopted development regulations and a zoning map implementing the Plan on July 2, 1996; and subsequently amended the comprehensive plan, land use map, and zoning map on December 23, 1998; September 14,2000; November 1, 2001; March 27, 2003; July 20, 2004; June 16,2005; July 16, 2007, and June 11, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City may consider Plan and development regulation amendments pursuant to Process VI, under Title 19 (Zoning and Development Code) of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, under RCW 36.70A.130, the Plan and development regulations are subject to continuing review and evaluation, but the Plan may be amended no more than one time per year; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered amendments to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan map, and the zoning map, specifically, the text and Map VI -5 (City Facilities) of Chapter 6 — Capital Facilities; the text and Map VII -2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7 — City Center; and Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8 — Potential Annexation Area; and three citizen - initiated requests (Request #1 — Lloyd/Valiani Request, Request #2 — Song Request, and Request #3 —ST Fabrication Request) for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations; Ordinance No. 10- Page 1 of 4 Rev 1/10 CP WHEREAS, on June 19, 2010, the City's SEPA Responsible Official issued a Determination of Nonsignificance on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 7, 2010, at the close of which they recommended to the Council approval of the following amendments: 1) amendments to the text and Map VI -5 (City Facilities) of Chapter 6 — Capital Facilities; the text and Map VII -2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7 — City Center; and Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8 — Potential Annexation Area, and 2) approval of the three citizen -initiated requests (Request #I — Lloyd/Valiani Request, Request #2 — Song Request, and Request #3 —ST Fabrication Request) for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations; and WHEREAS, the Land Use/Transportation Committee of the Federal Way City Council considered the comprehensive plan amendments on September 20, 2010, following which it recommended approval of the Planning Commission's recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council, through its staff, Planning Commission, and City Council committee, received, discussed, and considered the testimony, written comments, and material from the public, and considered the matter at its City Council meetings on October 5, 2010, and October 19, 2010; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the: 1) Amendments to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan; and 2) three citizen -initiated requests for changes to the comprehensive plan and zoning map designations; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. (a) The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan maps and comprehensive plan text, as set forth in Exhibits A -F, attached hereto, are consistent with the Council vision for the City of Federal Way; will allow development which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, including adjacent single-family uses; provide convenient goods and services at a pedestrian and neighborhood scale close to adjacent residential Ordinance No. 10- Page 2 of 4 Rev 1/10 CP uses; provide for capital facilities and private utilities to serve both present and projected population; and therefore bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare; are in the best interest of the residents of the City; and are consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the un -amended portion of the Plan. (b) The proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan maps and comprehensive plan text, as set forth in Exhibits A -F, attached hereto, are compatible with adjacent land uses and will not negatively affect open space, streams, lakes, or wetlands, or the physical environment in general. The amendments will allow for growth and development consistent with the Plan's overall vision and with the Plan's land use element household and job targets, and will allow reasonable use of property subject to constraints necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas. The amendments, therefore, bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare; are in the best interest of the residents of the City; and are consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A, the King County Countywide Planning Policies, and the un -amended portion of the Plan. (c) The proposed amendments to the zoning map, set forth in Exhibits D, E, and F attached hereto, are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan land use map proposed to be amended in Section 2 below, bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, and welfare, and are in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City. (d) The proposed amendments have complied with the appropriate process under state law and the FWRC. Section 2 Comprehensive PlanComprehensive Plan Maps and Zoning Map Amendments Adoption. The 1995 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, as thereafter amended in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009, copies of which are on file with the Office of the City Clerk, the comprehensive plan map, and the zoning map are amended as set forth in Exhibits A -F attached hereto. Section 3. Amendment Authority. The adoption of plan and map amendments in Section 2 above is pursuant to the authority granted by Chapters 36.70A and 35A.63 RCW, and pursuant to chapter 19.80 FWRC. Ordinance No. 10- Page 3 of 4 Rev 1/10 CP Section 4. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Savings Clause. The 1995 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, as thereafter amended in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2009 shall remain in full force and effect until these amendments become operative upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section 6. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after passage and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this 19th day of October, 2010. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, LINDA KOCHMAR ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No. 10 - Page 4 of 4 Rev 1/10 CP Exhibit A Proposed Amendments to Chapter 6, Capital Facilities CHAPTER SIX - CAPITAL FACILITIES 6.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Federal Way is expected to add 6,188 housing units and 7,481 jobs between the years 2001 and 2022. This growth will stimulate the local economy and maintain a diverse and vibrant community. Unf •tante'•, it It will also generate a corresponding demand for new public services and facilities, such as schools, parks, and streets. These new facilities, and the financial implications they will have for Federal Way and its citizens, are the subject of this chapter. The Growth Management Act The Growth Management Act (GMA) refers to capital facilities planning in two of the 13 statewide planning goals. The two relevant goals are: Urban growth. Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. Public facilities and services. Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. More specifically, the GMA mandates that the City prepare a capital facilities plan which contains the following components: • An inventory of existing facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the facilities. • A forecast of the future needs for such facilities. • The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new facilities. • At least a six-year financing plan that will finance such facilities and clearly identify sources of public money for such purposes. • A requirement to reassess the Land Use chapter if probable funding falls short. In the pages that follow, this chapter complies with the GMA requirements for a capital facilities plan. FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Level of Service To prepare a Capital Facilities chapter, one of the first decisions a jurisdiction must make involves establishing a level of service (LOS) standard. The level of service standard refers to the amount and quality of services and facilities that a community wants. For example, the LOS for a parks system is usually described in terms of the number of acres of parkland per 1,000 population. If a community has a strong desire for a good parks system, it will establish a high LOS standard for itself, maybe something on the order of 20 acres of park per 1,000 residents. On the other hand, 20 acres of developed parkland is expensive to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain. As a result, the community may be forced, for financial reasons, to accept a lower LOS standard. In any event, adopting LOS standards for all the services and facilities the City provides would help it: 1) evaluate how well it is serving existing residents, and 2) determine how many new facilities will have to be constructed to service new growth and development. Concurrency In addition to mandating that a Capital Facilities chapter be included in comprehensive plans, the GMA also introduced the concept of concurrency. In general terms, concurrence describes the situation where adequate and necessary public services and facilities are available "concurrent" with the impacts of new development, or within a specified time thereafter. Concurrency has two levels of applicability. The first is at the planning level and refers to all services and facilities, over the long term, and at the citywide scale. Planning level concurrency is what this chapter is all about. It inventories all existing facilities and services, establishes a LOS standard for each, estimates new facility requirements to accommodate projected growth, and develops a financing plan that identifies the revenues necessary to pay for all the new facilities. If the necessary revenues are not available, then the jurisdiction fails the planning level concurrency test and must take appropriate action. Those actions include lowering the LOS standard, raising taxes, restricting growth, or a combination of these actions. This chapter satisfies the planning level concurrency requirement as outlined in the GMA. The second level of concurrency analysis is project specific and only required for transportation facilities. Specifically, the GMA (RCW 36.70A. 070[61) states: "...local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a transportation facility to decline below the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development." That same section goes on say that "concurrent with the development" shall mean that Revised 2010, Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTMmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -2 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years. To satisfy the project level concurrency requirement, the last section of chapter three, Transportation, contains a concurrency management discussion. As mentioned previously, project level concurrency is only required for transportation system facilities. However, the Washington State Office of Community Development's interpretation (WAC 365-195-070[3]) states that, "...concurrence should be sought with respect to public facilities in addition to transportation facilities. The list of such additional facilities should be locally defined." This section goes on to say that local jurisdictions may fashion their own regulatory responses. The City adopted a Transportation Concurrency Management System, which became effective January 1, 2007. Impact Fees Local jurisdictions planning under the GMA are authorized to assess impact fees for development activity as part of financing for public facilities, such as parks, transportation, and schools. The fire district also has a direct impact on their level of service based on growth and thus, is working both locally and legislatively to ensure that they also receive impact fees directly related to growth. Impact fees must be based on an adopted capital facilities plan. In addition, the collected fees must be used for projects that are reasonably related to and will reasonably benefit the development paying the fees. The fees must also be used within a specified time from the date they were collected or returned to the payee. Impact fees may be imposed for system improvement costs previously incurred to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements, provided they not be imposed to make up for any system improvement deficiencies. To impose an impact fee program, the City must have a plan in place to make up any existing system deficiencies. Countywide Planning Policies The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs) originally adopted in 1992, and amended in 1994, contain a number of goals and policies regarding capital facilities and the provision of urban services. Those relevant CWPPs are the following: C01 Jurisdictions shall identify the full range of urban services and how they plan to provide them. CO2 Jurisdictions and other urban service providers shall provide services and manage natural resources efficiently, through regional coordination, conjunctive use of resources, and sharing of facilities. Intedurisdictional planning efforts shall evaluate approaches to share and conserve resources. CO3 Service provision shall be coordinated to ensure the protection and preservation of resources in both Rural Areas and in areas that are Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan UpdatelLUTCIAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -3 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities developing, while addressing service needs within areas currently identified for growth. CO4 All jurisdictions acknowledge the need to develop a regional surface water management system which crosses jurisdictional boundaries and identifies and prioritizes program elements and capital improvements necessary to accommodate growth and protect the natural and built environment. The GMPC shall develop and recommend a financing and implementation strategy to meet this need. CO5 Water supply shall be regionally coordinated to provide a reliable economic source of water and to provide mutual aid to and between all agencies and purveyors. The region should work toward a mechanism to address long-term regional water demand needs of agencies and water purveyors. CO7 Water reuse and reclamation shall be encouraged, especially for large commercial and residential developments and for high water users such as parks, schools, golf courses, and locks. C010 In the Urban Area identified for growth within the next ten years, urban water and sewer systems are preferred for new construction on existing lots and shall be required for new subdivisions. However, existing septic systems, private wells, and/or small water systems may continue to serve the developments so long as densities and physical conditions are appropriate, the systems are allowed by the relevant jurisdictions, and management keeps the systems operating properly and safely. CO13 Urban sewer system extensions in unincorporated King County shall be permitted consistent with the provisions of the King County Sewerage General Plan, Countywide Policies, and the policies of the jurisdiction in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. FW13 Cities are the appropriate provider of local urban services to Urban Areas, either directly or by contract. Counties are the appropriate provider of most countywide services. Urban services shall not be extended through the use of special purpose districts without approval of the city in whose potential annexation area the extension is proposed. Within the Urban Area, as time and conditions warrant, cities should assume local urban services provided by special purpose districts. FW32 Public capital facilities of a Countywide or Statewide nature shall be sited to support the Countywide land use pattern, support economic activities, mitigate environmental impacts, provide amenities or incentives, and minimize public costs., Amenities or incentives shall be provided to neighborhoods/jurisdictions in which facilities are sited. Facilities must be prioritized, coordinated, planned, and sited through an intedurisdictional process established by the GMPC, or its successor. Revised 2010, Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCWmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -4 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities LU29 All jurisdictions shall develop growth -phasing plans consistent with applicable capital facilities plans to maintain an Urban Area served with adequate public facilities and services to meet at least the six-year intermediate household and employment target ranges consistent with LU67 and LU68. These growth phasing plans shall be based on locally adopted definitions, service levels, and financing commitments, consistent with State GMA requirements. The phasing plans for cities shall not extend beyond their potential annexation areas. Interlocal agreements shall be developed that specify the applicable minimum zoning, development standards, impact mitigation, and future annexation for the potential annexation areas. LU30 Where urban services cannot be provided within the next 10 years, jurisdictions should develop policies and regulations to: • Phase and limit development such that planning, siting, density and infrastructure decisions will support future urban development when urban services become available. Establish a process for converting land to urban densities and uses once services are available. Funding/Financing Typically, cities and the residents they service would like to have higher LOS standards than they can afford. Federal Way has worked hard to provide the highest LOS possible without raising taxes. It is a difficult balance to maintain and the City is currently a" peipA whery it may have to eensider- raising additional r-evenues exploring options to pay for capital facilities and the associated maintenance and operations costs. If the City decides to generate additional revenues, there are several sources available. Some of these revenues are "on-going" in the sense that the City levies the tax and the revenues are added to the City's general fund on an annual basis. On-going revenues include property taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, impact fees, and business and occupation taxes. The other category of funds is called "one time" funds because the City cannot count on having these funds available on an annual basis. These funds include bond sales and grants such as, TEA -21, IAC, and Urban Arterial Fund money. On-going funds can be used for either capital facilities or maintenance and operations. However, it is prudent financial management and adopted City policy that one-time funds be used only for capital improvements. As is discussed later in this chapter, the City proposed two bond issues to finance capital facilities in the Fall of 1995. As part of that bond issue, voters were asked to approved a permanent utility tax to pay for the maintenance and operations costs associated with the new capital facilities. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVWmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -5 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 6.1 SURFACE WATER Inventory of Existing Facilities Natural Systems The Federal Way area consists of two major drainage basins, the Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound. The Hylebos Creek Basin consists of the West Branch Hylebos Creek, East Branch Hylebos Creek, and the Lower Hylebos Creek Sub -Basins. The Lower Puget Sound Basin consists of the North Lower, Central Lower, and South Lower Puget Sound Sub -Basins. Map VI -1 (maps are located at the end of the chapter) shows the planning area boundary, and boundaries. Map VI -2 shows the major features of the natural system. The natural systems have been reviewed on a sub -basin level. This sub - basin information is contained in the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Facility Plan. Man -Made System As part of its 1994 Surface Water Facilities Plan, the City completed an inventory of the stormwater drainage trunk system. There are ten major trunk lines in the system, and one can find more details about their capacity and location in the Surface Water Plan. The City has made a significant number of improvements to the manmade system since incorporation in 1990. Most of the projects completed to date corrected existing localized flooding problems. As a result of resolving these "spot" problems, the City and its surface water utility have significantly improved the LOS on a system -wide basis. The City has gone to a regional system for detention/retention of surface water. Several regional detention/retention facilities have been, or will be, constructed to handle stormwater runoff. However, individual developments must treat stormwater on site prior to releasing it to the regional system. System Capacity As part of the Surface Water Facilities Plan, the City developed a model of its surface water facilities, including the natural part of the system, the various lakes, streams, and wetlands. This model uses the following design or LOS standards: • 25 -year storm conveyance capacity on lateral systems; • 25 -year storm conveyance capacity on major trunk systems; • 25 -year storm storage capacity in local retention/ detention facilities; and • 100 -year storm storage capability in regional retention/detention facilities. Based on these LOS standards and the data on existing facilities, the model helps utility engineers identify deficiencies in the existing system and the most cost effective way to resolve them. The model also allows engineers to describe the new facilities that will be needed in the future to accommodate new growth and development as outlined in the Land Use chapter. