The URL can be used to link to this page

Council PKT 10-20-2009 Special/RegularCITY OF Federal Way AGENDA FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING Councii Chambers City Hail October 20, 2009 www. cityoffederalway. com SPECIAL MEETING 5:30 PM 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. Potential Litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) b. Collective Bargaining pursuant to RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) 3. ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PRESENTATIONS a. Certificate of Appointment: Planning Commission b. City Manager Emerging Issues Introduction of New Employees 4. CITIZEN COMMENT PLEASE COMPLETE A PWK SLIP PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING. When recognized by the Mayor, come forward to the podium and state your name for the record. PLEASE LIM/T YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) M/NUTES. The Mayor may interrupt comments that exceed three minutes, relate negatively to other individuals, or are otherwise inappropriate. 5. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been previously reviewed in their entirety by a Council Committee of three members and brought before full Council for approval; a!l items are enacted by one motion. Individual items may be removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion. a. Approval of Minutes: October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting ....Page 3 b. Council BiU 506 Traffic Impact Fee F'►�tRead'"9,o�s�os Page 10 c. Council Bill 507 Transportation Concurrency Management F'�t Reaa��9,o�sros d. Council Bill# 508 Establishing Time of Payment, Interest and Penalties for North Lake Management District F'�t Read'"9'o�s�os Page 91 e. Council Bill# 509 NPDES Code Amendments F'�' Reaa��9,o�s�oa .Pa�qe 96 f: S 352" Street Extension Project 30 Design Status Report �uT ,o��os .Page 139 g. 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid �uTc �oisios page 142 CONSENT AGENDA CONTINUED... h. WA State Department of Ecology Grant (Sea Lettuce) Permission to Apply �urc �oi5ios Page 152 i. Acceptance of King County Conservation Futures Funding and Acquisition Update �urc o�sios Page 154 j. Playground Replacement Alderdale Park PR"sPSC,ons�os Page 157 k. Pla�r�round Replacement Steel Lake Annex, Sacajawea and Saghalie Parks PR"sPSc 10 ....Page 160 PRHSPSC 10/13/09 I. Purchase New Mower for West Hylebos Wetlands Park ....Page 165 m. 2nd Amendment for Landscaping Services at Dumas Bay Centre PR"sPSC,on�os Page 166 n. Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Auburn, Federal Wa Kent, Renton, Tukwila and The Port of Seattle, for the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team ��"sPSC,o��s�os Page 171 o. Interlocal Agency Agreement with Seattle PD, WASPC (JAG) Grant, Gang Analyst PR"sPSc ,on�os....Page 187 p. King County RSO Grant Funding Cost Reimbursement Agreement PR"sPSC �on�os Page 194 6. INTRODUCTION FIRST READING Of DRDINANCES a. Council Bill 510 SEPA Amendments and Zoning Code Amendments....Page 201 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING FEDERAL WAY REVtSED CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.15.030, RELATING TO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) EXEMPT LEVEL THRESHOLDS, AND AMENDING TITLE 19, CHAPTER 19.60.050 FOR USE PROCESS II, CHAPTER 19.65.100 FOR USE PROCESS III, CHAPTER19.70.150 FOR USE PROCESS IV, AND CHAPTER 19.75.130 FOR USE PROCESS V(AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 09-594, 07-573, 07-554, 04- 468, 02-424, 00-375, 99-337, 97-291, 92-133, 90-43, AND 90-40) 7. COUNCIL REPORTS 8. CITY MANAGER REPORT 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. Potential Litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) b. Collective Bargaining pursuant to RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) 10.ADJOURNMENT The Council may add items and take action on items not listed on the agenda. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL ITEM POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council approve the draft minutes of the October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting? COMMITTEE: Not Applicable CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business STAFF REPORT BY: Carol McNeilly, City Clerk Attachments: Draft meeting minutes of the October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting. Options Considered: 1. Approve the minutes as presented. 