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -6 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Forecast of Future Needs Based on model results, utility engineers annually update a detailed 10 six-year capital facilities plan. The plan identifies projects, prioritizes them, estimates the cost, and re- examines the utility rate structure to ensure that there is sufficient funding available over the next six years to construct these projects (Table VI -1). Table VI -1 City of Federal Way Facilities Plan Surface Water Manazement Component Revised 2010 Community Facilities K:1Comprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan UpdatelLUTCIAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -7 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total SWM SOURCES Revenues and Financing Carry Forward from CIP and Operations 7,030,158 6,206,435 5,025,729 3,896,890 3,351,651 2,878,155 968,961 User Fees with GMA Project Growth 3,239,534 3,232,389 3,256,629 3,281,054 3,305,662 3,330,454 3,355,432 46,657,770 Interest Earnings 75,564 171,536 152,212 131,901 119,685 90,634 64,086 1,449,806 Transfer In - Street Fund 149,901 149,901 149,901 154,398 159,030 163,801 168,715 2,106,172 Grant Funding 1,093,160 720,000 Subtotal Revenues and Financing 11,588,317 10,480,259 8,584,470 7,464,243 6,936,027 6,463,044 4,557,194 113,867,643 Expenditures - One Time & Debt Service One Time Funding 0 Public Works Trust Fund Loan 203,577 201,754 199,930 198,107 196283 194,459 192,636 3,757,108 Subtotal Expenditures 203,577 201,754 199,930 198,107 196,283 194,459 192,636 3,757,108 Available Revenue 11,384,739 10,278,505 8,384,540 7,266,137 6,739,744 6,268,584 4,364,559 110,110,535 Total Required Sources 5,2549682 5,454,530 4,687,580 4,112,593 4,057,873 5,494,083 3,859,339 59,421,297 SWM USES Maintenance and Operations Current 2,540,016 2,576,016 2,578,016 2,664,432 2,753,752 2,846,074 2,941,500 36,895,119 Subtotal Maintenance and Operations 2,540,016 29576,016 2,578,016 2,664,432 2,753,752 2,846,074 2,941,500 36,895,119 Annual Programs I l l Fund 221,744 200,000 207,000 214,245 221,744 229,505 237,537 29809,041 Subtotal Annual Programs 221,744 200,000 207,000 214,245 2219744 229,505 237,537 2,809,041 Capital Project List SPJ3-CIP-01:Joe Creek Regional Detention Pond 1,542,391 1,9469489 SPJ2-CIP-02: Lake Jeane Outlet Control Structure 125,000 430,000 555,000 SPJ2-CIP-02: Lake Lorene Outlet Control Structure 95,000 295,000 390,000 Revised 2010 Community Facilities K:1Comprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan UpdatelLUTCIAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -7 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities Table VI -I includes the surface water facilities project list. For more complete discussion of this list, and maps describing project locations, please refer to Chapter IV of the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Plan. As noted earlier, these projects address existing system deficiencies as well as the new facilities that will be needed to accommodate projected growth. Finance Plan The City has created a surface water utility to manage stormwater drainage, prevent flooding, and improve water quality. The City charges property owners an annual surface water fee, which is based upon the amount of impervious surface on the property. These fees, along with any outside grant monies and low interest loans, provide the revenues that pay for capital facilities projects, and operation and maintenance of its surface water system. As outlined in Table VI -1, projects are scheduled based on anticipated revenues. The capital facilities spreadsheet indicates project scheduling based on available funding and Revised 2010, Community Facilities K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVamended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -8 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total S 373d Bridge Replacement Project 160,000 661,760 910,000 SPJ4-CIP-0I: SW 325" St 150,000 150,000 Culvert/Trunk Replacement SPIJ-CIP-02: Lower Joes Creek 323,678 1,898,373 2,222,051 Channel Restoration SPL5-CIP-02: SW 332d St Trunk 200,000 635,000 835,000 Replacement CPR6-C[P-01: S 308" St Lateral 60,000 105,000 165,000 Drainage Intercept SPM3-CIP-02: East 15-hich Lateral 211,953 248,092 Detention WH 12-C [P-02: S 316"i PI Detention 88,188 517,223 605,411 Facility WH07-CIP-02: 1" Way S Trunk 97,634 572,621 670,255 Replacement CPR6-CEP-02: Outlet Channel 50,000 130,000 180,000 Modification WH15-CIP-02:21" Ave SW Detention 60,615 355,506 416,121 Facility WH11-CIP-04: Low Flow 45,193 265,056 310,249 Diversion/Infiltration Trench W Hylebos Channel Riparian Habitat 400,000 720,000 1,120,000 Easement Acquisition 10"Ave S Drainage Improvement 55,000 375,000 430,000 S 336'" and 348"Ave S Drainage 25,000 120,000 145,000 Improvement SR 99 Phase III Cost Share 150,000 150,000 Locations and Capacities of Future Facilities Table VI -I includes the surface water facilities project list. For more complete discussion of this list, and maps describing project locations, please refer to Chapter IV of the City's Comprehensive Surface Water Plan. As noted earlier, these projects address existing system deficiencies as well as the new facilities that will be needed to accommodate projected growth. Finance Plan The City has created a surface water utility to manage stormwater drainage, prevent flooding, and improve water quality. The City charges property owners an annual surface water fee, which is based upon the amount of impervious surface on the property. These fees, along with any outside grant monies and low interest loans, provide the revenues that pay for capital facilities projects, and operation and maintenance of its surface water system. As outlined in Table VI -1, projects are scheduled based on anticipated revenues. The capital facilities spreadsheet indicates project scheduling based on available funding and Revised 2010, Community Facilities K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVamended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -8 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities priority ranking. The City annually updates the capital facilities plan for surface water. The Comprehensive Surface Water Plan, which includes the capital facilities plan, is adopted by reference in this plan, including changes made during the City's annual update. 6.2 TRANSPORTATION The GMA requires that local jurisdictions prepare a transportation chapter as part of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). The GMA also authorizes jurisdictions to assess impact fees for transportation system improvements that are necessary to accommodate the traffic created by the new development. In order to assess impact fees, the capital facilities plan must include the list of transportation improvements and associated costs that necessitate the impact fees. Discussion related to Transportation - related capital facilities can be found in FWCP Chapter 3, Transportation. 6.3 PARKS AND RECREATION Inventory of Existing Facilities The City of Federal Way adopted the first Park, Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan in December of 1991. The City updated the Plan in 1995, 2000, and 2006. This plan, which is now called the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, is incorporated by reference. The planning area of the 2000 and 2006 Parks Plans are based only on the City limits of Federal Way, although the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) is inventoried and discussed. As in previous plans, the Parks Plan has been subdivided into subareas, referred to as Parks Plan Planning Areas (Map VI -3), for purposes of long- range planning. The 2006 Parks Plan updates the inventory to include new parks and properties added to the City's system. In addition to City -owned parks and open space, the Parks Plan also lists school district, state, and county facilities, as well as private recreation facilities. Map VI -4 depicts the location of major parks and open space within the Federal Way planning area. Table VI -2 summarizes this inventory as of June 2006. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -9 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Table VI -2 S mmary of Existing City Park -and Recreation Areas DEVELOPED PARK LAND CATEGORIES ACRES 14 Neighborhood Parks 156.4 5 Community Parks 222.3 0 Regional Parks 0.0 4.2 mi Trails Acreage 118.0 4 Park Facilities Acreage 25.8 Total Developed Park Land 522.5 Total Undeveloped Park Land 543.5 Total Park Land in Federal Wa 1066.0 When the City incorporated in 1990, there were approximately eight acres of parkland available per 1,000 population in Federal Way. Since that time, the City has purchased additional property and developed new facilities. These include the Lake Killarney Open Space Park, Heritage Woods Neighborhood Park, Wedgewood Neighborhood Park, BPA Trail I, II, and III, Madrona Park, Cedar Grove Park, Klahanee Lake Community Senior Center, Dumas Bay Centre, Celebration Park, Steel Lake Annex facilities, and the Community Center, which opened March 2007. In 2004, Washington State Parks transferred West Hylebos Wetlands Park to the City. King County has also transferred several properties to the City in the last six years. These parks and facilities are described in greater detail in the Parks Plan. As of 2006, the City is providing 10.9 acres of park land per 1,000 population. The City's goal is to maintain a level of service of 10.9 as Federal Way grows in population and size. In the past, the City has obtained land through plat dedication. The City is also now considering a Park Impact Fee to provide funds for parks acquisition and development. In addition to acquiring and developing new facilities, the City has taken administrative actions to take advantage of other available public recreational facilities. The City enacted interlocal agreements with the School District to jointly operate and maintain school recreational facilities. As a result, the City jointly operates and maintains a major community park in conjunction with Saghalie Middle School. Also, the City has agreements to provide recreational programs and schedule play fields at several elementary schools, in addition to middle schools. These facilities are now formally available nights and weekends, year around for use by local residents. As referenced above, City residents now have access to 10.9 acres of parks and open space per 1,000 population. This inventory includes City owned parks and open space within the City limits. The City currently provides 1066 acres of parkland, which the City maintains and operates. Of the total 1066 acres, 522.5 acres is developed for recreational use areas and 543.5 acres is undeveloped. Note: Washington State Parks has a regional park facility within the City limits, which residents often use. Dash Point State Park is 230 acres of state land, which provides a regional (statewide) recreation use for camping, swimming, picnicking, walking trails, and beachfront. The state park land is not included in the City's LOS simply because the Revised 2010 Community Facilities K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTC\Amended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -10 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities state owns, operates, and maintains this facility. For the purposes of parks planning, the recommended LOS standard in the City's Parks Plan and this Capital Facilities chapter is 10.9 acres of City owned parkland per 1,000 population. Forecast of Future Needs The 2006 Parks Plan states that the inventory of public park and open space land will be adequate to serve both the current and future projected population within the City and PAA. However, much of this acreage is un -programmed, undeveloped open space. The primary deficiency, both now and projected, is in improved trails. The updated Parks Plan makes recommendations based on five Core Values identified through an extensive planning process. Four of these relate to capital facilities and include: Core Value #1: Improve Existing Facilities and Provide Multiple Functions in Parks Core Value #2: Develop a Walking and Biking Community Through an Integrated Trail and Sidewalk Network Core Value #3: Retain and Improve Our Open Spaces Core Value #4: Create Community Gathering Place and Destinations Capital facilities that respond to these Core Values have been incorporated into the Six - Year CIP. Some of the major efforts planned for this six year period include: • Design and redevelopment of Lakota and Sacajawea Parks • Introduction of community gathering spaces in neighborhood parks • Site and building assessments for Dumas Bay Centre • Trail and Pedestrian improvements • Upgrade Saghalie Park soccer field to artificial turf In addition, the City completed a cultural arts survey in 1994. The survey evaluated several alternatives for a performing arts center and concluded that at some time in the near future, the City would need such a facility with a capacity of about 1,000 seats. The City has converted a portion of Dumas Bay Centre into the Knutzen Family Theatre, a 250 -seat civic theater facility. This facility will begin to fulfill the identified community need for a performing arts center. Locations & Capacities of Future Facilities Map VI -4 indicates the location of the parks, recreation facilities, and open space subareas the City will need to maintain the adopted LOS. The Parks Plan breaks the planning area into subareas and addresses future facilities at the subarea level. For more details about the type, size, and cost of these new facilities, please refer to the 2006 Parks Plan. Map VI -4A shows potential locations of public spaces in the City Center. Revised 2010, Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doe VI -11 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Finance Plan Table VI -3 (Parks Six -Year Capital Improvements Plan, 2006-2012) describes the proposed parks projects that will be needed between now and the year 2012, together with cost estimates programmed by year. Table VI -3 also identifies the revenues that will be available during the same time period to finance these new facilities. Please refer to Chapter 7, "Implementation," of the 2006 City of Federal Way Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan for information on the finance plan. The City biennially updates its Parks & Recreation Capital Improvement Plan. These updates reflect new project priorities, eliminate projects that have been completed, and add new projects to the program. Table VI -3 Parks Six -Year Capital Improvements Plan, 2007-2012 (in thnusands) Sources/Uses 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1 2012 Total Real Estate Excise Tax 1,007 344 460 510 507 421 3249 Misc. Transfers 21 21 Grants/Anticipated 94 no 500 1,000 2" Grants/Contributions Received Mitigation Funds Received 110 110 General Fund 0 Total Financing Sources 400 344 460 1010 507 1421 IN Park Projects Playffound 134 134 1 136 136 137 138 815 BMX/Bike Facility 15 15 9"M VAWBAb ^sq. __ 11011048 I1W 440 us X34 Community Gathering Spaces 30 37 108 112 112 126 525 Downtown Public Space 100 100 Dumas Bay Centre: Building 33 193 140 140 140 140 786 Dumas Bay Centre: Site Restor. 137 Lakota Park Design & Redev. 723 11,000 11,723 Major Maintenance — Park Facil. 110 110 1 Ito 110 110 1 110 660 Panther Lake Open Space 1 24 68 1 92 Poverty Bay Master Plan 1 41 41 Sa halie Pk Soccer Fld — Artif Turf 920 920 Trail & Ped Access lm 'ts 40 130 1 78 65 67 70 450 West H lebos Boardwalk 1,365 1 1,365 Subtotal (G) 40" 2,732 4064 30" 11,672 581 584 340M Unfunded Ending Balance 0 0 877) 10,669) 988 7,582 L20,1 l6 6.4 Community Facilities Significant community investments have been made in the last 10 years to implement the community's vision for Federal Way. In addition to the investments in the surface water, transportation, and parks areas, the City also acquired and improved a basic set of Revised 2010, Community Facilities K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTC\Amended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -12 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities community facilities to house City operations and provide space for community gatherings and recreation. The City acquired Dumas Bay Centre (a conference and retreat facility) in 1993. Strong local support in community recreation and arts activities translated into the City Council's adoption of a 2% For the Arts ordinance to provide funding for arts in public places in 1994, and the construction of the 254 -seat Knutzen Family Theatre in 1998. The new City Hall, which consolidates most City administrative offices, Publie Sa€etPolice, and the Municipal Court in one facility, was acquired in 2003. Also n 2002 r iag G ,, .1, ai., t, I itself s of eaw.%UflitY s*14-rmaaSpvvxo vvxocxco. oaa rcxi,r 1970 ciiPer-.ax«a U---na, Rt fmado The city co"od tha epeft-Aieifts , f -K -e a-tl,jeiies Peel(YTD) as a ,lt The City began construction of a new 72,000 square foot Community Center in fall 2005. Construction was completed in early 2007. The facility houses Recreation and Cultural Services staff, and includes athletic and community facilities suitable for a wide variety of events and programs. . X1 CC - Inventory of Existing Facilities As of January 2007, the City owns or occupies a number of facilities, as shown in Table VI -4 and Map VI -S. Projected Community Needs The City has identified a number of facilities to help deliver services more efficiently and adjust to the changing demographics of this community in the future. These projected needs are beyond the City's ability to fund within the six-year planning horizon. However, in order to keep the community's vision alive, we purposely did not exclude any of these community projects. The City Council will periodically review and prioritize these projects and provide funding when available. A description of these facilities with a summary list is provided in Table VI -S. Table VI -4 Summary of Existing Community Facilities Building Name Ownl sed Use Sq. ft/OccupancyLea City Hall Own City operations not otherwise listed Police Evidence Own Police evidence room 88,085/approximately 300 FTE and Council Chamber 6,000/2 FTE Revised 2010, Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCIAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites,doc VI -13 FWCP —Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Building Name sed Use Sq. ft/OccupancyLea Senier-Gentef K -R -AIN -Ah IR -RAS P881 Federal Way Community hessed - Messed GemwMait), PO4 Own Community recreation center with Center gym, pools, senior lounge, pre-school, and educational classrooms and multipurpose room with kitchen. Recreation staff offices. Steel Lake Annex Own Daycare, arts and crafts programs Steel Lake Maintenance Own Maintenance operations, outdoor Shop equipment and material storage Dumas Bay Center Own Public park, meetingibanquet/ (DBC) overnight lodging Knutzen Family Theater Own 254 seats performing arts theatre and (at DBC) rehearsal hall Miscellaneous Outdoor Leased Street maintenance material and park Storage equipment storage 11,200/13 FTE, gym, kitchen, etc. 72,000/13 regular FTE and approximately 20 part-time temporary personnel Opened in 2007 1,161/program only 4,110 office and maintenance bay/32 FTE approximately 90 sq ft storage yard and approximately additional 1.5 acres available for future expansion 6 meeting rooms, 70 overnight rooms, 12 acre park ground 10,000 material storage 2,000 equipment storage Miscellaneous Indoor Leased Spare office equipment/facility 260 sf. ft. Storage parts/records 2,160 cubic ft boxes stored offsite in a document storage facility Table VI -5 Projected Community Facility Needs 2007-2013 Type of Facility Year Size Cost (sf) (millions) 3915 4999 Sig sill 9r L Performing Arts Centre 2015 "A" = SM 2. Conference Center 22M U2 2W ma 2994120,000 yard6,600 effiee 4. Public Parking Facilities 2010 200-400 $5 to $10 TOTAL 5114 -SI 19 Revised 2010. Community Facilities \Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVlmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -14 K: FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities is the location of the Police Evidence facility and overflow parking for the City Hall/ Municipal Court. Pursuant to an interlocal asgr-eement the Cities of AuburnBurien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton SeaTac and Tukwila Washington have agreed to jointly develop, construct maintain and operate a consolidated correctional facility to be located in Des Moines Washington to provide correctional services essential to the preservation of the public health safety, and welfare serve for these cities As part of this agreement, an autonomous public agency was formed the South Correction Entity (SCORE) with representation from the cities of AuburnBurien Des Moines Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila Collectively, the cities represent almost 340,000 citizens in South King County. As a result of the shortage of jail beds King County notified the cities in 2000 that they would no longer be able to house misdemeanant inmates after 2012. Many cities have contracted with other jail facilities in Eastern Washington to house irunates as an interim measure However, these contracts expire even sooner, in 2010. While these contracts have provided short term relief for the jail crisis they are not a long-term solution and additional capacity must be built For example the SCORE cities are currently using approxunately 350 jail beds every day. However, the Renton and Auburn jails can only house 100 inmates leaving a need for an additional 250 beds This is the current deficiency. As the population in the region expands the shortage of jail beds will become even greater. All of the King County cities participated in a lop -tg erm jail needs study in 2006. This study is known as the Ricci -Greene Study. The study suggested that two sub -regional jails be constructed The study revealed that 1,440 beds would be needed by all the cities by 2026 Of the 1,440 beds 700 of them are needed in South King County. After the Ricci Greene Study was completed the SCORE cities completed a separate feasibility study to determine if the cities could provide equivalent jail services at a reduced cost. The feasibility study revealed that SCORE could provide the same services at a reduced rate benefiting the tax pavers of the SCORE citizens. The $80.5 million facility will be a single -story building with a housing mezzanine constructed on a sited owned by SCORE located in Des Moines Washington. The facility will be approximately 137,000 square feet with associated parking and site improvements to 822 inmates There will be approximately 120 employees at the facility. The majority of those will be corrections officers followed by medical staff and administrative personnel. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive PlaM2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTC\Amended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -15 Y. Pursuant to an interlocal asgr-eement the Cities of AuburnBurien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton SeaTac and Tukwila Washington have agreed to jointly develop, construct maintain and operate a consolidated correctional facility to be located in Des Moines Washington to provide correctional services essential to the preservation of the public health safety, and welfare serve for these cities As part of this agreement, an autonomous public agency was formed the South Correction Entity (SCORE) with representation from the cities of AuburnBurien Des Moines Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila Collectively, the cities represent almost 340,000 citizens in South King County. As a result of the shortage of jail beds King County notified the cities in 2000 that they would no longer be able to house misdemeanant inmates after 2012. Many cities have contracted with other jail facilities in Eastern Washington to house irunates as an interim measure However, these contracts expire even sooner, in 2010. While these contracts have provided short term relief for the jail crisis they are not a long-term solution and additional capacity must be built For example the SCORE cities are currently using approxunately 350 jail beds every day. However, the Renton and Auburn jails can only house 100 inmates leaving a need for an additional 250 beds This is the current deficiency. As the population in the region expands the shortage of jail beds will become even greater. All of the King County cities participated in a lop -tg erm jail needs study in 2006. This study is known as the Ricci -Greene Study. The study suggested that two sub -regional jails be constructed The study revealed that 1,440 beds would be needed by all the cities by 2026 Of the 1,440 beds 700 of them are needed in South King County. After the Ricci Greene Study was completed the SCORE cities completed a separate feasibility study to determine if the cities could provide equivalent jail services at a reduced cost. The feasibility study revealed that SCORE could provide the same services at a reduced rate benefiting the tax pavers of the SCORE citizens. The $80.5 million facility will be a single -story building with a housing mezzanine constructed on a sited owned by SCORE located in Des Moines Washington. The facility will be approximately 137,000 square feet with associated parking and site improvements to 822 inmates There will be approximately 120 employees at the facility. The majority of those will be corrections officers followed by medical staff and administrative personnel. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive PlaM2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTC\Amended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -15 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Ownership and the financial commitment to SCORE are prorated based on the city's 2007 average dais prisoner population—for Federal Way that is 69 operational beds, or 18 percent of the project. Maintenance Facility The Parks and Public Works maintenance facility is located at 31132 28`h Avenue South. The entire site is approximately 1.4 acres, with 1,060 square feet of office space and a 61,000 square foot fenced storage yard. The City acquired two adjacent parcels, for a total of 2.25 acres, to the north of the facility in 2003. Today, the maintenance facility contains around 3,500 square feet of office space and 90,000 in fenced storage space, with an additional 1.5 acres of land area available for future expansions. Parks Maintenance operates seven days a week, two shifts per day. The space needed for the maintenance operations includes a front counter/reception area, crew quarters (including an area for daily time cards, breaks, and crew meetings/training, etc.), as well as a locker room. Public Works streets and surface water maintenance operations have similar needs for office space; operating Monday through Friday, year round, one shift per day. Both Parks and Public Works maintenance operations tend to intensify during the summer months and require up to 15 part-time, seasonal workers at any given time. Conference/Performing Arts Center Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -16 KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVamended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc O.M.W1161VI VIN _ .„ Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -16 KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVamended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc FWCP —Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Unlike other similar sized communities Federal Way does not have adequate performance space in its school system Therefore to grow further and to better accommodate performance groups in the market additional facilities would be consistent with what has occurred in other suburban communities of similar demographics. In 2008 C H Johnson Consulting Inc (Johnson Consulting) in association with LMN Architects was retained bytheCity of Federal Way to perform a feasibility analysis addressing a potential performing arts center (PAC) and the redevelopment of the Dumas Bay Centre The City of Federal Way seeks to build a performing arts center in its efforts to revitalize its city center. The proposed PAC would serve multiple purposes including performance, lecture series, business conventions visual arts exhibit space and a space for events. The study found that a 500 to 700 seat PAC can achieve competitive levels of demand. Further, if the PAC is combined with a ballroom/meeting room complex PAC events can combine with galas festivals and other activities making the proiect more practical and viable If a hotel were attracted to this mix an even more dynamic venue would evolve and would add demonstrably to the City's redevelopment efforts and the community's arts agenda. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan UpdateIUAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -17 TCI I F I Unlike other similar sized communities Federal Way does not have adequate performance space in its school system Therefore to grow further and to better accommodate performance groups in the market additional facilities would be consistent with what has occurred in other suburban communities of similar demographics. In 2008 C H Johnson Consulting Inc (Johnson Consulting) in association with LMN Architects was retained bytheCity of Federal Way to perform a feasibility analysis addressing a potential performing arts center (PAC) and the redevelopment of the Dumas Bay Centre The City of Federal Way seeks to build a performing arts center in its efforts to revitalize its city center. The proposed PAC would serve multiple purposes including performance, lecture series, business conventions visual arts exhibit space and a space for events. The study found that a 500 to 700 seat PAC can achieve competitive levels of demand. Further, if the PAC is combined with a ballroom/meeting room complex PAC events can combine with galas festivals and other activities making the proiect more practical and viable If a hotel were attracted to this mix an even more dynamic venue would evolve and would add demonstrably to the City's redevelopment efforts and the community's arts agenda. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan UpdateIUAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -17 TCI FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities A PAC potentially provides the City of Federal Way with an increased performim arts presence that is estimated to draw a large population of residents and visitors. A PAC would draw an estimated 34 productions that would draw a total of 71,900 people. The development costs associated with this project are estimated to cost $40.7 million. A new conference center located in downtown Federal Way has the ability to enrich the City's PAC identity and increase visitors through increased attendees in the area. Also a conference center could contribute to attracting a connecting or nearby hotel to the area. The conference center has a proiected demand of 240 events and 280 event days, which will bring an estimated 135,000 additional visitors to the conference center. The facility is estimated to cost $29.1 million. What initially began as a feasibility study for a performing arts center evolved into a proposal for mixed-use development including the following proposed facility types: • Performing Arts Center: • Conference Center, • Hotel: and • Parking Structure As discovered in the market analysis demand exists for a conference center that could share a site with a PAC Emphasis is placed on the two signature components, the conference center and the PAC as shown in the detail provided for those programs. The hotel is included as a suggestion for possible future development and support of the center. Calculations and consideration for structured parking is included. Based on the findings of the market analysis and 1ursuant to discussions with the City of Federal Way and several community interest groups the following main programmatic elements and preliminary space allocations were established for the PAC: • Front of House: lobby, patron and administrative support space • Auditorium: 700 seat theatre • Back of House: performance support space equipped to accommodate a resident company The total space needed for a PAC is Qtg—" is approximately 43,000 square feet. The market analysis findings conclude that a mid-size conference center would be an excellent complement to the PAC It is proposed that the conference center include the following principal functional areas: Ballroom: 12,000 square feet Meeting Rooms: 10,000 square feet The market analysis suggests that a three star, 300 room hotel might also be an important additional facility to support the conference center in a mixed use development. It is suggested that the hotel be funded through private development. Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCIAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -18 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Projected parking stall quantities presented in the Johnson Consulting report were calculated based on industry standards for broad planning purposes pending agreement for site development with a given jurisdiction. Conference Center: • 22,000 square feet of ballroom and meeting rooms • 10 square feet per person • 3 people ger vehicle approximately 700 parking stalls Performing Arts Center: • 700 seats • 3.5 people per vehicle approximately 200 parking stalls Hotel: 300 rooms 0 6 vehicles per room approximately 180 parking stalls Based on these numbers total parking need comes to approximately 1,080 parking spaces Simultaneous facility activities suggest that parking will not be required for every attendee; therefore the number is reduced by roughly 30 percent to arrive at a final number of 750 parking stalls for a mixed use development. Parking cost estimate numbers are based on a below grade structure. Performing Arts Center:. Capacity 700 seats, 43,000 SF Construction Cost: $22,350,000 Escalation: $4,769,043 Total Construction Cost: $27,119,043 Soft Costs (50 percent) $13,559,522 Total Project Cost: $40,678,565 The above PAC cost is based on a building space program for a 700 seat theatre. The study also considered a 500 seat theatre; the cost of which can be calculated as a 20 percent reduction of the above The level of construction quality reflected in this estimate is similar to that of McIntyre Hall in Skagit County. Conference Center: Key Function Space: • 12,000 square foot ballroom, • 10,000 square feet of meetingrooms ooms Construction Cost: $16,000,000 Escalation: $3,414,080 Total Construction Cost: $19,414,080 Soft Costs (50 percent): $9,707,040 Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCIAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -19 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Construction Cost $16,000,000 Escalation: $3,414,080 Total Construction Cost: $19,414,080 Soft Costs (50 percent): $9,707,040 Total Project Cost: $29,121,120 Note: A combined PAC and Conference Center would experience benefits in terms of shared operating costs but would not see significant savings in initial construction first costs. Parking (Structured, Underground): Construction Cost $28,016,000 Escalation: $5,978,054 Total Construction Cost: $33,994,054 Soft Costs (20percent)• $6,798,810 Total Project Cost $40,792,864 Multipurpose Competitive Sports Center The City of Federal Way enacted a 4-% one percent lodging tax and formed the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) in 1999 to promote and enhance the local tourism industry. The committee has commissioned a feasibility study for an indoor competitive sports facility that will increase visitors' stay in local hotels and complement the Aquatic Center and Celebration Park, two other regional/national amateur sports facilities in the City. A number of development concepts have been considered, one of which is a facility for basketball and volleyball tournaments with an athletic club for training/conditioning to generate on-going usage and revenue. One of the considerations for such a facility would be its ability to be financially self-sustaining. It would also ideally be developed and operated by the private sector, with minimum or no public participation. Competitive Snorts Center • 75,000 square foot facility • Five -acre site • $8 — $12 60 million development and construction only, to be funded by private developer Public Parking Facility The existing city center development is currently near or at capacity with the required surface parking to business -space ratio. To intensify the development, such as the multi- story mixed-use developments envisioned by the community, additional parking space Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCVvnended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -20 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities premium when compared to land cost, some public/private partnership would likely be needed for them to be financially feasible. The partnership may be in various forms, but the essence is consistent that public funds are invested to secure certain amount of parking spaces in an otherwise private -business parking facility. Public Parking Facility Recommendation 200 to 400 designated public parking spaces in conjunction with privately developed parking structures for redevelopment projects located within the City Center. Between $5 — $10 million total. Investments will vary depending on the need and type of redevelopment projects at each location. City funding sources would be a combination of the City's economic development incentive fund and other state and federal economic development, and/or infrastructure funding sources. Financing Plan It is desirable to have all theses facilities in the community as soon as possible. However, unless they are funded with private or voter -approved funding sources, the City's projected revenues will not support either the development or the required operating and on-going maintenance of these facilities. eentr-ibetieft fiem King Gettaty fi3f the proposed afmexafien. Other- additional future Future facility additions would depend on future voter approval to raise additional capital and maintenance funds. The City updates its capital improvements program every other year in conjunction with its biennial budget process. These updates will reflect new project priorities and funding availability. 6.4.1 SCHOOL FACILITIES This section summarizes information in the Federal Way School District No. 210, 2008 Capital Facilities Plan (School Plan) and adopts the School Plan by reference. This plan covers the entire Federal Way School District which includes the City of Federal Way, portions of the incorporated City of Kent, City of Des Moines, City of Auburn, and unincorporated areas of King County to the east of Interstate 5. The district provides educational programs to all students who live in the school district service area, whether they live in Federal Way, Kent, Des Moines, Auburn, or unincorporated King County. A school outside the Federal Way City limits may provide service to students who live within the City limits and vice versa. Inventory of Existing Facilities Revised 2010, Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCWmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -21 FWCP - Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Map VI -6 shows the location of every school in the district. Table VI -6 summarizes the district's student capacity. The district has sufficient capacity in the existing schools and portable buildings to house all of the students in the district. Program Capacity The school district has established a Standard of Service, similar to LOS, for itself, which it calls "program capacity." The district's program capacity is based on: 1) the number of students per classroom; 2) the number of classrooms per school; 3) the number of classes that can be held in each classroom per day; and 4) other operational conditions. Table VI -6 Summary of Existing Facilities Capacities* CAPACITY 2008 Actual 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Elementary School 8,495 8,495 8,495 8,595 8,695 8,695 8,695 Middle School 5,818 5,818 5,818 5,818 5,818 5,818 5.818 Senior High 5,969 5,969 5,969 5,969 5,969 5,969 5,969 TOTAL 20,282 20,282 20,282 20,382 20,482 20,482 20,482 *NOTE: These capacities are for buildings only and do not include portable classrooms. These capacities are based on the maximum use of the buildings. Program capacity assumes that the average class will serve the following numbers of students: Grade K-2 20 Students per classroom Grades 3-5 25 Students per classroom Grades 6-12 26 Students per classroom Special Education 12 Students per classroom Portables 25 Students per classroom The school district uses portables at many school sites as an interim measure to house new students until permanent facilities can be built. There are other administrative measures that the school district could use to increase school capacity. These measures may include double shifting, modified school calendar, and year-round schooling. These measures have been used in the district on a limited basis, but not district wide. Forecast of Future Needs - Student Forecasts The school district's Business Services Department prepares a forecast of student enrollment annually. Projections are detailed at various levels; district total, school - building totals, and grade level totals. Special populations such as vocational students, special education students, and English as Second Language students are also included in the forecast. Revised 2010 Community Facilites K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTC\Amended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -22 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities The basis for projections has been cohort survival analysis. Cohort survival is the analysis of a group that has a common statistical value (grade level) as it progresses through time. In a stable population, the cohort would be 1.00 for all grades. This analysis uses historical information to develop averages and project the averages forward. The district uses this method with varying years of history and weighting factors to study several projections. Because transfers in and out of school system are common, student migration is factored into the analysis as it increases or decreases survival rates. Entry grades (kindergarten) are a unique problem in cohort analysis. The district collects information on birth rates within the district's census tracts and treats these statistics as a cohort of kindergarten for the appropriate enrollment years. Long-range projections that establish the need for facilities are a modification of the cohort survival method. The cohort method becomes less reliable the farther out the projections are made. The school district study of long-range projections includes information from jurisdictional planners and demographers as they project future housing and population in the region. Table VI -7 describes increased enrollment through the year 2014. It shows that the school district's student population will grow steadily every year with the highest growth in elementary. The district has compared existing school capacity with growth forecasts. New construction, modernization and expansion, and additional portable purchases will mitigate the deficit in permanent capacity for the next six years. Table VI -7 Federal Way School District Student Forecast ENROLLMENT (FTE) 2008 Budget 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Elementary 9,025 8,976 9,006 9,054 9,113 9,208 9,312 Middle School 5,162 5,091 5,119 5,120 5,085 5,037 5,011 Senior High 6,880 7,012 6,985 6,797 6,749 6,725 6,729 TOTAL 21,067 21,079 21,110 20,971 20,974 20,970 21,052 Location of New and Improved School Facilities The district presented a bond for voter approval on May 15, 2007, which was approved. The bond will be used to replace four elementary schools (Lakeland, Panther Lake, Sunnycrest, and Valhalla) and one middle school (Lakota). The Transportation, Nutrition Services, and Maintenance departments would also be replaced. Additionally, district wide upgrades to 24 other schools and district facilities will be paid for with the bond. Existing schools are identified in Map VT 6. Revised 2010 Community Facilities K:1Comprehensive Plan12010 Comprehensive Plan UpdatelLUTCVAmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -23 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Finance Plan Table VI -8 describes the school district's six-year finance plan to support the school construction. The table identifies $7,833,686 available from secure funding sources and an additional $123,940,000 anticipated from other funding sources between 2008 and 2014. These funds will cover the $104,386,946 in planned project costs to the year 2014. The School Plan states that state matching funds and impact mitigation fees, if realized, will be used to decrease the need for future bonds or will be used on additional capital fund projects. The School Plan currently covers the years 2008-2014. The School Plan and accompanying six-year finance plan will be updated annually by the school district. This will bring the plan into full compliance with GMA requirements. 6.4.2 WATER SYSTEMS This section summarizes the Lakehaven Utility District's 2006 Comprehensive Water System Plan (Water Plan, incorporated in full by reference) while providing up-to-date information where warranted. Map VI -7 shows Lakehaven Utility District's (hereinafter referred to as "the District" in this section) water service area boundary. Other purveyors provide water to portions of the District's corporate area. The Tacoma Public Utilities, for example, serves an area on the west side of the District's corporate area and the Highline Water District serves a small portion of the north side of the District's corporate area (Map VI -8). The City of Milton serves a small area on the south side of the District's Revised 2010 Community Facilities KAComprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\LUTCWmended Chap 06 Capital Facilites.doc VI -24 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Table VI -8 Federal Way Public Schools 2008 Capital Facilities Plan Six Year Finance Plan Securing Funding Projected Revenue Actual and Planned Expenditures Sources Current and Im act Fees (1) 466,443 Land Sale Funds 2 395,439 Bond Funds (3) 4,545,439 State Match (4) 2,426,365 TOTAL $7,833,686 Sources 2010/11 State Match (5) $20,000,000 Bond or Lev Funds (6) 1 $86,500,000 Land Fund Sales (7) $14,000,000 IT act Fees (8) $3,440,000 TOTAL $123,940,000 NEW SCHOOLS Current and Budget 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Total Cost Prior Years 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2007-2013 MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION Valhalla Elementary $7,570,000 $9,930,000 $17,500,000 $17,500,000 Panther Lake Elementary $7,570,000 $9,930,000 $17,500,000 Lakeland Elementary$7,570,000 $9,930,000 $17,500,000 urm crest Elementa $7,570,000 $9,930,000 $17,500,000 Lakota Middle School $15,361,250 $15,038,750 $3,600,000 $34,000,000 J$34,OOO,000 TEMPORARY FACILITIES Portables(9) $986,94 $386,946 $386,946 OTAL $986,94 $15,526,946 $50,361,250 $34,898,750 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $104,386,946 2 NOTES: I. These fees are currently being held in a King County, City of Federal Way, and City of Kent impact fee account and will be available for use by the District for system improvements. This is year end balance on 12/31/06. 2. These funds come from various sales of land and are set aside for estimated expenditures. This is year end balance on 12/31/06. 3. This is the 12/31/06 balance of bond funds. This figure includes interest earnings. 4. These are state snatching funds received for Todd Beamer High School, Truman High School, and the additions to existing buildings This is a year end balance on 12/31/06. 5. This is an anticipated state snatch for projects attached to future bond issue. This is based on July 1, 2006, state match indices. 6. These are anticipated bond funds. Voters have approved a bond for $149m. 7. Projected sale of surplus properties. 8. These are projected fees based upon known residential developments in the District over the next six years. This figure assumes $50,000 per month for the next six years. 9. These fees represent the cost of purchasing and installing new portables. Revised 2010, Community Facilities VI -25 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities corporate area that is within the City of Milton limits. Areas on the east side of I-5 within the City limits of Auburn and Pacific are also provided water service by the District. These areas are at a higher elevation than the valley cities can cost effectively serve. Inventory of Existing Facilities The locations of the District's wells, storage, and other major components of the distribution system are provided in the Water Plan. The water system includes approximately 450 miles of water main, 24 production wells, and 12 storage tanks. The average annual daily demand in 2007 was about 10.54 million gallons -per -day (MDG). The facilities are described in the following sections. Second Supply Project The District participates in the Second Supply Project (SSP, aka Tacoma's Pipeline No. 5). The District is accessing the pipeline at three flow control facilities provided at strategic locations along its route through greater Federal Way. These facilities allow the District to receive water from and send water to the Second Supply Project (SSP). These facilities together add an average 7.6 MGD to the District's water supply, depending upon the availability of water from the Green River. Water available from the SSP is conditioned upon adequate in -stream flows in the Green River. Water Quality Prior to 2000, the District has not had to treat its water supplies to meet regulatory requirements before distribution to its customers. However, the District began a chlorination and corrosion control treatment program in July 2001 for all of its groundwater and other sources of supply to meet newer regulations. The district's status with respect to regulated drinking water contaminants covered by the WAC 246-290 and anticipated water quality regulations is summarized in Section 10, "Water Quality," of the Water Plan. Regulations that are prompting treatment of the District's groundwater supplies are the Lead and Copper Rule, the anticipated Ground Water Rule, and the Surface Water Treatment Rule, due to distribution of surface water obtained from the SSP. The District has also installed water treatment systems at Well Sites 9, 17/17A/17% 19/19A, 20/20A, 21, 22/22A/22B, 23/23A, and 29 that remove iron, manganese, and other impurities from the groundwater. Storage Facilities According to the Water Plan, storage facilities will remain adequate through the planning period. For the storage analysis, extended -period simulation modeling was conducted to evaluate the storage draw -down during fire flow events and to evaluate storage equalization during multiple -day periods of maximum -day demand conditions. The storage analysis model was conducted using the "Backup Power Approach," which is summarized in Section 9, "System Analysis," of the Water Plan. The District has installed an emergency power system at its Well 10/10A Site, and has installed emergency power systems at its Well 17/17A/17B, and 19/19A -sites to preclude the need for new storage facilities. Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -26 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Water Conservation Measures The District is committed to implementing aggressive water conservation measures to reduce per capita water consumption. These include programs such as public information campaigns, including block water rate structure to reduce peak day consumption, winter - summer water rate adjustments to reduce summer consumption, and a "wet -month average" sewer rate structure. The District is also working with the City to introduce water conservation measures by amending the zoning and building codes. These measures include a requirement for low flow showerheads and toilets, utilizing species for landscaping with reduced irrigation needs, and use of reclaimed water for irrigation. Transmission/Distribution System The results of computer modeling have found the transmission and distribution pipeline network to be very robust. Of particular note is that the fire insurance rating for South King Fire and Rescue improved from Class 3 to Class 2 in 2004. The majority of the District is served by this fire agency. Forty percent of the score for the rating process is based upon available water supply. This rating improvement is a significant accomplishment, as the new classification is on par with the rating held in Seattle and Bellevue, the only other departments to hold a Class2 rating (no fire agency in Washington holds a Class 1 rating). The pipeline network is continuing to be expanded through developer extension projects undertaken by land development activity. Emergency Interties The District has eight emergency interties with adjoining systems of other utilities. Emergency interties allow the District to buy or sell water with adjoining utilities in an emergency and provides enhanced system reliability. The District has three emergency interties with the City of Tacoma's water system, three emergency interties with Highline Water District's water systems, one emergency intertie with the City of Milton's water system, and one emergency intertie with the City of Auburn. Forecast of Future Needs The Water Plan estimates future need by analyzing existing water demand (measured consumption plus unaccounted-for/non-revenue water loss) patterns on a daily, seasonal, and yearly basis. The District breaks down the water demand values on an "equivalent residential unit" (ERU) basis, which is essentially the amount of water used by an "average" family residing in an "average" single family residence situated within the District's water service area, if used uniformly over the year. The seven-year District - wide average of measured unit consumption between 1999 and 2005 was 234.41 gallons per day per ERU. When including the unaccounted-for/non-revenue water loss component, the District -wide average day demand becomes about 255 gallons per day per ERU. Population and employment growth projections converted to ERU's are then utilized to estimate future water demands. Utilizing a conservative methodology that disregards the impact of the District's water conservation efforts, the Water Plan estimates average day demands will increase from 10.56 MGD in 2010, to 11.90 MGD in 2012, and to 13.76 MGD in 2025. Revised 2010, Community Facilities VI -27 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Expanded and Improved Facilities The District has programmed a number of system improvements to maintain and expand the existing water system. These improvements are summarized below. Groundwater Resources The District is developing an additional production well (Well No. 33) to be added to the Well 19 water right permit. The District is continuing to pursue its OASIS (Optimization of Aquifer Storage for Increased Supply) project, under the ASR (Aquifer Storage and Recovery) concept. The OASIS feasibility study determined that the Mirror Lake Aquifer can be used to store up to approximately 9.4 billion gallons of water filled over the winter from excess water supply and withdrawn over the drier summer months for water supply purposes. Combining funding from its wastewater utility, the District is also pursuing its Water Reuse/Reclamation Program, utilizing wastewater suitably treated at the Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant, conveyed through a separate pipeline system, and utilized for beneficial purposes, such as augmenting groundwater supplies. Second Supply Pipeline Improvements are being implemented to the Howard Hanson Dam -on the Green River that will expand storage behind it, which will help mitigate the seasonal variation in available water by increasing in -stream flows during the drier parts of the year. Water Quality Filtration is planned for the Green River water conveyed by the Second Supply Project in the future in coordination with the SSP partners. The District has plans to install one additional treatment systems at the Well IOC; site to remove iron, manganese, and other impurities from the groundwater. Transmission/Distribution System Minor improvements to the transmission and distribution pipeline network are recommended in the Water Plan, such as a new transmission main in the Adelaide and Lake Grove neighborhoods to convey water more efficiently to nearby storage facilities. The District has also developed a design feasibility report for the OASIS 538-578 Pressure Zone Transmission Main Project. This project would improve the local supply capabilities from Pressure Zone 538 to Pressure Zone 578. Significant investments are also contemplated to relocate existing pipelines that will conflict with infrastructure resulting from street improvement projects undertaken by other agencies within the District's water service area. Finance Plan A utility undertakes a capital program for many different reasons, including: expanding the capacity of its systems, maintaining the integrity of existing systems, and addressing regulatory requirements. The District is required to comply with its own Water Plan and to support regional decisions on population growth and land use. Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -28 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities The District has identified several significant capital improvement projects in its Water Plan. The scheduling of these projects is included in the District's most recent Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is developed and approved annually. The District has access to sufficient funds that can be utilized for operation and maintenance of its existing facilities, and for pursuing capital projects. In addition, the District has depreciation, interest income, assessment income, and connection charge monies that it can utilize for funding the CIP. Additionally, the District can borrow money or increase rates, if necessary, to best meet the needs of its customers. The District has utilized a very conservative approach in budgeting for the CIP by utilizing the growth projections developed by each of the land use jurisdictions located within the District. The District will provide facilities as required to support growth within its service area. The schedule and project costs will be updated annually through the District's budget and capital improvement program process. 6.4.3 SEWER SYSTEMS Lakehaven Utility District's Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan (Wastewater Plan, incorporated in full by reference, including modifications made to it through the first four amendments [Amendment No. 4 was adopted on February 9, 2006], and any future amendments) was last updated in 1999. The Wastewater Plan is in the process of being updated and is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2009. The Lakehaven Utility District's (hereinafter referred to as "the District" in this section) sewer area is located in the southwest portion of King County, including the unincorporated areas east of the existing City limits of Federal Way. Map VI -9 shows the District's sewer service area. Other utilities provide retail sewer service to relatively small portions of the District's corporate area, including Midway Sewer District on the north side of the District, the City of Auburn on the east side of the District, and the City of Milton/Pierce County on the south side of the District. In addition, other utilities provide conveyance and treatment services to portions of the District's retail sewer service area, including Midway Sewer District, Metro/King County, Pierce County, and the City of Tacoma. As of the end of 2007, the District was serving a residential population of approximately 114,000 through 24,500 connections. Inventory of Existing Facilities The sanitary sewer system is comprised of three major components: the trunk collection system, the pump station system, and the wastewater treatment and disposal system. The trunk system collects wastewater from drainage basins and conveys it to the treatment facilities, primarily by gravity flow. In areas where the 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 locations of the major components are provided in the Wastewater Plan. Revised 2010, Community Facilities VI -29 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities The existing collection system operated and maintained by the District consists of approximately 340 miles of sanitary sewer pipe, 28 pump stations, six siphons, and two secondary wastewater treatment plants, namely the Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Redondo Wastewater Treatment Plant. The system has been constructed over a number of years, as dictated by development trends in the area. The system is currently divided into seven primary basins and 40 smaller sub -basins. The wastewater generated within the two largest basins, Lakota and Redondo, flow to the District's wastewater treatment plants. The remaining five basins currently discharge to the other utilities for treatment and disposal, as mentioned above. The District currently has the capacity in all the major components of the system to accommodate the existing demand for sanitary sewer service: The wastewater treatment plants have been retrofitted with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection systems to replace chlorination systems to comply with state regulations. Major sewer facilities have recently been constructed to expand sewer service into large "unsewered" areas (the 19th/ 201h Avenue SW Sewer Trunk and Weyerhaeuser Sewer Trunk), and to divert flow to its own treatment facilities that had previously been conveyed to other utilities for treatment (Pump Station No. 45 and the South End Diversion Sewer Trunk). Significant upgrades have been undertaken for its largest pumping facility, Pump Station No. 6, to improve its reliability and provide an odor control system. Other existing pump stations have been significantly upgraded with new pumps and electrical systems (Pump Station No. 7, 10, and 22), and others have been provided on-site emergency generators to allow their continuous operation during a commercial power outage (Pump Station No. 35). A recent major project was undertaken to replace deteriorated pipe material for the North Beach Sewer Trunk Pipeline along the Puget Sound shoreline at Lower Woodmont. In addition to the expansion of the District's collection system funded by developers, the District recently funded a new low pressure sewer collection system in the North Lake and Five Mile Lake areas. Forecast of Future Needs Population forecasts are based on the adopted land use plans of the various jurisdictions within which the District operates. The population figures are presented by drainage basin to allow for evaluation of the system and consideration of future improvement alternatives. The population within the District's sewer service area is projected to increase to nearly 127,000 by 2028, approaching the projected "ultimate" population of 180,000 based upon land capacity. An estimated 7,500 on-site wastewater disposal systems are in operation within the District's corporate boundary. It is anticipated that sewer service will be extended to these "unsewered" areas as on-site systems become less viable to maintain and/or when new development requires public sewers. The average base daily flow tributary to the District's two wastewater treatment plants, excluding infiltration and inflow (I & I), is currently estimated at 7.2 MGD and is expected to increase to nearly 8.2 MGD by 2028, and nearly 17.0 MGD at full development. Peak hourly flows tributary to the District's two wastewater treatment plants, including I & I, are currently estimated at 20.0 MGD, and are expected to increase to nearly 21.3 MGD by 2028, and 40.0 MGD at full development. Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -30 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Hydraulic capacity at both wastewater treatment plants is estimated to be available up to the original design peak hour capacities of 22.2 MGD for Lakota and 13.8 MGD for Redondo. Expanded and Improved Facilities The District has started construction for the rehabilitation and lengthening of the Redondo Wastewater Treatment Plant's outfall pipeline that discharges treated wastewater into Puget Sound. This project will be completed by September 2008. A project to replace old biosolids dewatering equipment with new, more efficient equipment to help reduce operating costs is under design. The District is pursuing many other projects to improve the performance of the facilities (energy conservation, water quality, biosoild quality, reduced maintenance, etc.). Combining funding from its water utility, the District is also pursuing its Water Reuse/Reclamation Project, utilizing wastewater suitably treated at the Lakota Wastewater Treatment Plant, conveyed through a separate pipeline system, and utilized for beneficial purposes, such as augmenting groundwater supplies. Additional new and expanded sewer facilities are planned to divert additional flow to its own treatment facilities that is currently being conveyed to other utilities for treatment (new Pump Station No. 44 and expanded Pump Station No. 33). On-site emergency generators are planned at other existing pump stations (Pump Stations No. 12, 37 and 41) to allow their continuous operation during a commercial power outage. The District is continuing to fund new pressure sewer collection systems to provide sewer service availability to residents in established neighborhoods, particularly those around lakes. Finance Plan A utility undertakes a capital program for many different reasons, including: expanding the capacity of its systems, maintaining the integrity of existing systems, and addressing regulatory requirements. The District is required to comply with its own Wastewater Plan and to support regional decisions on population growth and land use. The District has identified several significant capital improvement projects in its Wastewater Plan. The scheduling of these projects is included in the District's most current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that is developed and approved annually. The District has access to sufficient funds that can be utilized for operations and maintenance of its existing facilities, and for pursuing capital projects. In addition, the District has depreciation, interest income, assessment income, and connection charge monies that it can utilize for funding the CEP. Additionally, the District can borrow money or increase rates, if necessary, to best meet the needs of its customers. The District has utilized a very conservative approach in budgeting for the CIP by utilizing the growth projections developed by each of the land use jurisdictions located with the District. The District will provide facilities as required to support growth within its service area. The schedule and project costs will be updated annually through the District's budget and capital improvement program process. Revised 2008 Sohool, 90F9, Walefi and SeweF GOMPF8he 2010, Community Facilities VI -31 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities 6.4.4 FIRE FACILITIES This section summarizes the South King Fire and Rescue Strategic Leadership Plan, and the department's subsequent updates. The fire department provides service to the entire City of Federal Way, the entire City of Des Moines, and surrounding unincorporated area. Total population in the department's service area is approximately 150,000 citizens. Services include fire suppression, fire prevention (building inspection and public information), emergency medical, hazardous materials responses, public education, emergency management, and rescue emergencies (special operations). South King Fire and Rescue has a contract with the City of Federal Way and Valley Communications for the provision of emergency 911 communications, wherein they act together with the City as a part owner of Valley Communications. The South King Fire and Rescue Strategic Leadership Plan identifies and programs improvements that are necessary to maintain existing service standards and to meet the needs of future residents and businesses. The plan and future updates are adopted by reference into the FWCP., The fire department provides fire suppression service to the entire City. In order to do this, the department has adopted LOS standards found in the South King Fire and Rescue Resolution Number 413. • Each emergency fire response should include a minimum of 15 trained and equipped firefighters and apparatus commensurate with the emergency (a standard response of four engines, one ladder truck, and one command vehicle are sent on all structural incidents). • Each emergency medical response should include a minimum of one response vehicle and three fully -equipped and fully -trained crew members on a responding engine company, or two crew members on an aid car (either an engine or an aid car, or a combination of both, can be sent on the response depending upon the severity). • The fire department provides a full building inspection service for fire code compliance. The department is currently providing service that is generally consistent with its adopted LOS standards. The fire department also depends on having adequate water pressure available in fire hydrants to extinguish fires. The department works with the Lakehaven Utility District, Highline Water District (in the City of Des Moines), and other water utilities within its corporate limits, to ensure that adequate "fire flow" is always available. Lakehaven Utility District's Water System Plan analyzes "fire flow" rates available at different points in its water system, and programs improvements to the water system to ensure that sufficient water is available for fire suppression. Revised 2010, Community Facilities VI -32 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities Emergency Medical Services Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responds to 911 calls and provides field services. This service is paid for by property taxes. EMS is provided as a marginal cost to the fire department as fire facilities are utilized to provide this service to the community. The fire department replaces its five front line aid cars, of which staffs three on a normal basis, commensurate with its capital replacement plan and capital reserves system. The section on funding (Funding Plan) addresses how the ongoing replacement purchase of these aid cars will be funded. Inventory and Capacity of Existing Facilities The department has two major types of capital facilities. One is fire stations and the other is capital investment in equipment and, in particular, fire engines. The department's fire stations are shown on Map VI -10. Forecast of Future Needs From 1986 through 1992, emergency responses increased at an average annual rate of over eight percent. In 1990, public education efforts included 911-use/abuse training. The increases in call volume during 1993 and 1994 leveled off with 1994 volume increasing only 1.5 percent from the 1992 level. It is unknown, however, how much, if any, effect the 911 public education effort had on actual call volumes. In 1995 and 1996, calls for service again increased at an average rate of 8.1 percent. Although calls actually decreased slightly in 1997, call volumes increased by 14 percent in 1998. The call data indicates a fairly steady increase of approximately six percent per year. Emergency medical incidents have increased more rapidly than non-medical incidents. During the 1990s, structure fires have declined. The challenge for the fire department will be to manage fixed -cost investments, such as new stations, and to be flexible in its ability to meet fluctuating call volumes. Location and Capacity of Expanded or New Facilities In September of 2005, the citizens within the City of Des Moines (protected by King County Fire Protection District #26) voted overwhelmingly to merge with the Federal Way Fire Department (King County Fire Protection District #39). The result of this merger caused the name of the fire department to change from the Federal Way Fire Department to its present South King Fire and Rescue. The legal name for the fire district is actually King County Fire Protection District #39 (KCFPD #39), although the department does business as South King Fire and Rescue. South King Fire and Rescue operates out of eight stations, seven of which are response stations with the eighth being a training and maintenance facility. Two of the eight Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -33 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities stations are located within the City of Des Moines, two stations lie within unincorporated King County, and four are located with the City of Federal Way. As of 2006 projections, the fire department responds on approximately 16,000 emergencies annually. The department may have need for an additional station in the near future in the south end of the City in the vicinity of 356`h and Pacific Highway; or, possibly a little more north in the area of South 336`h or 348Th and Pacific Highway South. If this area continues to experience significant commercial growth, the department anticipates that the calls for service will also continue to grow. In this eventuality, an additional station may be needed to maintain acceptable response times. The department has acquired property in the area of 356`h and Pacific Highway South through a swap of properties with Lakehaven Utility District to assure future availability of a station site. Additionally, the department may have a need for an additional station in the future in the far north end of the fire district within the City of Des Moines. The North Hill area of Des Moines is protected both by South King Fire and Rescue, as well as KCFPD #2, via an interlocal first response agreement. The timing of this potential new station would be predicated upon any future merger discussions between the two fire districts (South King Fire and Rescue and KCFPD #2), none of which are currently taking place. Any new station should be able to accommodate an on -duty crew of three fire fighters, with appropriate living and sleeping quarters. In addition, the structure should be able to house two engines and an aid car, with room for growth dictated by LOS demands. It may also be appropriate to provide a public meeting room and an office for community policing in new facilities. The cost of these facilities is approximately $4,000,000. Equipment would be in the range of $1,000,000 for a new station. The fire department does not presently have a timeline for construction of new fire stations at either of their two proposed fire station locations. Funding Pian The fire department has established a capital reserve fund for the systematic replacement of all capital equipment. These reserves are funded from the annual revenues of the department. The department also has established a long term goal of a minimum of four - paid fire fighters on each fire apparatus (this is the national standard adopted by NFPA 1710). Additional staff that is hired in support of that goal will be funded from either new construction levies or additional voter -approved levies. The department has not established any funds for purchase of new stations or associated equipment. These purchases would require voter -approved bonds. In the department's annually adopted budget, capital projects are identified. This capital projects list is up -dated based on completed projects and changing priorities. The FWCP adopts by reference the South King Fire and Rescue Strategic Leadership Plan, as well as the annual capital improvements program update. Additionally, the department is seeking to receive impact fees based upon growth within the community, which directly affects its level of service. This is being sought both Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -34 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities locally and legislatively, as fire districts have to manage growth the same as schools and other public facilities. If successful, impact fees could assist in offsetting the capital costs of added infrastructure. 6.5 GOALS AND POLICIES Goal The goals and policies in this section implement the GMA requirements and the CWPP. The City of Federal Way takes responsibility for implementing only those goals and policies for services provided by the City. Special service districts, such as the school, utility, and fire districts, must implement goals and policies that are consistent with their respective plans. The City does intend, however, to closely coordinate the City's plan with these service districts so that the citizens of Federal Way receive the highest level of service possible. CFG1 Annually update the Capital Facilities Plan to implement the FWCP by coordinating urban services, land use decisions, level of service standards, and financial resources with a fully funded schedule of capital improvements. Policies CFP1 Provide needed public facilities and services to implement the FWCP. CFP2 Support and encourage joint development and use of community facilities with other governmental or community organizations in areas of mutual concern and benefit. CFP3 Emphasize capital improvement projects that promote the conservation, preservation, redevelopment, or revitalization of commercial, industrial, and residential areas in Federal Way. CFP4 Adopt by reference all facilities plans and future amendments prepared by other special districts that provide services within the City. These plans must be consistent with the FWCP. CFPS Adopt by reference the annual update of the Federal Way Capital Improvement Program for parks/recreation, surface water management, and the Transportation Improvement Program. CFP6 Protect investments in existing facilities through an appropriate level of maintenance and operation funding. CFP7 Maximize the use of existing public facilities and promote orderly compact urban growth. Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -35 Goal FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities CFG2 To meet current needs for capital facilities in Federal Way, correct deficiencies in existing systems, and replace or improve obsolete facilities. Balancing existing capital facilities needs with the need to provide additional facilities to serve growth is a major challenge for Federal Way. It is important to maintain our prior investments as well as serve new growth. Clearly, tough priority decisions are facing Federal Way policy -makers. Policies Goal CFP8 Give priority consideration to projects mandated by law, and those by state and federal agencies. CFP9 Give priority consideration to subsequent phases of phased projects when phase one is fully funded and under construction. CFP10 Give priority consideration to projects that renovate existing facilities and preserve the community's prior investment or reduce maintenance and operating costs. CFP11 Give priority consideration to projects that correct existing capital facilities deficiencies, encourage full utilization of existing facilities, or replace worn out or obsolete facilities. CFP12 Give priority to projects where leveraged monies such as grants and low interest loans can be used. CFG3 Provide capital facilities to serve and direct future growth within Federal Way and its Potential Annexation Area as they urbanize. It is crucial to identify, in advance of development, sites for schools, parks, fire and police stations, major stormwater facilities, greenbelts, open space, and road connections. Acquisition of sites for these facilities must occur in a timely manner and as early as possible in the overall development of the area. Otherwise, acquisition opportunities will be missed, with long-term functional or financial implications. Policies CFP13 Provide the capital facilities needed to serve the future growth anticipated by the FWCP. CFP14 Coordinate efforts between the Public Works and Parks Departments in the acquisition of and planning for public open space, recreation, public education, and stream preservation within the Hylebos Basin. Departments may combine Revised 2010, Community Facilities VI -36 Goal FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities resources as appropriate to increase project efficiencies and success rates in pursuit of grant opportunities. CFP15 Give priority consideration to projects needed to meet concurrency requirements for growth management. CFP16 Plan and coordinate the location of public facilities and utilities in advance of need. CFP17 Implement a concurrency management system which permits project approval only after a finding is made that there is capacity available in the transportation system sufficient to maintain the adopted level of service standard. CFP18 The provision of urban services shall be coordinated to ensure that areas identified for urban expansion are accompanied with the maximum possible use of existing facilities and cost effective service provisions and extensions while ensuring the protection and preservation of resources. CFP19 Coordinate future economic activity with planning for public facilities and services. CFP20 Purchase property in the Potential Annexation Area and keep it in reserve for future City parks and surface water facilities. CFP21 Consider public/private partnerships to leverage structured parking in association with City Center development or redevelopment, in fulfillment of comprehensive plan vision and goals. CFPG4 Provide adequate fundingfor capital facilities in Federal Way to ensure the FWCP vision and goals are implemented. The GMA requires that the Land Use chapter be reassessed if funding for capital facilities falls short of needs. The intent is to ensure that necessary capital facilities are available prior to, or concurrently with new growth and development. Capital facilities plans must show a balance between costs and revenues. There are essentially five options available for balancing the capital facilities budget: increase revenues, decrease level of service standards, decrease the cost of the facilities, decrease the demand for the public service, or reduce the rate of growth and new development. Policies CFP22 Manage the City of Federal Way's fiscal resources to support providing needed capital improvements. Ensure a balanced approach to allocating financial resources between: 1) major maintenance of existing facilities; 2) eliminating existing capital facility deficiencies; and 3) providing new or expanding existing facilities to serve new growth. Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -37 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities CFP23 Use the Capital Facilities Plan to integrate all of the community's capital project resources including grants, bonds, general funds, donations, impact fees, and any other available funding. CFP24 Ensure that long-term capital financing strategies and policies are consistent with all the other FWCP chapters. CFP25 Pursue funding strategies that require new growth and development to pay its fair share of the cost of facilities that are required to maintain adopted level of service standards. One such strategy that should be implemented in the near term is an impact fee program for parks and transportation. Goal CFP26 Promote a more efficient use of all public facilities by enacting interlocal agreements which facilitate joint maintenance and operations of those facilities. CFP27 Use the following available contingency strategies should the City be faced with capital facility funding shortfalls: ■ Increase revenues by selling general obligation bonds, enacting utility taxes, imposing impact fees, and raising property tax levy rates. ■ Decrease level of service standards to a level that is more affordable. ■ Decrease the cost of the facility by changing or modifying the scope of the project. ■ Decrease the demand for the service or facilities by establishing a moratorium on development, focusing development into areas where facility capacity is available, or changing project timing and/or phasing. CFP28 Aggressively pursue grants or private funds when available to finance capital facility projects. CFP29 Maximize the usefulness of bond funds by using these monies to the greatest extent possible as matching funds for grants. CFPGS Ensure that the Federal Way Capital Facilities Plan is current and responsive to the community vision and goals. The role of monitoring and evaluation is vital to the effectiveness of any planning program and particularly for the Capital Facilities chapter. The City's revenues and expenditures are subject to economic fluctuations and are used to predict fiscal trends in order to maintain the City's adopted level of service for public facilities. This Capital Facilities Plan will be annually reviewed and amended to verify that fiscal resources are available to provide public facilities needed to support adopted LOS standards. Policies CFP30 Monitor the progress of the Capital Facilities Plan on an ongoing basis, including the completion of major maintenance projects, the expansion of Revised 2010 Community Facilities V1-38 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities existing facilities, and the addition of new facilities. Evaluate this progress with respect to trends in the rate and distribution of growth, impacts upon service quality, and FWCP direction. CFP31 Review, update, and amend the Capital Facilities Plan annually. Respond to changes in the rates of growth, new development trends, and changing City priorities, budget, and financial considerations. Goal Make provisions to reassess the FWCP periodically in light of the evolving Capital Facilities Plan. Take appropriate action to ensure internal consistency of the chapters in the plan. CFP32 Continue to coordinate with other capital facility and service providers to ensure that all necessary services and facilities are provided prior to or concurrent with new growth and development. CFPG6 Manage the Surface Water Utility in a manner that makes efficient use of limited resources to address the most critical problems first, and which expresses community values and priorities. Policies CFP33 The utility shall continue to have a role in developing and implementing regional, state, and federal surface water policies and programs and, in doing so, shall seek to: ■ Achieve the City's environmental goals. ■ Contain utility ratepayer costs. ■ Ensure state and federal requirements are achievable. ■ Maintain local control and flexibility in policy/program implementation. ■ Provide consistency with CWPP. The utility's role in developing and implementing regional, state, and federal surface water policies and programs will include: ■ Influencing legislation through lobbying and written and verbal testimony during formal comment periods ■ Participating in rule making • Reviewing technical documents ■ Serving on advisory committees and work groups ■ Participating in multi jurisdictional studies and basin planning ■ Entering into cooperative agreements with neighboring and regional agencies to accomplish common goals as appropriate and necessary CFP34 The utility's funds and resources shall be managed in a professional manner in accordance with applicable laws, standards, and City financial policies. CFP35 The utility shall remain a self-supporting enterprise fund. Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -39 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities CFP36 The utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will provide funding for the following types of projects: 1) Projects addressing flood control problems. 2) Projects needed to meet water quality policies. 3) Projects needed for renewal/replacement or additions to current infrastructure and facilities. 4) Projects necessary for resource protection and stewardship. CFP37 To the extent of funding limitations, the CIP shall be sustained at a level of service necessary to implement cost effective flood control mitigation; meet water quality policies; maintain system integrity; provide required resource stewardship and protection; and meet federal, state, and local regulations. CFP38 The utility will continue to strive to minimize the use of loans to fund necessary capital improvements, and will generally operate on a "pay-as-you-go basis." However, low interest loans (i.e. Public Works Trust Fund) and/or grants will be used to leverage local funds when feasible. CFP39 Rates shall be set at the lowest level necessary to cover utility program expenses, meet levels of service identified in the "Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan," meet debt coverage requirements, and sustain a reserve balance consistent with these policies on a long-term basis. CFP40 Utility rates shall be evaluated annually and adjusted as necessary to achieve utility financial policy objectives. CFP41 Utility rates will allocate costs between different customer classes on an equitable basis. CFP42 The utility rate structure will be based on a financial analysis considering cost - of -service and other policy objectives, and will provide adjustments for actions taken under approved City standards to reduce related service impacts. CFP43 Rates shall be uniform for all utility customers of the same class throughout the service area. CFP44 Rate assistance programs may be provided for specific low-income customers. CFP45 The utility's annual budget and rate recommendations shall provide funding for the following reserve components: 1. A working capital component based on 45 days of the current year's budgeted operating and maintenance expenses. Under no circumstances shall a budget be submitted for a planned drop in reserves below this level. 2. An emergency/contingency component to cover excessive costs resulting from unexpected catastrophic events or system failures. Based on historical utility experience, this amount will be set at $500,000, which is the estimate Revised 2010 Community Facilities VI -40 FWCP — Chapter Six, Capital Facilities of the net cost of emergency services to be paid from rate resources, excluding any potential reimbursements that may be received from Federal Emergency Management Act grants, the City's General Liability Fund, or other external revenue sources. Revised 2QQ8 SOW, FiFe, Watefi aAd SeweF GempFe 2010, Community Facilities VI -41 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Federal Way Drainage Basins Capital Facilities Element Legend: Q Federal Way Cky Un*s L _ i Potential Annexation Area Green River Basin Hylebos Creek Basin Lower Puget Sound Basin Scale: 0 0.5 1 N Moes Map Revised: Ocloberr, 2006. Sorra: Oly or Federal Way, IQng County cm or Federal Way MAP VI -1 Note: This awp is ialended for use as a graphical representaYon only. The Cily of Federal VWy makes eo waaanly as to ils accuracy. City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Surface Water Trunk Systems Capital Facilities Element Legend: 0 Federal Way City Limits L _ r Potential Annexation Area '1.. Trunk Drainage System (Piped) Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Lakes Green River Basin Hylebos Creek Basin Lower Puget Sound Basin Map Notes: This map show both natural and nanmade features. The Trunk Drainage System is shown only insick the Federal Way city 4tnits. The date of this Information is 2002. Scale: a 0 0.5 1 N Wes Map Revised: Ocbober, 2006. Source: Cly of Federal way. King County nrr or Federal Way MAP VI -2 Note: Me map Is intended lot use as a gaphloal representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. 9s� City of Federal Way t. �x �$ ?'' Comprehensive Plan � Park Plan 'X£ Planning Areas Capital Facilities Element Federal Way � i� '" 4 }Y `h�.I�1i�l" H ' ae F Legend: Q Federal Way City Limits 1 Potential Annexation Area t Park Planning Area H No /I ;. c � k� d 88 j Ipp,,t a k 4, y Flw Moe Lake Pack a 0 0.5 1 N Mites Map Revised: October, 2006. Source: CNy of Federal Way. 10ng Cany ai NI� Cin or Federal Way MAP VI -3 Note: Thls map is Ydended for use as a representation Daly. graphical The City o1 Federal Way makes no warranty as b its accuracy. City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Major Parks and Open Space Capital Facilities Element Legend: Q Federal Way City Ufnks L _ f Potential Annexation Area M City, State and County Parks US Open space Scale: a 0 0.5 1 N Wes Map Revised: Ocbber. 2006. Source: Cly of Federal Way. King Canty aw or Federal way MAP Vi -4 Nob: Thin map is Wooded to rs s as a graphical represenimiWn oely. The C* of Fadwal Way makes no wa"* as b No accuracy. ioow i ne Lummun Dwj .4Fadaral Ws O [is C I REPLACED BY MAP DATED JUNE 2010 — SEE NEXT PAGE City of federal Way Comprehensive Pian { a n; 4" °Py City Facilities KA"' A ..+. 'iF Jtt'� q h �` t: l'r� _'6 'T`S'k slc ✓'6 "'*eJ' � f Nx ti }•% X. X t%<>i,` sr \ i t •i� f b ��::.,. 7 .. Capita! Fac hies Element p $ 288th St p 14 Federal = Leypnd: Way Q Federal Vlaiy City Limns S 04 h St C�:.t��,. > IJotlufL�ikc t POU MW Annexation Area 5�98 LA,r aA t G, w, E sw 312ch s n st Federal f City-Owjwd Facihtits 0 Clty HaS ,P.A.A l.tha St SW 320th St s S 32 th S © Dumas Bay Centre Federal a> a Way A a w �324tSt 3 ; © New Comcnarwty Center CL � t t < , MtQ Steel Lake Annex SW Cam o 18 1 City-Leased Facilkies )r Y tUalwnee Lake Center Police Substation - The C...s 0 Police Substation - Norlh Center �s4t ! 'K- a N t`X 99 i W ola ' d71• • - Federal. Poke Substation - V16$tiNay W 35 way K P.A.A. a 0 0.3 1 �, tqw M" - I.atte tart N Miles x ' Trow . Wna Map Rsvlred: OGober, 2006. SaraCxr W Fetlral WayCamty: r " �s �'` � itW■l a 6i A Federal Way MAP VI-5 � NO*: Iwo RW W WIMO d tar use as a graphical rwoseata" 0*. the C* of Federal W" a Ak" no VVWM* as b Ms acaragr, REPLACED BY MAP DATED JUNE 2010 — SEE NEXT PAGE REVISED MAP — REPLACES MAP DATED OCTOBER 2006 f ` t x. City of Federal Way r kr Com prehensiae Plan ..,�t City Facilities Cajpft Faaflifts Ekmeni AV Way ": 1k Logandt iw edwi Way C* Laoft j Annemkm Allis F, J -; M!' trt � CWIA)wmd FmMUms 0 cayH" Dumas Bay Centre r Federal Way Comnwrfty Cer*w 1 SWW L Wk&Alrm Pak* . iRi - MwV/i7i��i ns scsiw a t s{ rJIIgt�IMw��la�MllMwtgdMw�wMlrAw�4 Federal Way MAP%" Iwc..eai..wer�s.�r��e.•w..q� �'=� lfreca��rf�[wrr..es..r...ersrrs�ea.oR REVISED MAP — REPLACES MAP DATED OCTOBER 2006 City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Federal Way School District #210 Capital Facilities Element Legend: Federal Way City Units _ Potential Annexation Area Federal Way School District #210 Etr Elementary School IM Middle School Hr High School Scale: 0 0.5 1 2 N Miles Map Revised: October, 2006. Source: City of Federal Way. King County GAP OI Federal Way MAP VI -6 NOW: This: map is WAsaded for use as a graphical represeRtalioR only. The City of Federal Way makes no wawa * as b its accuracy. xCity of Federal Way k 4. Comprehensive Plan Comp la a 4wk99� Lakehaven Water t Y i Service Area p t d �� , � -. a �, � ., • � � ti ( Capital Facilities Element S 2881h St c NX Federal Legend: Way Federal Way City Urmts S 4thst .w • s > ad . �° � ��. «� 99 °u��'L° , F �_ Potential Annexation Area . • Federal r.�.-,. 4 ti , SW 312th 5 th St y ti U*elaven Water Service Area Y e • s o r • . • • Lake>t«a'" • . St SW 320th St P.A.A. y 4 , • • Lake` even Corporate Boundary S ` th S 41 Federal v . a S 324th St y a rya Y to N W sCa ,y m� nst 18 • 1 r „i �. Y k m tk 4 Geneva Federal a • F� ttt '-"rx- a';t W 356 May y • �� t P.A.A. • rf x{ � Five Scale. cc O OBJ N Mies Tout Revl of VAY. ring County Map sed. October. 2006. Source. City Federal Y 9 N 81 � Federal Way MAP VI-7 NOW TMS WAP is Mended 1N use as aqnq*lcall reprODYRtallM 0*. ,, , The City of Federal Way makes no Waaaaly as bks accuracy. City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Hightine & Tacoma Water Service Area Capital Facilities Element Legend: Federal Way City Limits r ' I Pote" Annexallon Area ti HVAne Water Service Area Boundary ti Tacorna Water Service Area Boundary Scale: A0 0.5 1 2 N Miles Map Revised: October. zoos. source: Cly of federal MY, Kinn Cow* ary or Federal Way MAP VI -8 Note: This map Is Mended for use as a graphical repressaWloa only. The City of Federal Way makes no malwAy as to k accuraq. City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Lakehaven Sewer Service Area Capital Facilities Element Legend: 0 Federal Way City Urnks Potential Annexation Area ti Lakehaven Sewer Service Area • • . Lakehaven Corporate Bounclary MW M Sewer Basin Scale: 0 0.5 1 2 N DAiles Map Revises: October, 2006. source: My at FedwW My, "County 0"0, Federal Way MAP Vi -9 Note: This map Is Mended for use as a graphical representation only. TM City of Federal Way makes no warranty as lo Its accuracy. Way City of Federal Comprehensive Plan „d u Y� South King Fire r and Rescue Robuls,n 3 aI Capita! Facilities Element �> F int w.. i Legend: ANN Federal Way City Units Potential Annexadon Area r ��ySouth King Fire and Rescue Boundary s mz 98 a%Nx s , Existing Fire Statiows: a 3, aw Pty Station 26 �'{y{�jf /(/ h k Si�rC3+Tl CN 4} Sd1 yt Fl Tt aR 'S at {andG 4��x P`• Station 61 1X -7 Stefan 62 2 4� Station 63 run f'r Federal, u` Station 64 * We 1 station 66 t ederal w If ikKb-l��i" �r. 171h M Way Station 68 x�; P.A.A. v�� x � � Fade I Way • ' k, � Station 66 (Trobirlg b MakNeawws FeolNly) Poopwed Nn stodo es x( W O N O B r s e yy kN P,r j r A� "ff,, A'G {rvyd ,,&yy�•y fi.."'�e4v �' i 5� F.S Jk, 4;�} � f f '• 3,�c.s•�, •f*, + ,�yi A+S,N.q iY�i lrY,�,4 x{sk,k y 3�•" h1'(,Tx,S�., h, 4 j 99 i • Federal Way SC81@: 0 0•5 i 2 a lex 3x ` P.A.A. Files x £ 3 _ N Map Revleed: Oelober. 2006. Source: My of Federal WAY, King Coony P Federal Way MAP VI -10 Now: This amp Is intended for use as a grephIcal representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranly as to Its accuracy. Exhibit B Proposed Amendments to Chapter 7, City Center FWCP — Chapter Seven, City Center In April 2010 the City Center Planned Action Area was expanded to add approximately to the south, 23`° Avenue South to the west, and the eastern bounds is s roughly in alignment with 25th Avenue South. The amended Planned Action sub -area is shown on Map VII -2A. [Only this paragraph and Map VII -2A were revised in 2010.1 Infrastructure Most of the existing facilities and infrastructure were inherited from King County. In 1998, the City adopted new streetscape guidelines related to roadway profiles, streetlights, sidewalk widths, and street trees. In 1999, South 312"' Street between Pacific Highway South and 23`d Avenue South was widened to five lanes, and new sidewalks, street lifting, and street trees were added, as well as traffic signals at 20th Avenue South and 23` Avenue South. In 2001, South 320th Street was improved with streetscape elements between 11th Place South and 30th Avenue South. In 2002, the remainder of South 320th Street also was improved and 23`d Avenue South was widened to five lanes with sidewalks and streetscape elements. New traffic signals at South 316th, South 317th, and South 322d Streets were installed. Pacific Highway HOV Lanes, Phase I constructed in 2002-2004, widened Pacific Highway South with an HOV lane in each direction from South 312th to South 324th. The project also added sidewalks, center medians, landscaping, and utility undergrounding. This project was the City's first of five to improve the Pacific Highway/International Boulevard corridor and was a continuation of the revitalization of the City Center. 7.2 VISION STATEMENT 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. The City Center is responsive to the needs of the City's residents. In addition to general services that draw people from outside the region, such as retail, office, and hotel uses, the City Center is the primary commercial area providing local goods and services to the surrounding neighborhoods, and to residents and employees within the center area. Private development and City initiated actions will have resulted in a balanced transportation network that accommodates automobiles, public transportation, high occupancy vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and integrated parking. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation is emphasized along with other travel modes. The downtown urban fabric includes smaller blocks, lending itself to efficient and pleasant travel. Concentrated Revised 2007; (2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment), and 2010 VII -8 City of Federal WayBoundaries of City center Element Comprehensive Plan Planned Action SEPA Map VII -2A Legend Map Date: March, 2007 QPlanned Action SEPAArea City Center Core -\ Scale: Surface Water City Center Frame 0 500 1,000 Feet I i I Park Building cnr atFederal Way Street Map prepared by the City of This map is accompanied by NO warranties. Federal Way's GIS Division. REPLACED BY MAP DATED JUNE 2010 - SEE NEXT PAGE City City of Federal Way Boundaries of ter Element Comprehensive Plan Planned Action SEPA Map VII -2A 7x Painwo �� \'•ti I _ I t 1 f _TOP�i l � T �, J I SeaTac 1 40 J P8kd0 Wodd I' Pkiza �/ j? ! E 30111 Et ! fes 1 ru� � a Salhww ice_11 _ The Commons at Federal Way S 320l6 St ;+ PW* Ride �— - rc � • r Legend Map Date: June, 2010 QPlanned Action SEPAArea City Center Core Scale: Surface Water City Center Frame " 0 500 1,000 Feet l � I - Park Building CITY �� Federal Way Street Map prepared by the City of This map is accompanied by NO warranties_ Federal Way's GIS Division. REVISED MAP - REPLACES MAP DATED MARCH 2007 Exhibit C Proposed Amendments to Chapter 8, Potential Annexation Area i Lake 1 City of Federal Way Iland i Park4,0) � 1 Scale: 0 112 Mile ` Comprehensive Plan N t 1 Nqp Rdamuned- I WM Plem Nota: 1 " Cfit of Fed" Way. 33325 Etb Aw S. T?w nap Is Intended for use as a rapressntaaion 1 Public School COILY. TM City of Federal Way m*" no wwra* .. ti www.oityof wI*r*hW.wn Facilities .'� Star Luke . Pacific: i,5 Fitd�alWay dap Vill•14 Kent School .a,r.:a.s.+rr.en..no.ro...d+eriw� � Wah►icl ��. Potential Annexation Area Element .Y • .v School 00m Boundary 11 ) ,• � Emmommy Scfaol ---rte .Amr No smom m Soria NO S040 j C'mit '!nt PWAnftxm#n Am- CoommMy Ub �f: 1 l Auburn Star Lake jNwftmO M r �edierar war I cam" Omm%w) ' Sa:bboet DVstrttt — , iWAIS ,r � _ ) lakaland (SouNeast) Paemw (SoulH wo Federal '' Aabarn ' oaraAron: '' ,.. - a0 Dtst►tct i ` tM>inoorporatedArm SL'�abhl9rSMCt � ,'" tw l Sourm Federal Way School 0►sirK Cary of Federal Way GIS Dhis n, 2001 l i REPLACED BY MAP DATED JUNE 2010 - SEE NEXT PAGE Lake 1 Iland i Park4,0) � ,jui itcr � Scale: 0 112 Mile ` N t 1 Nqp Rdamuned- I WM Plem Nota: 1 " Cfit of Fed" Way. 33325 Etb Aw S. T?w nap Is Intended for use as a rapressntaaion 1 Federal W WA 1NIM (253) W.1600 COILY. TM City of Federal Way m*" no wwra* 1 www.oityof wI*r*hW.wn w 10 Its aow wy. Pacific: Fitd�alWay dap Vill•14 .a,r.:a.s.+rr.en..no.ro...d+eriw� REPLACED BY MAP DATED JUNE 2010 - SEE NEXT PAGE �10 0 IOU r '10'1 Sequo-,h Y ddle 161 Sc Wool 3 A Rainrgr'Jia'.v. Elementary REVISED MAP - JUNE 2010 Vnt:NNtlr IWO FERE L�-, W A �. � I 0 0.25 0.5 !' ® Mile N Map Reformatted: 06/2010 This map is intended City of Federal Way, for use as a graphical 33325 8th Ave S, representation ONLY Federal Way, WA. 98003 The City of Federal Way (253) 835-7000 makes no warranty to www.cityrolfederalway.com its accuracy urn or Federal Way Map VIII -14 City of Federal Way - I Comprehensive Plan Public School Lug Kent Facilities = Potential Annexation Area Element Legend Public School Facilities = T ♦ • — School District Boundary School Locations ;oPotential Annexation Area Itu rr tier h l Community Level Subareas: U Camelot (Noah East) .40 _ F n Jovita (South East) Lakeland (South East) U Parkway (South East) Fe>ier a Auburn Ate J I Star Lake (North East) Via' Sch r Disl�i Other Areas Incorporated Area Unincorporated Area r '10'1 Sequo-,h Y ddle 161 Sc Wool 3 A Rainrgr'Jia'.v. Elementary REVISED MAP - JUNE 2010 Vnt:NNtlr IWO FERE L�-, W A �. � I 0 0.25 0.5 !' ® Mile N Map Reformatted: 06/2010 This map is intended City of Federal Way, for use as a graphical 33325 8th Ave S, representation ONLY Federal Way, WA. 98003 The City of Federal Way (253) 835-7000 makes no warranty to www.cityrolfederalway.com its accuracy urn or Federal Way Map VIII -14 Exhibit D Vicinity Map Site -Specific Request #1 Lloyd/Valiani Awa t .City of Federal Way _W (---:1 solo LL r�M3 site epeolflo Requests for Comprehenelve Plan and —r __ ___ _ ''WN t ' tl lelln �eelgnetlone toning Designation Changes BC v_# �1shwiMan� F Lloyd l Vallanl Site Specific Request 01 BC ; - R boa , {f Legend w - Lite specific Request sta~e8m8 (ch Imly) PH �\�� wettmds 0 M city ®ufliey) . r .._ RMII Y CE CP- ®11111 lowdry* t N®lm An 811IN f (') fled t® 816"Iflo defoetl®fl Wallis the Ppefty it zs. �ver�eh by 8 dlywopfliefll a swim: i% C _ .,_ CE CP - 1,4 ® NBC Boo city of Federal Way this��,,8,668flied by fl® weff"het, 8fld It ` 8 Wow Fepfeteflllhom Exhibit E Vicinity Map Site -Specific Request #2 INS � �US �0 INNIONEEN ii, RS9.6 H a. r:.j r.I ■yiyr. Exhibit F Vicinity Map Site -Specific Request #3 ST Fabrication u 11:7 Ill.- June 29, 2010, Staff Report to the Planning Commission with Exhibits D -G and two public comments (Due to their bulk, Exhibits A—C are not included in the City Council packet, but are available in the City Council Conference Room) }'q'vy f Federal Way STAFF REPORT June 29, 2010 TO: Merle Pfeifer, Chair, Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Greg Fewins, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments MEETING DATE: July 7, 2010 I. BACKGROUND Federal Way adopted its comprehensive plan in 1995 and updated it in December 1998, December 2000, November 2001, March 2003, July 2004, June 2005, July 2007, and June 2009. The Growth Management Act (GMA, RCW 36.70A. 130[2](a]) limits plan updates to no more than once per year, except under the following circumstances: 1. The initial adoption of a sub -area plan that does not modify the comprehensive plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea. 2. The adoption or amendment of a shoreline master program. 3. The amendment of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a county or city budget. 4. The adoption of comprehensive plan amendments necessary to enact a planned action. Except as otherwise provided above, the governing body shall consider all proposals concurrently, so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained However, after appropriate public participation, a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform to this chapter whenever an emergency exists, or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. II. 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS The proposed changes to the comprehensive plan include housekeeping changes to the text and Map VI -5 (City Facilities) of Chapter 6 — Capital Facilities (Exhibit A); the text and Map VII -2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7 — City Center (Exhibit B); and Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8 — Potential Annexation Area (Exhibit Q. Proposed changes to the Planning Commission StatfReport :lune /-y, /-v iv 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 18 text of the comprehensive plan are shown in a s#ikeeut (proposed deletions) and underline (proposed additions). The proposed amendments also include three citizen -initiated site-specific requests shown on Exhibit D, Composite Map, and described as follows: File 08 -104608 -UP — Request from Lloyd/Valiani for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 3.0 acres (parcels 212104-9039 and 212104-9047) located at 1828 and 1920 South 340'` Street, from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM 3600, one unit per 3,600 square feet). At the March 16, 2010, City Council public hearing on the selection process, the Council gave staff direction to study this proposal further, however, they requested that staff contact the owners (Roger & Kristine Hyppa and Ila Field) of property located west of these parcels to determine whether those property owners would like to be included in the request. The Hyppas and Ms. Field have submitted requests to be part of the change, which has brought the total site area to 5.28 acres (Exhibit E). 2. File 09 -103795 -UP —Request from John Song for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 1.39 acres (parcel 236800-0040) located at 32108 391 Avenue South, from Single Family — High Density Residential (RS 9.6, one unit per 9,600 square feet) to Neighborhood Business (BN) (Exhibit F). S. File 10 -100564 -00 -UP — Request from the Abbey Road Group for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 16.63 acres (parcels 292104-9095 and 292104-9107), ST Fabrication, located at 35703 16'h Avenue South, from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi - Family (RM 2400, one unit per 2,400 square feet) (Exhibit G). M. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19. 80, "Council Rezones." establishes a process and criteria for comprehensive plan amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the requests for comprehensive plan amendments; 2. To determine whether the proposed comprehensive plan amendments meets the criteria provided byFWRC Sections 19.80.140, 19.80.150, and 19.75.130(3); and 3. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. IV. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY 6/19/10 Issuance of Determination of Nonsignificance pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)' 7/6/10 End of SEPA Comment Period 1 Due to its bulk, a copy of the DNS is not attached, but is available for review in the Community Development Services Department. Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 18 7/20/10 End of SEPA Appeal Period 7/7/10 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission V. AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTERS AND MAPS Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(4), the City of Federal Way must update its comprehensive plan every seven years. The last major update was 2004. The state legislature recently changed the deadline for the next major update from December 1, 2011, to December 1, 2014. However, per FWRC 19.80.050, the City has elected to review citizen -initiated requests on an annual basis. As part of the annual review, the City may also make housekeeping changes to chapters and maps of the comprehensive plan. The following housekeeping changes are being proposed: Amend the text of Chapter 6, "Capital Facilities" (Exhibit A) to incorporate information on the South Correction Entity (SCORE). This is a consolidated correctional facility to be located in Des Moines, Washington, to provide correctional services for the Cities of Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila Washington, based on an interlocal agreement between these cities. Map VI -5 (City Facilities) is also being corrected to delete Klahanee Lake Center, as this is no longer owned by the, City and the North Center Police Sub -station, because there is no longer a sub -station there. The entire chapter will be updated as part of the major 2014 update. 2. Amend the text and Map VII -2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7, "City Center" (Exhibit B) to reflect the April 2010 action by the City to expand the City Center Planned Action Area to add approximately ten acres and five parcels. The added area coincided with Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Number 1068 and its boundaries are South 317"' Street to the north, South 320"' Street to the south, 23`d Avenue South to the west, and the eastern boundary is roughly in alignment with 25`h Avenue South. Amend Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8, "Potential Annexation Area" (Exhibit C) to correctly identify Sequoyah Middle School. VI. CITIZEN -INITIATED SITE-SPECIFIC REQUESTS The proposed amendments also include three citizen -initiated site-specific requests as shown on Exhibit D, Composite Map. SITE-SPECIFIC REQUEST #1 — LLOYD/VALL4M File Numbers: 08 -104608 -UP, 10 -102103 -UP & 10 -102102 -UP Parcels: 2104-9047, 2104-9039, 104-9040, 2104-9042, 2104-9041 Address: 1920 S 340'h St, 1828 S 340`h St, 1816 S 3401h St, 1800 S 340'h St, & 1724 S 3401h St Location: North of S 340"' St between Pacific Highway S and 20"' Ave S Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 18 Size: Existing Land Use: Owners: Applicants: Request: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Requested Comprehensive Plan: Requested Zoning: Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Public Water: Solid Waste: 5.28 acres (Exhibit E) Single-family dwellings Sheri Valiani, Robert Lloyd, Roger & Kristine Hyppa, and Ila Field Same as Owners Comprehensive plan amendment and rezone from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM 3600, one unit per 3,600 square feet) Commercial Enterprise Commercial Enterprise (CE) Multi -Family RM 3600 (Multi -Family, one unit per 3,600 square feet) Lakehaven Utility District Lakehaven Utility District Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Police Department Fire/ Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Background The original Lloyd/Valiani request was for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 3.0 acres located at 1828 and 1920 South 340`t' Street, from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM 3600, one Emit per 3,600 square feet). At the March 16, 2010, City Council public hearing on the selection process, the Council gave staff direction to study this proposal further, however, they requested that staff contact the owners (Roger & Kristine Hyppa and Ila Field) of property located west of these parcels to determine whether those property owners would like to be included in the request. The Hyppas and Ms. Field have submitted requests to be part of the change. All five lots are developed with single-family houses. Single-family is not an allowable use in the Commercial Enterprise zone; however, designation as Multi -Family would make the single-family houses conforming uses. The Lloyd/Valiani request for Multi -Family zoning is to build senior housing in the future. Mr. and Mrs Hyppa and Ms Field have not proposed any changes in land use at this time. Surrounding Zoning & Land Use Planning Commission Staff Report June /-7, 4v iv 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 18 Zoning Land Use North Multifamily ( RM 3600, one unit per Christian Faith Center Church buildings 3,600 square feet) South Commercial Enterprise (CE) Industrial Uses East Multifamily (RM 3600, one unit per Christian Faith Center Church parking lot 3,600 square feet) West Commercial Enterprise (CE) Masonic Temple Planning Commission Staff Report June /-7, 4v iv 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 18 Topography Topography is generally flat. Critical Areas There are no known critical areas on these parcels. Drainage Development is not proposed in conjunction with the request for a change in comprehensive plan and zoning designation. However, the site is located within the West Hylebos Creek Sub -Basin and Conservation Flow Control Area and is subject to the Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu. In addition, any water -related impacts must be mitigated in compliance with the City -adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM), as amended by the City. Access The site fronts on a private street, South 340th Street, which is a 30 foot private road. Any redevelopment of these parcels would require construction of this road to a Roadway Cross Section R, which is a 66 -foot right-of-way, with two lanes, parking, and sidewalks. Potential Traffic Impacts The non -project action associated with changing the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM 3600) is not anticipated to affect traffic. However, future build out under a Multi -Family designation as opposed to commercial or industrial under Commercial Enterprise zoning should result in less traffic generation. Any future project specific actions will be subject to development review as required by City regulations. At the time that an application for a development permit is submitted, the Traffic Division will conduct a Concurrency Analysis, which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). The applicant has the option to have an independent traffic engineer licensed in the State of Washington prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with City procedures. In addition, as of July 1, 2010, development proposals will be subject to a traffic impact fee to address system impacts. Site-specific analysis may also be required to address impacts outside of the evening peak hour or safety issues. Public Comments Received No public comments were received. SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #2 — SONG File Number: 09 -103795 -UP Parcel: 236800-0040 Address: 32108 39th Avenue South Location: South of South 320th Street and west of Military Road (Exhibit F) Size: 1.39 acres Existing Land Use: Retail nursery and greenhouse Owner: John Song Planning Commission Staff Report June Zy, 2U 1 u 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 of 18 Applicant: Same as owner Existing Comprehensive Plan: Single Family - High Density Residential Existing Zoning: RS 9.6 (Single Family, one unit per 9,600 square feet) Requested Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Business Requested Zoning: Neighborhood Business (BN) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Public Water: Solid Waste: Lakehaven Utility District Lakehaven Utility District Waste Management Availability of Public Services: Police: City of Federal Way Public Safety Fire/ Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Background The lot is developed as a retail nursery and greenhouse, which is a legal nonconforming use in a single family zone. The business was permitted as a greenhouse by King County. Over the years, the use has expanded to include a retail component. There are some building and fire violations. The applicant has entered into a voluntary correction agreement with the City. One of the conditions of the agreement is that the owner applies for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone from single family (RS 9.6) to Neighborhood Business (BN) which allows retail nurseries and greenhouses, and which would, therefore, make the use conforming. The applicant would then be able to correct the violations. Surrounding Zoning& Land Use Critical Areas This site is already developed and there are no known environmentally sensitive areas on-site. Drainage Redevelopment is not proposed in conjunction with the request for a change in comprehensive plan and zoning designation. The site is located within the Mill Creek Basin and Conservation Flow Control Area and is subject to the Enhanced Basic Water Ortality menu. Any redevelopment, Planning Commission Staff Report June I -y, /-v i v 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 18 Zoning Land Use King County Neighborhood Business Convenience store with gas stations on both the North Zoning (NB -P and NB) northeastern and northwestern corners South Single Family ( RS 9.6, one unit per Single Family residence 9,600 square feet) East Neighborhood Business (BN) Convenience store with gas station West Single Family (RS 9.6 one unit per Single Family residences 9,600 square feet) Critical Areas This site is already developed and there are no known environmentally sensitive areas on-site. Drainage Redevelopment is not proposed in conjunction with the request for a change in comprehensive plan and zoning designation. The site is located within the Mill Creek Basin and Conservation Flow Control Area and is subject to the Enhanced Basic Water Ortality menu. Any redevelopment, Planning Commission Staff Report June I -y, /-v i v 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 18 regardless of zoning, must comply with all City regulations. In addition, any water -related impacts must be mitigated in compliance with the City -adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM), as amended by the City. Access The site is located at the southwestern corner of South 320th Street and Military Road and gets access from Military Road Any redevelopment, regardless of zoning, will require right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements on both street frontages. South 320d' Street would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section A, which is a 120 -foot right-of-way with four lanes, an HOV lane, sidewalks, and a median. Military Road would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section K, which is a 78 -foot right-of-way with three lanes, bike paths, and sidewalks. Potential Traffic Impacts The non -project action associated with changing the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density and RS 9.6 (Residential, one unit per 9,600 square feet) is not anticipated to affect traffic. Under the existing residential zoning, the existing use cannot expand but can only make tenant improvements. Designation as Neighborhood Business (BN) will allow the opportunity for a wide variety of non-residential uses such as retail, office, restaurants, schools, and government facilities that may or may not increase traffic generation, depending on its scale. However, future project specific actions will be subject to development review as required by City regulations. At the time that an application for a development permit is submitted, the Traffic Division will conduct a Concurrency Analysis, which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the TIP. The applicant has the option to have an independent traffic engineer licensed in the State of Washington prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with City procedures. In addition, as of July 1, 2010, development proposals will be subject to a traffic impact fee to address system impacts. Site-specific analysis may also be required to address impacts outside of the evening peak hour or safety issues. Public Comments Received No public comments received SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #3 — ST FABRICATION File Number: 10 -100564 -00 -UP Parcels: 292104-9095 and 292104-9107 Address: 35703 16th Avenue South Location: South of South 356th Street and west of 16th Avenue South (Exhibit G) Size: Existing Land Use: Owner: Applicant: Agent: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Planning Commission Staff Report 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments 16.63 acres Manufacturing plant which fabricates steel girders and beams Eric Hildebrandt Same as Owner Abbey Road Consulting Group, LLC Commercial Enterprise Commercial Enterprise (CE) June 29, 2010 Page 7 of 18 Requested Comprehensive Plan: Requested Zoning: Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Public Water: Solid Waste: Multi -Family RM 2400 (Multi -Family, one unit per 2,400 square feet) Lakehaven Utility District Lakehaven Utility District Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Public Safety Fire/ Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public School District Background The subject site consists of two parcels. Parcel number 292104-9095, which is 11.87 acres in size, is vacant and has a Class I wetland on the western portion. Parcel number 292104-9107, located to the east, is 4.76 acres and is presently used as a manufacturing plant, ST Fabrication, to fabricate steel girders and beams. The applicant has been working with the City to develop the site as a vertical mixed-use building with commercial uses on the bottom floor and residential uses on the upper floor. The Commercial Enterprise (CE) zone, in which the two parcels are located, does not allow residential uses on the first floor. Due to the configuration and topography of the site, the commercial uses would not be visible from adjacent 16`h Avenue South, which reduces the likelihood of successful operation. The applicant is requesting a change to a multifamily designation to develop the site in the future as multi -family residential, stating that multifamily residential zoning and development of the site would be a better transition between the commercial uses to the north and the single-family residential uses to the south. In addition, there are multifamily uses to the east. Surrounding Zoning & Land Use Critical Areas The subject site consists of two parcels. Parcel number 292104-9095 (11.87 acres in size) is vacant and has a Class I wetland on the western portion. Planning Commission Staff' Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 18 Zoning Land Use North Commercial Enterprise (CE) Warehouse South Single Family (RS 15.0, one unit per 15,000 Single family houses square feet) East of Parcel Commercial Enterprise (CE) ST Fabrication 292104-9095 East of Parcel Multifamily (RM 2400, one unit per 2,400 16`h Avenue South and apartment 292104-9107 square feet) complex West Commercial Enterprise (CE) Vacant, Hylebos wetlands Critical Areas The subject site consists of two parcels. Parcel number 292104-9095 (11.87 acres in size) is vacant and has a Class I wetland on the western portion. Planning Commission Staff' Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 18 Drainage Redevelopment of the site is not proposed in conjunction with the request for a change in comprehensive plan and zoning designation. However, the site is located within the Hylebos Creek Basin and Conservation Flow Control Area and is subject to the Enhanced Basic Water Quality menu. Any redevelopment, regardless of zoning, must comply with all City regulations. In addition, any water -related impacts must be mitigated in compliance with the City -adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual (KCSWM), as amended by the City. Access ST Fabrication currently has access from 16`h Avenue South to the east. However, it also has frontage on South 356`h Street. Any redevelopment of the site, regardless of zoning, will require right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements on both street frontages. South 16`h Street would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section R, which is a 66 -foot right-of-way, with two lanes, parking, and sidewalks. South 356`" Street would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section H, which is a 96 -foot right-of-way, with five lanes, bike paths, and sidewalks. Potential Traffic Impacts The non -project action associated with changing the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM2400, one unit per 2,400 square feet) is not anticipated to affect traffic. However, future build out as multi -family versus commercial, industrial, or mixed-use should result in less trip generation. Future project specific actions will be subject to development review as required by City regulations. At the time that an application for a development permit is submitted, the Traffic Division will conduct a Concurrency Analysis, which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the TIP. The applicant has the option to have an independent traffic engineer licensed in the State of Washington prepare the concurrency analysis consistent with City procedures. In addition, as of July 1, 2010, development proposals will be subject to a traffic impact fee to address system impacts. Site-specific analysis may also be required to address impacts outside of the evening peak hour or safety issues. Public Comments Received No public comments received. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH FWRC SECTIONS 19.80.140 AND 19.80.150 1. FWRC 19.80.140, Factors to be Considered in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment — The City may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. (1) The effect upon the physical environment. Staff Response — None of the housekeeping changes to the text or maps of the comprehensive plan will affect the physical environment. Planning Conunission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 of 18 Request (2) Response . Request #1— All five parcels are developed area with single fimily homes and there are no mapped Lloyd/Valiani critical areas on any of the parcels. Any redevelopment of the site must comply with City regulations related to clearing and grading,. drainage, and water quality. Request #2 - This site is already developed with a retail nursery and greenhouse and there are no Song mapped critical areas on the two parcels. Any redevelopment of the site must comply with City regulations related to clearing and grading, drainage, and water quality. Request #3 — The eastern portion of the site is already developed with a manufacturing plant that St Fabrication fabricates steel girders and beams. There is a Class I wetland on the western portion. Any redevelopment of the site must comply with FWRC Title 19, Division V, Critical Areas, and with City regulations related to clearing and grading, drainage, and water ►ality quality- (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. Staff Response — Please refer to responses under Section VII(1)(1), above (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Staff Response — None of the housekeeping changes to the text or maps of the comprehensive plan will impact land uses or neighborhoods. Request Response Request #1 — A change from Commercial Enterprise to Multi -Family should result in less intensive LloydNaliani use of the site as the existing Commercial Enterprise zone allows a wide variety of commercial and industrial uses. Any future development on this site would have to comply with City regulations related to bulk and scale, landscaping, and design standards, and such compliance should adequately mitigate any potential impacts to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Request #2 — The existing use is a nonconforming commercial use in a residential zone and it is Song compatible with the commercial uses on the other three corners. There is residential zoning and residential uses to the west and south. Any future development on this site would have to comply with City regulations related to bulk and scale, landscaping, and design standards, and such compliance should adequately mitigate any potential impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. City code also requires that any portions of a structure within 100 feet of a residential zone not exceed 30 feet above average building elevation and be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the property line. Request #3 — A change from Commercial Enterprise to Multi -Family should result in less intensive St Fabrication use of the site as the existing Commercial Enterprise zone allows a wide variety of commercial and industrial uses. Any future development on this site would have to comply with City regulations related to bulk and scale, landscaping, and design standards, and such compliance should adequately mitigate any potential impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Although changing the designation of the ST Fabrication site from a Commercial Enterprise designation to a Multi -Family designation would make future land use more compatible with the single-family uses to the south, future use as multi -family may not be compatible with the Commercial Enterprise site to the north, depending on what that site is used for. Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 of 18 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. Staff Response — None of the housekeeping changes to the text or maps of the comprehensive plan will affect utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools. Amendments are being proposed to Chapter 6, "Capital Facilities," to include language on a consolidated correctional facility to be located in Des Moines, Washington, to provide correctional services for the Cities of Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila Washington, based on an interlocal agreement between these cities. Such a facility will benefit the City of Federal Way. All three sites have available utilities, such as power and waste disposal. The Lloyd/Valiani site fronts on a private street, South 340"' Street, which is a 30 foot private road. Any redevelopment of these parcels would require construction of this road to a Roadway Cross Section R, which is a 66 -foot right-of-way, with two lanes, parking, and sidewalks. The closest public transportation is on Pacific Highway South to the west, which is served by busses every hour. The Song site is located at the southwestern corner of South 32& Street and Military Road and gets access from Military Road Any redevelopment, regardless of zoning, will require right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements on both street frontages. South 320`h Street would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section A, which is a 120 -foot right-of-way with four lanes, an HOV lane, sidewalks, and a median. Military Road would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section K, which is a 78 -foot right-of-way with three lanes, bike paths, and sidewalks. Bus service every two to three hours is available along Military Road. ST Fabrication currently has access from 16`h Avenue South to the east. However, it also has frontage on South 356`h Street. Any redevelopment of the site, regardless of zoning, will require right-of-way dedication and frontage improvements on both street frontages. South 16`h Street would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section R, which is a 66 -foot right-of-way, with two lanes, parking, and sidewalks. South 356`h Street would have to be improved to a Roadway Cross Section H, which is a 96 -foot right-of-way, with five lanes, bike paths, and sidewalks. The closest public transportation to the ST Fabrication site is along Enchanted Parkway to the east, which is served by busses every hour. There are a wide variety of recreational opportunities in the Federal Way area. Recreational opportunities in the City range from Dash Point State Park (a large state park on the west side of the city) and Celebration Park (an 84 -acre urban park located approximately in the middle of the City with ball fields and walking trails), to recreation trails in the Bonneville Power Administration right-of-way. If the Lloyd/Valiani and ST Fabrication sites are developed as multi -family, they will be required to provide 400 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Impacts on schools should be mitigated by the payment of a school impact fee ($2,114 as of 2010). (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. Staff Response— The housekeeping changes to the text and maps of the comprehensive plan is intended to correct or update information, and is, therefore, a benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region. Planning Commission Statl'Report June LY, /-v t v 2010 Comprehensive Plan ?amendments Page 11 of 18 Request Response Request #1— Single family use is not an outright permitted use in the Commercial;Enterprise zone, Lloyd/Valiani but is considered a legal nonconforming use. Therefore, it may continue to exist, but it can not be significantly changed, altered, or expanded. A redesignation to Multi -Family would make the single family dwellings conforming, and would also allow development Request #2 — as Multi -Family, which may be a more appropriate use for this site than commercial and Song industrial due to the lack of proximity to a major street network. Request #2 — A Neighborhood Business designation would make the nonconforming use a Song conforming one, allowing the owner to correct the building and fire code violations, and St Fabrication to remain operating as a viable business, thus benefiting the neighborhood and City. Request #3 — The Commercial Enterprise designation does not allow residential uses on the ground St Fabrication floor. However, due to the configuration and topography of the site, commercial uses on the ground floor would not be visible from adjacent 16'h Avenue South, which reduces the likelihood of successful operation. A Multi -Family designation would allow the site to be developed with apartments, which would also be more compatible with the single family uses to the south and act as a transition between those single family uses and the industrial use to the north. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. Staff Response — None of the housekeeping, changes to the text or maps of the comprehensive plan will affect land use or density. Request Response Request #1— Presently, there are five senior housing complexes that provide 874 units of independent Lloyd/Valiani living in Federal Way. Nationwide, 80 million baby boomers turn 65 this year. The Lloyd/Valiani request is for a Multi -Family designation to build senior housing in the future as they believe that there is a need for more senior housing in Federal Way. Request #2 — The site is already developed as a retail nursery and greenhouse. Changing the Song designation from single family to Neighborhood Business will not change the existing use, but will make the use conforming. Request #3 — The existing Commercial Enterprise designation allows multi -family as part of a mixed - St Fabrication use commercial/residential building. A Multi -Family designation would allow multi - Family, but no commercial. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. Staff Response — None of the housekeeping changes to the text or maps of the comprehensive plan will affect current or projected density in the city. Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 of 18 Request Response Request #1 — There are presently six single family dwellings on the site that are expected to house 18 Lloyd/Valiani people based on the April 1, 2009, Office of Financial Management Report. Lloyd/ Valiani proposes to build senior housing in the future and there are no proposals for redevelopment of the Hyppa and Field properties at this time. The potential build out of Request #2 — 5.28 acres at RM 3600 (one unit per 3,600 square feet) would be 64 multi -family units. Request #2 — This site is developed as a retail nursery and greenhouse. The applicant proposes no Song change with Neighborhood Business zoning. The Neighborhood Business zone allows multi -family as part of a mixed-use development at 18 units per acre, which would Request #3 — theoretically allow 25 multi -family units at maximum build out. Request #3 — The existing use is a manufacturing plant, ST Fabrication, which fabricates steel girders St Fabrication and beams. The applicant proposes to develop the site with up to 301 multi -family dwelling units with RM 3600 zoning (Multi -family, one unit per 3,600 square feet). The applicant had, previously with the Commercial Enterprise designation, proposed a mixed-use development that would include stand-alone commercial buildings and mixed-use buildings with up to 321 residential units and up to 30,749 square feet of commercial use. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response — The proposed text and map changes and granting the three requests should not affect other aspects of the comprehensive plan. 2. FWRC 19.80.150, Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan —The City may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. Staff Response — The proposed changes to the text or maps of the comprehensive plan are intended to correct or update information. Request Response Request #1— Redesignating these parcels to Multi -Family complies with the Goal LUG4 of providing LloydNaliani a wide range of housing types and densities commensurate with the community's needs and preferences, and thus bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare. Request #2 — A Neighborhood Business designation would make the nonconforming use a Song conforming one, allowing the owner to correct the building and lire code violations, thus the proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare. Request #3 — Changing the designation of the ST Fabrication site from a Commercial Enterprise St Fabrication designation to a Multi -Family designation would make future land use more compatible with the single-family uses to the south, and may or may not be compatible with the Commercial Enterprise site to the north depending on what that site is used for Planning Commission StaffReport June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 13 of 18 D (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. Staff Response — Please see responses under Sections VII(t)(5) and VII(2)(1). (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendment. Staff Response — The proposed amendments are consistent with the following goals of RCW Chapter 36.70A.020(2) of the Growth Management Act: (i) Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (ii) Reduce sprawl. Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. (iii) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock (iv) Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities. The amendments are also consistent with goals and policies of the land use, housing, city center, economic development, and potential annexation area chapters of the City's comprehensive plan. V1II. COMPLIANCE WITH FWRC SECTION 19.75.130(3) Site-specific requests are required to be evaluated for compliance with this section. 1) The city may approve the application only if it finds that: a. The proposed request is in the best interests of the residents of the city. Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 14 of 18 Request Response Request #1— Single family use is not an outright permitted use in the Commercial Enterprise zone, L1oydValiani but is considered a legal nonconforming use; therefore, it may continue to exist, but it Request #2 — can not be significantly changed, altered, or expanded. A redesignation to Multi -Family Song would make the single family dwellings conforming, and would also allow development Request #3 — as multi -family, which may be a more appropriate use for this site than commercial and St Fabrication industrial due to the lack of proximity to a major street network. Therefore, a change in designation from Commercial Enterprise to Multi -Family may be in the best interests of the residents of the City. Request #2 — A Neighborhood Business designation would make the nonconforming use a Song conforming one, allowing the owner to correct the building and fire code violations, thus the proposed amendment is in the best interests of the residents of the City. Request #3 — The Commercial Enterprise designation does not allow residential uses on the ground St Fabrication floor. However, due to the configuration and topography of the site, commercial uses on the ground floor would not be visible from adjacent 16`s Avenue South, which reduces the likelihood of successful operation. A Multi -Family designation would allow the site to be developed with apartments, which would contribute to the tax base and is in the best interest of the residents of the City b. The proposed request is appropriate because either: (i) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning that, under those changed conditions, a change in designation is within the public interest; or (ii) The change in designation will correct a designation that was inappropriate when established Request Response Request #1— The request does not meet any of the above criteria. Lloyd/Valiani designation. Land Use Policy (LUP) 9 states, "Designate and zone land to provide for Request #2 — The request does not meet any of the above criteria. Song and industrial uses for the next 20 years." The applicant states that they have constructed Request #3 — The request does not meet any of the above criteria. St Fabrication In addition, there are businesses in close proximity that provide services that seniors c. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Request Response Request #1— The comprehensive plan does not provide locational criteria for the multi -family LloydValiani designation. Land Use Policy (LUP) 9 states, "Designate and zone land to provide for Federal Way's share of regionally adopted demand forecast for residential, commercial, and industrial uses for the next 20 years." The applicant states that they have constructed other senior housing in the area and feel that here is a demand for more senior housing. In addition, there are businesses in close proximity that provide services that seniors want. This request is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 15 of 18 Request Response Request #2 — This request is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. The Song comprehensive plan states that, "Neighborhood Business areas are intended to provide convenient goods (e.g., groceries and hardware) and services (e.g., dry cleaners, dentist, bank) at a pedestrian and neighborhood scale close to adjacent residential uses." This property is located at the southwestern corner of the South 320th Street and Military Road intersection. There are Neighborhood Business -zoned parcels at all ofthe other three comers of this intersection and the intersection operates as a Neighborhood Business Node. Request #3 — This request is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies: St Fabrication LUPIS states, "Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non- residential uses." LUP23 states, "Support multiple -family development with transportation and capital facilities improvements." d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. Staff Response — The request for comprehensive plan amendments and rezones are non - project actions. Any future redevelopment of these sites would be required to comply with all City regulations, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff Response — Refer to responses to Section VII(2)(1). 2) The city may approve an application for a quasi-judicial project related rezone only if it finds that: a. The criteria in the above subsection are met. b. The proposed project complies with this title in all respects. c. The site plan of the proposed project is designed to minimize all adverse impacts on the developed properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. d. The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities. e. Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are adequately mitigated; and f The rezone has merit and value for the community as a whole. Staff Response — The three site-specific requests are proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan, and not project -related rezones, and therefore, the criteria under this section do not apply. Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 16 of 18 IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Proposed amendments to the text and maps of the Comprehensive Plan: (a) Changes to the text and Map VI -5 (City Facilities) of Chapter 6, "Capital Facilities" (Exhibit A). Staff Recommendation — Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes. (b) Changes to the text and Map VII -2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7, "City Center" (Exhibit B). Staff Recommendation — Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes. (c) Changes to Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8, "Potential Annexation Area" (Exhibit Q. Staff Recommendation — Staff recommends approval of the proposed changes 2. Citizen -initiated requests: (a) Site -Specific Request #1— Request from LloydNaliani for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 3.0 acres (parcels 212104-9039 and 212104-9047) located at 1828 and 1920 South 340`h Street, and a city -initiated proposal to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 2.28 acres (parcels 104-9040, 2104-9042, and 2104-9041) located at 1816, 1800, and 1724 South 340`h Street from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM 3600, one unit per 3,600 square feet) (Exhibit E). Staff Recommendation — Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. (b) Site -Specific Request #2 —Request from John Song for a comprehensive plan amendment andrezone of 1.39 acres (parcel 236800-0040) located at 32108 39`h Avenue South, from Single Family - High Density Residential (RS 9.6, one unit per 9,600 square feet) to Neighborhood Business (BN) (Exhibit F). Staff Recommendation — Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. (c) Site -Specific Request #3 — Request from the Abbey Road Group for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 16.63 acres (parcels 292104-9095 and 292104-9107), ST Fabrication, located at 35703 16`h Avenue South, from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM 2400, one unit per 2,400 square feet) (Exhibit G). Staff Recommendation — Staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone. Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 17 of 18 X. PLANNING CommsSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding each proposed comprehensive plan amendment: 1 Recommend to City Council adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment as proposed, 2. Recommend to City Council that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment not be adopted-, 3. Forward the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to City Council without a recommendation; or 4. Modify the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and recommend to City Council adoption of the amendment as modified LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Amendments to the text and Map VI -5 (City Facilities) of Chapter 6, "Capital Facilities" Exhibit B Amendments to the text and Map VII -2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter 7, "City Center" Exhibit C Amendments to Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8, "Potential Annexation Area" Exhibit D Composite Map — Location of Site -Specific Requests Exhibit E Map of Site -Specific Request #1 — Lloyd/Valiani Exhibit F Map of Site -Specific Request #2 — Song Exhibit G Map of Site -Specific Request #3 ST Fabrication K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\Planning Commission\060710 Report to Planning Commision.doe Planning Commission Staff Report June 29, 2010 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 18 of 18 I - r Star! Puget Sound City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Composite Map Site Specific Requests V North Legend zo Lake Request Sites Y1 Federal Way City Limits -,, 5 M X hake Request Keyom Geneva 1. - Lloyd Valiani 2. - Song 3. - ST Fabrication Five Mile Lake Trout Zake; --q Mild This map is accompanied by no warranties, L—J and is simply a graphic representation. ite Reauests\2010%compositeSSR.MW 40 151 ILI Easier Steel D011Qf Lake w W Lake 99, Lake fou ;J21h ST Lked� City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Composite Map Site Specific Requests V North Legend zo Lake Request Sites Y1 Federal Way City Limits -,, 5 M X hake Request Keyom Geneva 1. - Lloyd Valiani 2. - Song 3. - ST Fabrication Five Mile Lake Trout Zake; --q Mild This map is accompanied by no warranties, L—J and is simply a graphic representation. ite Reauests\2010%compositeSSR.MW City of Federal Way a 360' 0 - -� 2010 8 :E_ u�16M3� ) � syr_,. �- � �� Site Specific Requests LC—W" _ i ' ' ' ' W for Comprehensive Plan and S336THST,` T - Zoning Designation Changes s 336TH s Existing Designations Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Enterprise (CE) BC Be Zoning: Commercial Enterprise (CE) Us. Requested Designations Lloyd/ Va l i a n i v - ` Comprehensive Plan: Multi -Family a Zoning: RM3600 Site Specific Request #1 4 Dr Christian ...,. r.... _, i Legend C�P;2 Site Specific Request Buildings CE y Streets i t a; Streams (City Survey) w BC _ _ i L . i Uoyd 2 ® Wetlands (1998 City Survey) W ~ """ CP- Zoning Boundary* CE r — s uur sr Note: M asterix (*) next to a zoning 8341STST ; Baden, -'designation indicates the property is M Minft, 1 -1 - governed by a development agreementX CE . r CE 250 500 0 Feet 4L ` �.. fi5.