2. Amend the minutes as necessary. Ordinance Public Hearing Resolution Other STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the minutes as presented. CITY CLERK APPROVAL: N/A Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) MEETING DATE: Not Applicable DEPT: Human Resources DIRECTOR APPROVAL: N/A N/A Committee Council COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION CIT OF Federal Way MINUTES FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Council Chambers City Hall October 6, 2009 7:00 pm www.cityoffederalway.com 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Dovey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jack Dovey, Councilmembers Jim Ferrell, Linda Kochmar, Mike Park, Jeanne Burbidge and Dini Duclos. Mayor Dovey excused Deputy Mayor Faison. Staff present: Interim City Manager Brian Wilson, City Attorney Pat Richardson and City Clerk Carol McNeilly. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE H. David Kaplan led the pledge of allegiance. 3. PRESENTATIONS a. Emergency Management Coordinator Mayor Dovey presented Emergency Management Coordinator Ray Gross with a plaque for his outstanding efforts in training Federal Way staff in disaster preparedness and emergency management. b. Manors Month of Concem Mayor Dovey reported the Mayors Month of Concem food drive collected over 29,000 pounds of food that was donated to the Federal Way Multi- Service Center. Mayor Dovey thanked Waste Management, Top Foods, Walmart, The Todd Beamer Jr. ROTC and the many other volunteers who contributed to the success of this event. c. Proclamation: National DECA Week October 12 16 Councilmember Burbidge read the proclamation into the record and presented it to Decatur High School senior class representatives. d. City Manager Emerging Issues 1. Introduction of New Employees Interim City Manager Wilson reported Melissa Hamilton has joined the Police Department to fill the Records Specialist position. City Council Minutes October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 6 2. Financial Report Update Interim City Manager Wilson provided a summary of 2009 -2010 Budget. In June 2009, the City reduced the budget by $1.8 million to respond to the economic climate. Since then, the General and Street Revenues have been on primarily on target. However, the major tax revenues (Property Tax, Sales Tax, Criminal Justice Tax and Gambling Tax), are down based on these trends and projections, the City is anticipating a revenue shortfall of $765K. With the allocation of some one -time funding and freezing of positions, the revenue gap can be reduced to $535K. ICM Wilson reviewed the proposed allocations to cover the revenue shortfalls. Those include $310K in excess property tax and High Crime funding, and $181K in and one time surplus funding previously reserved for the purchase of the. Camp Kilworth property. These adjustments would reduce the City's revenue shortfall to $44K, which could be addressed within the City's General Fund. The 2010 budget includes $400K in one -time expenditures and projects and a $740K revenue gap. Mr. Wilson added there are unallocated revenues for both 2009 and 2010 totaling $840,000. 4. CITIZEN COMMENT Ralph Ibarra spoke in support of Council Business Item 6.b. Business Incubation in Federal Way. Betty Taylor spoke regarding traffic and pedestrian issues on 324 Beverly Washington spoke regarding a traffic citation she received and pedestrian issues on 324th. Jon Potter a representative from Federal Way Village LLC thanked the City for establishing the Local Revitalization Area in the City. Doug Cvderberg spoke regarding traffic issues in his neighborhood and thanked the City for installing a speed bump to help address the issue. H. David Kaplan spoke in support of the City's ability to manage financial issues. 5. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed below have been previously reviewed in their entirety by a Council Committee of three members and brought before full Council for approval; all items are enacted by one motion. Individual items may be removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion. a. Meeting Minutes: September 10, 2009 Special meeting, September 15, 2009 Special Meeting and September 15, 2009 Regular Meeting APPROVED b. Vouchers (FEDRAC 9- 22-19) APPROVED c. Monthly Financial Report (FE °Rocs- 22- os APPROVED d. SCORE Update SCORE Funding (FE°RAC9- 22-o9) APPROVED e. Emergency Equipment Purchase Update (LUTC 9-14-09) APPROVED f. Approval to Apply for the 2010 -2011 H Stormwater Pass Through Grant (WTC9 -14- 09) APPROVED City Council Minutes October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 6 g. Multi -Gas Detector Purchase Using Replacement Reserves (LUTC 9- 14 -09) APPROVED h. 2009 -2011 Commute Trip Reduction Implementation Agreement with WSDOT (LUTC 9- 14 -09) APPROVED i. Commute Trip Reduction Service Contract with King County July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011. (LUTC 9- 14 -09) APPROVED j. Sherwood Forest 2009 NTS Project (27 Ave. SW; SW 344 to SW 351 (LUTC9- 14-09) APPROVED k. Lake Grove 2009 NTS Projcct (SW 301 Street 6th Ave. SW to 1 Ave -SW) (LUTC 0 11 00) I. RESOLUTION Formation of a North Lake Advisory Committee (LUTC 9- 21-09) APPROVED Resolution 09 -560 m. RESOLUTION Approving and Confirming a Special Assessment Role for North Lake (LUTC 9- 21-09) APPROVED Resolution 09 -561 n. RESOLUTION Council Position on Proposition 1 Councilmember Kochmar pulled item k. Councilmember Ferrell pulled item n. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of items 5.k. and 5.n. VOTE: Motion carried 6 -0. k. Lake Grove 2009 NTS Project SW 304 Street 6 Ave. SW to 1 Ave SW (LUTC 9- 14-09) Councilmember Kochmar recused herself from this item. MOTION: Councilmember Duclos moved approval, Councilmember Burbidge second. VOTE Motion carried 5 -0. Councilmember Kochmar recused. n. RESOLUTION Council Position on Proposition 1 (Public Hearing 9-15-09) Councilmember Ferrell requested the Council vote on this item. MOTION: Councilmember Duclos moved approval, Councilmember Burbidge second. VOTE: Motion carried 5 -1 Councilmember Ferrell dissenting. Resolution 09 -563 6. COUNCIL BUSINESS a. Settlement Agreement with Blanchard City Attorney Richardson stated the City is a defendant in a lawsuit and participated in litigation. A tentative settlement agreement has been reached and if approved by Council will go to Superior Court on October 23, 2009 for approval. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved approval, Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 6-0. City Council Minutes October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 3 of 6 b. Business Incubation in Federal Way (FEDRAC9- 22 -09) Federal Way Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Pierson reviewed a proposed business plan for a new business incubation in Federal Way. Mr. Pierson stated this facility is designed to create jobs and accelerate the successful development of companies. Mr. Pierson reviewed the Chambers proposed business plan for creating a business incubator in Federal Way. They have leased a 14,000 square foot building and plan to make tenant improvements. Funding from WA State and ARRA Job Growth funds have been secured. They are seeking financial contributions from the City $100,000 in 2010 and 2011. Mr. Pierson noted the funds being requested will be designated to programming. City Manger Wilson stated if the Council approved the funding request, funds would come from the downtown development fund. MOTION: Councilmember Park moved to approved $200k ($100k in 2009 and $100k in 2010) for the Business Incubator in Federal Way. Councilmember Burbidge second. Councilmember Duclos recused herself from this item. VOTE: Motion carried 5 -0. Councilmember Duclos recused. c. Commission Appointment: Planning Commission One position on the Planning Commission has a term of October 20, 2009. Lawson Bronson, the current member serving in the position is seeking reappointment. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to re- appoint Lawson Bronson to the Planning Commission with a term expiring September 30, 2013. Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 6 -0. d. Municipal Stormwater Grant of Regional or Statewide Significance (LUTC 10-5439) Mr. Appleton stated this item was reviewed by LUTC the on October 5, 2009 and due to the grant application deadline, it was being presented to the Council the following night. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved approval of the recommendation to apply for grant funding. Councilmember Park second. VOTE: Motion carried 6 -0. e. RESOLUTION: Letter of Support for Boeing 787 Line in Washington Mayor Dovey reported the City was asked to approve a resolution supporting the States efforts to encourage the Boeing Company to keep their business in Washington. MOTION: Dovey moved approval of the resolution, Councilmember Kochmar second. VOTE: Motion carried 6 -0. Resolution No. 09 -563 City Council Minutes October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 4 of 6 7. INTRODUCTION FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES a. (1) Council Bill 506 Traffic Impact Fee (LUTC9- 14 -09) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE (TIF); AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS TO FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE CHAPTERS 19.91. The City Clerk read the ordinance title into the record. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to forward the ordinance to the October 20, 2009 meeting for second reading and enactment. Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 6-0. (2) Council Bill 507 Transportation Concurrence Management (LUTC 9- 14-09) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT; AMENDING FWRC 19.90.010, 19.90.060, 19.90.130, 19.90.140, AND 19.90.160. (AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 06- 525) The City Clerk read the ordinance title into the record. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to forward the ordinance to the October 20, 2009 meeting for second reading and enactment. Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 6 -0. b. Council BiII# 508 Establishing Time of Payment, Interest and Penalties for North Lake Management District (LUTC 9-1") AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE TIME OF PAYMENT, INTEREST, AND PENALTIES TO BE IMPOSED ON DELINQUENT ANNUAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR NORTH LAKE The City Clerk read the ordinance title into the record. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to forward the ordinance to the October 20, 2009 meeting for second reading and enactment. Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 6-0. c. Council BiII# 509 NPDES Code Amendments (LUTC s- 15-)9) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PHASE II PERMIT REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING FWRC CHAPTER 13.15, "BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS CHAPTER 14.25, "ENVIROMENTAL POLICY STATEMENTS TITLE 16, "SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT', CHAPTER 18.60, "SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS:, CHAPTER 19.05, ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL" CHAPTER 19.125 OUTDOORS, YARDS, AND LANDSCAPING CHAPTER 19.130, "OFF- STREET PARKING CHAPTER 19.135, "DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS: AND CHAPTER 19.120, "CLEARING, GRADING AND TREE AND VEGETATION RETENTION AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS TO FWRC 16.50 DISCHARGES TO FEDERAL WAY WATERS AND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. (AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 07 -563, 04 -468, 09 -593, 99 -352, 90 -43, 09 -597, 07 -554, 09 -610 AND 07 -559) City Council Minutes October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 5 of 6 The City Clerk read the ordinance title into the record. MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to forward the ordinance to the October 20, 2009 meeting for second reading and enactment. Councilmember Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 6 -0. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Ferrell reported that he, along with other Councilmember's attended a domestic violence awareness event on Oct. 5 at Christian Faith Center. Councilmember Duclos reported that Regional Policy Council forwarded a recommendation to the King County Council regarding Human Services funding. Councilmember Burbidge reported the next PRSHPS meeting is October 13, 2009. The next South County Area Transportation Board SCATBD Meeting on October 20, 2009. Councilmember Park reported the next FEDRAC meeting is October 27, 2009. Councilmember Kochmar reported the next LUTC meeting is October 19, 2009. Mayor Dovey reported the City received a good rating for bond funding on the Score Project. Valley -Comm with be discussing potential flood issues and response plans at an upcoming meeting. The next LTAC meeting is October 20, 2009. 9. CITY MANAGER REPORT Interim City Manager Wilson added to the comments on the domestic violence awareness event by stating Federal Way is a strong advocate of providing training to police officer and participation in efforts to change legislation related to domestic violence crimes. Mr. Wilson also reported the City is continuing their discussions with local transit providers regarding safety issues. 10.ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Council, Mayor Dovey adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. ATTEST: Carol McNeilly, CMC City Clerk Approved by Council: City Council Minutes October 6, 2009 Regular Meeting Page 6 of 6 COUNCIL MEETING DAT staler 2,0 2001 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program Ordinance COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: Consent (algal Ordinance )l2 Public Hearing City Council Business Resolution Other STAFF REPORT BY: Sarady Long, Sr. Transportation Planning Engineer DEPT: Public Works Linda Kochmar, Chair Dini Duclos, Member ITEM 5b G POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) program replacing the current pro -rata share mitigation method by requiring new development to pay their proportionate share of the cost of new facilities? MEETING DATE: Sept. 14, 2009 Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee (LUTC) dated September 14, 2009, including attachments. Options Considered: 1. Recommend adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (FWRC Chapter 19.91) and text amendments to Concurrency code (FWRC Chapter 19.90) as **recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Modify the proposed TIF ordinance to reflect the Permit Stakeholders preference for Impact Fee collection prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and forward to City Council for adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified. odify the TIF Ordinance by providing option for residential development (Plat and Subdivision) to either pay the impact fee prior to the issuance of Building Permit or provide a lien on the property in the amount of the TIF to be paid and lien cleared at Certificate of Occupancy (C /O). Commercials and retail developments would be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 4. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and forward to City Council for adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option and d fe g implementation to July 1, 2010. Ow'? r CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 4 'D IRECTOR APPROVAL: �GY G l_. Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option and deferring implementation to July 1, 2010 as etwi e_4t- L' -(,l? -h' r'' ee f I Cate- c 1Y- eV -'a-o a to WI '‘P°i t or- saki! PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: 1 st Reading of Ordinance (October 6, 2009): "I move to forward the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (FWRC Chapter 19.91) and text amendments to Concurrency code (FWRC Chapter 19.90) to the October 20, 2009 City Council Meeting for 2 Reading." r Reading of Ordinance (October 20, 2009): "I move adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (FWRC Chapter 19.91) and text amendments to Concurrency code (FWRC Chapter 19.90)." COUNCIL ACTION: 151 APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) K:\LUTC\2009\FW Traffic Impact Fee Agenda Bill 091409 LUTC.doc COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION 1O- l_0 •cP' CIT Cie deral Way INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 2, 2009 TO: City Council FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer RE: Federal Way Transportation Concurrency Management Ordinance Attached is a draft ordinance that captures the text amendments to the Concurrency Code (FWRC Chapter 19.90) that were discussed at the September 21, 2009 LUTC meeting. These amendments are necessary to avoid conflicts between the Transportation Impact Fee ordinance (FWRC 19.91) and Transportation Concurrency Ordinance (FWRC 19.90). Staff Recommendation: Approve the text amendments to FWRC 19.90 Transportation Concurrency Management in the draft ordinance along with the draft ordinance adding a new section to FWRC 19.91 Transportation Impact Fees. Revised Proposed Council Motion: 1 Reading of Ordinance (October 6, 2009): '7 move to forward the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (FWRC Chapter 19.91) and the Ordinance for text amendments to Concurrency code (FWRC Chapter 19.90) to the October 20, 2009 City Council Meeting for 2 Reading." 2" Reading of Ordinance (October 20, 2009): '7 move adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (FWRC Chapter 19.91) and the Ordinance for text amendments to Concurrency code (FWRC Chapter 19.90)." City of Federal Way Public Works Department Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: September 14, 2009 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer r Sarady Long, Senior Transportation Planning Engineer SUBJECT: Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) Program Ordinance BACKGROUND Attached is the draft Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) ordinance as approved by the Planning Commission. This is a new section added to Chapter 19.91 of the Federal Way Revise Code (FWRC), which pertains to Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. Second, the Concurrency Ordinance FWRC Chapter 19.90 is amended to delete reference to the pro -rata mitigation as the new mitigation will be under the TIF code. Currently, the City utilizes two methods to collect traffic mitigation fees; the concurrency system and the City Center Planned Action. Under the concurrency system which was adopted in June 2006, all development outside the Planned Action SEPA area that generates new trips is required to contribute pro rata share mitigation to Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects impacted by the development consistent with RCW 82.02.020. The pro -rata share mitigation fees assessed are calculated on a case -by -case basis and vary from no mitigation to over $5,900 per trip depending on the location of the development and projects on the TIP. For development within the City Center Planned Action SEPA area, a set fee of $2,827 per trip has been established. This fee needs to be updated this year to reflect current projects and costs. The new cost per trip results in a higher rate which is estimated around $5,000 