��CITY 3 H $T TH 8944 sr OF 46, Federal Way s 9"m ST L"' This map is accompanied by no warran es, and is simply a graphic representation. RAerike\cd\Com Plan\.Ske uests\2010\ssr1 2010.mxd R -18-P R-4 k', City of Federal Way R1$Pi 2010 1 Site Specific Requests R-4 for Comprehensive Plan and R•1 8-P aw Zoning Designation Changes IExisting Designations Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zonina: RS9.6 R•I8•P Requested Designations Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Business Zoning: Neighborhood Business (BN) 61HR 18 o NB 20TH ST y S 320TH ST T R'4LU 40 �tEiCe 21 T S y�iy� OUN&lg > BSI $ 321,5'r ST tel. ti Office v L BuUng L, ap�ea�oys OP -1 `i �. "gyp �Y py R 9. W2400 RM2400; 9.6 nVaIrm mac+J, to 111 IF,;. is MM S M 7 mRl4! Song Site Specific Request #2 Legend Site Specific Request Buildings Streets Streams (City Survey) ® Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Zoning Boundary* Note: An asterix (*) next to a zoning designation indicates the property is rM governed by a development agreeme0k J® 0 �\ N 0 250 500 Isomwood Feet Federal %A This map is accompanied by no and is simply a graphic represer IIID R -18-P R-4 k', City of Federal Way R1$Pi 2010 1 Site Specific Requests R-4 for Comprehensive Plan and R•1 8-P aw Zoning Designation Changes IExisting Designations Comprehensive Plan: Single Family, High Density Zonina: RS9.6 R•I8•P Requested Designations Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Business Zoning: Neighborhood Business (BN) 61HR 18 o NB 20TH ST y S 320TH ST T R'4LU 40 �tEiCe 21 T S y�iy� OUN&lg > BSI $ 321,5'r ST tel. ti Office v L BuUng L, ap�ea�oys OP -1 `i �. "gyp �Y py R 9. W2400 RM2400; 9.6 nVaIrm mac+J, to 111 IF,;. is MM S M 7 mRl4! Song Site Specific Request #2 Legend Site Specific Request Buildings Streets Streams (City Survey) ® Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Zoning Boundary* Note: An asterix (*) next to a zoning designation indicates the property is rM governed by a development agreeme0k J® 0 �\ N 0 250 500 Isomwood Feet Federal %A This map is accompanied by no and is simply a graphic represer Existing Designations Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Enterprise (CE) Zoning. Commercial Enterprise (CE) Requested Designations Comprehensive Plan: Multi -Family { Zoning: RM2400 CE ST ICE Hardware CE Ima6m jo , X Jet chayfa t i �y CE �Z t L 15.0 City of Federal Way 2010 Site Specific Requests for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designation Changes ST Fabrication Site Specific Request #3 Legend Site Specific Request Buildings Streets Streams (City Survey) Wetlands (1998 City Survey) Zoning Boundary 0 250 500 N Feet CITY Of Federal Wait, This map is accompanied by no waties, and is simply a graphic representation. Tina Piety. From: Margaret Clark Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 3:31 PM To: Tina Piety Subject: FW: City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 10-100062-00- UP/10-1 00063 -00 -SE,. Determination of Non -Significance From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:30 PM To: Margaret Clark Subject: RE: City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 10-100062-00-UP/10-100063-00-SE, Determination of Non -Significance IVIS. (nark, Thank you for flavin; F,ts. Piety forward i.s the July 7 210 Planning Commission Staff Report. We have reviewed this document aro Note that the analysis in this report dues not sufficiently address the question we have raised in our email be€ow. Therefore, we would appreciate it if the City could respond to our question below. Best regards. Karen Walter hel!TFD _ _,w.� . u ........._.. ...... From: Margaret Clark [mailto:MargaretClark@cityofPederalway.com] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:16 PM To: Karen Walter Subject: RE: City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 10-100062-00-UP/10-100063-00-SE, Determination of Non -Significance Heito Ms. Walter, Nis. Ciark asked me to respond to you since she is out of the office. Per I ver- request, i have attached :a copy of the July 7, 2010. Planninv Commission Staff „epc}rt_ The report discusses the impact issue in more detaV:. Please contact NIs. Clark •-835-2646' with any additional cornments and/or questions. Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant Il Department of Cori mdn tv Development. Services tina.;�:e�x;wc�t"sv.M�.�.ra:�te .c�rti •,��-•�j�-? ��1 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... From: Karen Walter [mailto:KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 1:00 PM To: Margaret Clark Subject: City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, 10-100062-00-UP/10-100063-00-SE, Determination of Non -Significance Ms. Clark, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the threshold determination (DNS), the environmental checklist, and the proposed 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the City of Federal Way. We have a question about the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 16.63 acres (File 10 -100564 -00 -UP), ST Fabrication from commercial enterprise to multi -family. If this comprehensive plan and zoning amendment is approved, will it be possible for the properties to construct multi- family housing at one unit per 2400 square feet without impacting the Class I wetland that is part of the North Eorl� ofahe �'I{Iest Branch bf Hytebos`Creek-or�its-bvffer-9-One purpos"f they-environmentak revrie foi-this'proporsect~amendment, should be to determine if the proposal would have the same, greater or fewer impacts than the existing Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning to compare against the proposal." In addition, if there is ars alternative multi -family zoning that would have fewer impacts to the existing wetland and its buffer (i:e. avoiding both wetland aid buffer), then it should be considered as -part of this environmental review. We took forward to the City's responses to better help us understand potential impacts associated with this proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions.. Thank you, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Mucideshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015172nd Ave Auburn WA 98092 253-876-3116 7 CITY OF Federal Vi/ay July 6, 2010 Ms. Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division 39015 1724 Avenue SE Auburn WA 98092 KWalter@muckleshoot.nsn.us Re: File 10-100564-00-UP—ST Fabrication Dear Ms. Walter: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Thank you for your inquiry about the request from the Abbey Road Group on behalf of ST Fabrication for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 16.63 acres (parcels 292104-9095 and 292104-9107), located at 35703 16'' Avenue South, from Commercial Enterprise (CE) to Multi -Family (RM 2400, one unit per 2,400 square feet). Based on your e-mail correspondence, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe is concerned about future project -related impacts on the Category I wetland or its buffer. This wetland is part of the West Branch of the Hylebos Creek. The existing Commercial Enterprise (CE) zone allows the most intensive uses of all zones within the City. The attached Table I is a comparison of allowable uses on the subject parcels under the existing CE zone versus all Multi -Family zones. Changing the comprehensive plan and zoning designation is a non -project action. If the request is granted, any of the uses allowed in the RM 2400 zone could be applied for. At that time, if the proposal were to trigger the City of Federal Way's SEPA thresholds, a project -related SEPA review would be required. As you can see from the table, the RM 2400 zone allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre, while the existing CE zone allows up to 22 dwelling units per acre. The actual density to be achieved depends on a number of factors including drainage and parking requirements, and allowable bulk and scale requirements, such as setbacks and maximum allowable height. The Tribe is concerned about encroachment into the wetlands and wetlands buffer. The on-site Category I wetland has a required 200 foot buffer. Any development on the ST Fabrication site, whether under the existing CE zoning or the requested RM 2400 zoning must comply with City regulations, which state that no wetland or buffer encroachments may occur unless the procedures of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.175.030 and 19.175.040 are followed To summarize, per FWRC 19.175.030, the only work allowed within a regulated wetland would be pedestrian access in conjunction with a public park or work intended to rehabilitate a wetland Any other work would require a Process IV public hearing in front of the Federal Way Hearing Examiner, and the specific location and extent of the intrusion into the regulated wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment. Ms. Karen Walter Page 2 July 6, 2010 Per FWRC 19.175.040, the code does allow buffer averaging and buffer reduction, as well as minor improvements such as footbridges, walkways, and benches within the wetland buffer based on strict criteria and Process III review. Placement of essential public facilities, public utilities, and other public improvements may be permitted by the Director of Community Development Services if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the buffer because no feasible or alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. In addition, the specific location and extent of the intrusion into the buffer must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. The city may approve any other requests to locate an improvement within the buffer from a regulated wetland through process IV, based on specific criteria outlined in FWRC 19.175.040. FWRC Chapter 19.175, "Regulated wetlands," may be accessed at the City's website vjv3v.cit c+ffed£ al vo4•c`' 11 I hope that the above response, has addressed the Tribe's concerns. Please contact me at 253-835-2646, or r:tr�re elrk�i� ty�3`eciel"�lj'� z'.co: if you have further questions. Regards, IYyl.O,r a! u-,1'4 Margaret H. Clark, AICP Principal Planner K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\SEPA\060710 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.doc Table -1 Commercial Enterprise Zone All Multi-Fam}ly Zones Sales, rental, or leasing facilities for vehicles, trucks, boats, trailers, motorcycles, and equipment, outdoor storage containers, portable moving containers Mechanical repair, body repair, painting, or related services for vehicles, trucks, boats, trailers, motorcycles, and equipment Vehicle service station or car wash Self service storage facilities Tow and taxi lots Bulk retail sales, which may include, but is not necessarily limited to products such as lumber, paint, glass, plumbing, electrical, heating fixtures and supplies, fencing and other building products; household goods, furnishings, appliances, and equipment; agricultural or horticultural products; and related items General and specialty retail sales, which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, products such as groceries, produce, and related items; drugs and personal care products; books; liquor; hardware; nursery or agricultural stock and related items; household goods; clothing; variety; home electronics; sporting goods; signs; second hand merchandise; antiques; and works of art Retail services including laundry, dry cleaning, beauty and barber, video rental, shoe repair, printing and duplicating Limited manufacturing and production Other retail sales or services not specifically listed in this zone May be approved if the director determines that the characteristics and impacts of the proposed use are analogous to other listed uses and the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies for this zone Medical and dental offices; banking, financial, real estate, insurance, and other professional offices Research and development facilities whose primary purpose is not product testing Hotel or motel Business schools, vocational schools, trade schools Commercial day care facilities K:\Comprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\SBPA\060710 Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.doc Commercial Enterprise Zone All Multi -Family Zones Animal kennels, animal care facilities Entertainment, recreational or cultural services or activities Private club or lodge Health club, golf course, driving range, indoor pistol range Restaurant or tavern Fast food restaurant Bingo hall and related uses Gambling uses Government facility, public park, and transit shelter Government facility, public park, and transit shelter Personal wireless service facility Personal wireless service facility Conventional detached dwelling units Small lot detached single family dwelling units Attached dwelling units; Zero -lot line townhouse dwelling units Cottage Housing Muld-unit housing (stacked dwelling units) (Not allowed on the ground floor. The ground floor of the structure must contain one or more other uses allowed in this zone. Allowable density is 22 units per acre) Multi -unit housing (stacked dwelling units) (Density of 12 units per acre in RM 3600 zone, 18 units per acre in RM 2400 zone; density of 24 units per acre in RM 1800 zone) Manufactured home parks Group Homes Type II (Allowed only in RM 2400 and RM 1800 zones) Senior Citizen Housing Social Services Transitional Housing Convalescent center or nursing home (Allowed only in RM 1800 zone) Church, synagogue or other place of religious worship Church, synagogue or other place of religious worship Private commercial sports fields or similar open area uses Community recreation area or clubhouse Public utility KAComprehensive Plan\2010 Comprehensive Plan Update\SEPA\06071C Response to Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.doe John H. Song 31006 44'h Ave S. Auburn, WA 98001 (206) 941-8646 July 7, 2010 RE: 2010 comprehensive plan amendments Dear Planning Commission, This statement is to officially support the 2010 comprehensive plan amendments in particular the site specific changes to the comprehensive plan map and zoning for file 09-103795. Sincerely, John H. Song (206) 941-8646 Draft Minutes of the July 7, 2010, Planning Commission Public Hearing DRAFT CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 2010 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Sarady Long, and Tim O'Neil. Commissioners absent: Tom Medhurst (excused). Staff present: Financial Systems Administrator Bryant Enge, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Traffic Engineering Rick Perez, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beckwith, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety. Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of April 21, 2010, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Conlen informed the Commission that the city is in the midst of the 2011/2012 budget process. Given the economy and budge shortfall, it is expected to be a controversial process. City Manager/Police Chief Brian Wilson would like to know if the Commission would like to have a presentation of the proposed budget. The Commission responded that they would like to have a budget presentation. Given that it is summer and Commissioners may be planning vacations, Mr. Conlen asked if the Commissioners foresee any problem with having a quorum on the scheduled meetings of July 21" and August 01. The Commissioners responding they do not foresee any problems. There will be construction in Council Chambers on the regularly scheduled meeting date of August 18`h. Mr. Conlen asked if the Commissioners would be willing to meet the next Wednesday, August 25`h. The Commissioners replied they will be available that day. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING — 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Ms. Clark delivered the staff report. Proposed amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCC) include: • Changes to text and Map VI -5 (Capital Facilities) of Chapter Six, Capital Facilities • Changes to text and Map VII -2A (Boundaries of Planned Action SEPA) of Chapter Seven, City Center • Changes to Map VIII (Public School Facilities) of Chapter 8, Potential Annexation Area • Three citizen -initiated requests for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone This is a non -project action, meaning that currently, no development is proposed. Ms. Clark explained the GAPianning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 07-07-10.doc � �" F .. r� � Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 July 7, 2010 specifics of each proposed amendment. The proposed text and map changes are not substantial and staff considers them housekeeping amendments. Following the Planning Commission's public hearing, the proposed amendments will go to the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) on September 20, 2010; to the City Council for a Is' reading of the ordinance on October 5, 2010; and back to City Council for a 2nd reading of the ordinance on October 19, 2010. Staff anticipates the amendments will be effective on October 28, 2010. Ms. Piety read a letter in support of his request from Mr. Song, the applicant for Site -Specific Request #2 into the record. The public hearing was opened for public testimony. Eric Pennala, Abbey Road Group — He represents ST Fabrication. He thanked the staff for their work and for the help he received from Ms. Clark. ST Fabrication believes that the RM2400 zoning is the best zoning for the site. It will provide a transition between the single-family housing located to the south and commercial located to the north. Under the existing zoning (Commercial Enterprise [CE]), they can redevelop the property with multi -family, and be allowed at least a two- story building with commercial/retail on the ground floor. Given the topography of the site (they are located in a valley) any ground floor commercial and/or retail could not be seen from the adjacent roads. People are unlikely to visit commercial/retail they cannot see. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the FWCP in that it will create a buffer between residential and commercial uses. He asked that the Commission recommend approval of the proposed change. Chair Pfeifer stated he is concerned that the business is apparently closing and the site being redeveloped. Is the business in trouble? What are their future plans? Eric Hildebrandt, part-owner of ST Fabrication — He stated the business is busy; they are not looking to redevelop due to a lack of business. When he and his partner moved the business from Covington, it was with the understanding that they would eventually redevelop the property. They feel that multi -family makes the best use of the site. Once the site begins to redevelop, they plan to move ST Fabrication to the valley. They have already spoken to a developer interested in developing garden apartments. Chair Pfeifer asked whether the present business (ST Fabrication) would become nonconforming if the proposed change to the zoning occurs and Mr. Beckwith confirmed that it would. Chair Pfeifer asked Mr. Hildebrandt if he was aware that being nonconforming could be detrimental to redeveloping and/or expanding the current business. Mr. Hildebrandt replied that they do not have any plans to redevelop and/or expand ST Fabrication. They feel the best use of the site is multi -family and intend to sell the property to someone who will develop multi -family. Commissioner Elder expressed concern about the loss of a flourishing business and possibly putting employees out of work. She is also concerned that there could be environmental issues on the site (having been commercial) that would be detrimental to multi -family use. Mr. Hildebrandt replied that they mainly weld steel, with a little bit of painting. The environmental impacts are minimal. The public testimony was closed. GAPlanning Commission\2010\Mft ing Summary 07-07-10.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 July 7, 2010 Planning Commissioner Bronson asked if it would be appropriate to delete Camp Kilworth as a planned project on page I I of Exhibit A — Chapter 6, Capital Facilities. Ms. Clark said that she would recommend against deleting it as the Parks Section of the Chapter had not been updated as part of this year's amendments and this change would be in isolation. Commissioner Elder concurred with Commissioner Lawson. Commissioner Long pointed out some discrepancies on Table VI -5 related to square footage and cost of the Performing Arts Center. Commissioner Carlson stated that he supported Site -Specific Request #2, Song, but not necessarily for the same reasons as the staff. He felt that we should justify the amendment based on compatibility with the neighborhood and not in order to correct code violations. He also stated that it made sense for Site -Specific Request #3, ST Fabrication to be changed to multi -family, because the City might have made a mistake in designating the site as Commercial Enterprise (CE) with the ability for mixed-use housing; he felt that it should have remained industrial. Commissioner Carlson also stated that the Department of Ecology has found that residential, specifically single-family, has the most impact on critical areas. However, he supports the staff recommendation of Multi -family for this site. Commissioner O'Neil asked whether the condition to correct the code violations would still apply with the change in designation of Site -Specific Request #2, Song, from Residential to Neighborhood Business. Ms. Clark responded that the violations would still have to be corrected. Commissioner Long inquired of Traffic Engineer Perez about the traffic impacts associated with a change of Site -Specific Request #3 from Commercial Enterprise to Multi -family. Mr. Perez stated that development of the site with a CE designation would have more impacts than development as Multi- family. Commissioner Lawson stated that he felt that staff has done an excellent analysis of the Song request as he felt that the property should have been zoned business when it was first annexed and we are finally correcting something that should have been caught before. Chair Pfeifer said he agreed with all three staff recommendations and he thanked the applicants for their patience and thanked staff for responding to the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's comments The Planning Commission made a recommendation to approve the comprehensive plan amendments including the three site-specific requests with further amendments to delete reference to Camp Kilworth and to make corrections to Table V-1 of Chapter 6, Capital Facilities. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. GAPIanning Commission\2010\Meeting Summary 07-07-IO.doc July 7, 2010 Comment Letter from the Lakehaven Utility District This page has been intentionally left blank. LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT 316271 W 16271W Ave South • P.O. Box 4249 - Federal Way, Washington 98063-4249 Federal Way: 253-941-1516 - Tacoma: 253-927-2922 www.lakehaven.org RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUL 0 8'2010 July 7d', 2010 City of Federal Way — City Hall 33325 8`" Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Attention: Margaret Clark, Principal Planner, AICP Re: City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Dear Ms. Clark: Lakehaven Utility District (LUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Federal Way 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Please find enclosed Lakehaven Utility District comments below. Section: 6.4.2 Water Systems Page VI -23 Comment: The first sentence should read the Lakehaven Utility District's 2008 Comprehensive Water System Plan, not 2006. Section: 6.4.3 Sewer Systems Page VI -28 Comment: First sentence should be replaced with the following: Lakehaven Utility District's 2009 Comprehensive Wastewater System Plan was adopted on December 10'h, 2009. The second sentence should be deleted. Page VI -29 Comment: The first paragraph should have the following revised sentences: 1. "The system is currently divided into six primary basins and 56 smaller sub -basins." 2. "The remaining four basins currently discharge to the other utilities for treatment and disposal, as mentioned above." Page VI -29 Comment: The third sentence of the third paragraph should read"ultimate population of 274,000", not 180,000. Charles Gibson Donald L.P. Miller Ronal E.AQwieki Edward C. Stewart Leonard D. Englund Commissioner Commissioner Com h6ier Commissioner Commissioner Page VI -29 Comment: The second sentence of the fourth paragraph should read "67.0 MGD at full development", not 40.0. Page VI -30 Comment: Delete the first sentence of the second paragraph and replace with, "The District completed the Redondo Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall pipeline project in April, 2009." If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (253)945-1582. Sin ely, im O orne, P.E. Development Engineering Manager Lakehaven Utility District cc: Don Perry, P.E. - General Manager, Lakehaven Utility District John Bowman, P.E. - Engineer Manager, Lakehaven Utility District 2 of 2