per trip. SEPA is still required to address safety, access, and impacts occurring during other peak periods. All development is required to pay the identified traffic mitigation fees prior to the issuance of a building permit for commercial and multi family projects and prior to plat recording for subdivision projects. The funds from the traffic mitigation fees are used to support transportation improvement projects listed in the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE (TIF) PROGRAM The impact fees are mitigation payments authorized under GMA (RCW 82.02.050). The impact fee would replace the existing code -based pro -rata fees in the concurrency code (FWRC 19.90) and the Planned Action SEPA fee, create a more systematic way for applying the fees, and provide predictability for developers. The work involved with development of a TIF includes the following important factors: 1. Forecast growth on the City's transportation network attributed to new traffic growth using the Travel Demand model. 2. Identify transportation improvements, costs and existing deficiencies using adopted level of service (LOS) thresholds. 3. Determine portion of costs attributed to future traffic growth in Federal Way. K:\LUTC\2009 \09 -14 -09 LUTC Memo V2090609.doc LUTC Memorandum RE: Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program September 14, 2009 Page 2 of 4 4. Identify other revenues needed. 5. Establish a maximum impact fee rate based on the trips generated by traffic growth and the costs associated with the transportation improvement projects needed to support that growth. The City Council may refine this fee taking into consideration fees charged by the surrounding cities and the city's ability to fund the transportation improvement projects. In October 2008, staff presented to the Council an overview of the City's current mitigation program and the proposed impact fee program. Staff returned to a Council study session on February 2009 to present the result of the study and to seek Council direction before proceeding further with the TIF development. Staff was directed to continue refining the one -zone impact fee rate of $9,800 per PM Peak Hour trip with consideration of the followings: 1. Current pro -rata mitigation fee collected under concurrency 2. Adjacent jurisdictions impact fees 3. City Center redevelopment Following the Council study session, staff met with the development community (Permit Stakeholders) in March 2009 to discuss approaches and the proposed impact fee rate as presented to Council. As a result of these processes, staff performed additional analysis including surveying surrounding cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce County and produced a comprehensive overview of all city impact fee programs. The chart below depicts the city's current average pro -rata share mitigation fee under the concurrency process along with a summary of adjacent cities average impact fees. A more detailed comparison of impact fee rates and collection timing is attached as Exhibit "A" Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, Pierce and King County. $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 Avg. Citywide Mitigation (Existing) Impact Fee of Comparable Cities (Cost per PM Trip) $3,737 Avg. 3 Counties K: \LUTC\2009 \09 -14 -09 LUTC Memo V2090609.doc Avg. Cities in KC $3,769 $3,578 Avg. of larger Avg. of Cities with Comparable 25,000+ Pop. Cities Example Land Use Size Impact Fee Rate Total Traffic Mitigation Single Family l Unit $3,112 Unit $3,112 Multi- Family (Townhouse) 10 Units $2,019 Unit $20,019 General Office 10,000 sf GFA $4.72 sf $47,200 Restaurant (City Center) 4,000 sf GFA $9.42 sf $37,680 LUTC Memorandum RE: Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program September 14, 2009 Page 3 of 4 In South King County and North Pierce County, the City of Auburn, City of Puyallup, City of Tukwila and City of Maple Valley all have imposed traffic impact fees on new development. Their traffic impact fee ranges from $1,244 per PM trip up to $6,272 per PM trip. Of all the cities surveyed, majority or all cities collect impact fee at the building permit stage. In May 2009, staff returned to the Stakeholders to present the following staff recommendations: A. Citywide one zone system B. Impact fee rate between $2,729 to $3,578 per PM Peak Hour Trip C. Replace the Planned Action SEPA rate of $2,827 per trip with the TIF rate D. Adjustment/reduction up to 40 percent for qualified development within City Center due to lower trip generation; E. Collection timing of impact fee at building permits for all developments. Under existing process, commercial and multi- family development must pay traffic mitigation fees prior to the issuance of a building permit and prior to plat recording for subdivision projects. The Stakeholders concurred with most staff recommendations with the exception of collection timing. The Stakeholders recommend shifting the collection timing from Building Permit to the Certificate of Occupancy (C /O) and defer implementation to July 2010. It is assumed that pushing the payment to the Certificates of Occupancy (C /O) would reduce the amount financed by the applicant to complete the project, thereby reducing finance charges; and savings gained by the developer would then be passed on to the end user. The Stakeholders also recommend that the City impose the lower impact fee rate of $2,729 per PM Peak Hour trip as this is the current average pro -rata share mitigation paid by the developer. Based on the recommended rate of $2,729 per PM trip, a rate schedule was developed and attached as Exhibit "B" along with a rate study "Transportation Impact Fee Program" prepared by Fehr Peers/Mirai dated February 2009, attached as Exhibit "C The following are examples of typical developments and their potential traffic mitigation under the TIF program. The TIF's consultant (Fehr and Peers) strongly suggests for the City to implement payment of impact fee at Building Permit as this time frame is used in every impact fee program they developed. Only two jurisdictions (Kitsap and Pierce Counties) within Washington have implemented payment of impact fees after building permit issuance. Since then, these jurisdictions have changed their collection timing due to default of impact fee payments. Pierce County repealed their ordinance due to a 27 percent delinquency rate and Kitsap County changed their collection point to final inspection instead of Certificate of Occupancy due to high delinquency rates. The Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorneys Office is currently exploring ways of collecting unpaid impact fees. K:\LUTC\2009 \09 -14 -09 LUTC Memo V2090609.doc LUTC Memorandum RE: Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program September 14, 2009 Page 4 of 4 The following is list of potential pros and cons for each of collection timing method: Building Permits Issuance Pros: 1. Consistent with current practice for school impact fee. 2. Consistent with other cities that have an impact fee program (there would not be a surprise for developers). 3. Minimal staff time to administer with high collection rate without institutional enforcement as current system is in place for this method. 4. Predictability as impact fee would be assessed and payable at the same time. Cons: 1. May add financing cost for development due to financing charges. Certificate of Occupancy (C /O) Pros: 1. May lower financing cost for development. 2. Timing of payment of fee coincides with timing of actual impacts. Cons: 1. Staff may be pressured to grant Certificate of Occupancy to projects that are completed with the exception of fee payment. 2. Projects often change hands during the construction process and the end user may not be informed that fees are tied to Certificate of Occupancy as was the case in Pierce County. 3. Unpredictability. Most developer would like to tie down cost at the start of the project and collection at C/O does not accomplish this desire with lengthy project and yearly TIF update. Impact fee may be higher at time of collection than at building permit issuance. 4. Increase staff time devoted to tracking deferred fees and delinquent collection activity. 5. High delinquency rate as demonstrated in Pierce and Kitsap County. On July 1, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed impact fee code FWRC Chapter 19.91 and an amendment to the existing concurrency code to replace pro -rata mitigation with the TIF. No public comment was received and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval as drafted by staff without any changes. Planning Commission staff report and minutes are attached as Exhibit "D Attachment: Exhibit A Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, Pierce and King County Exhibit B Federal Way Impact Fee Components and Schedule Exhibit C Transportation Impact Fee Program prepared by Fehr Peers/Mirai dated February 2009 Exhibit D Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes Chapter 19.91 Transportation Impact Fees Chapter 19.90 Transportation Concurrency cc: Project File Day File K: \LUTC\2009 \09 -14 -09 LUTC Memo V2090609.doc County King King King King King King King King King King King King King King King King King King King Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Pierce Snohomish Snohomish City Exhibit "A" Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, Pierce, and King County Auburn Bellevue Bothell Burien Covington (Average) Des Moines Enumclaw Issaquah Kenmore Kirkland Maple Valley Milton Newcastle Redmond Renton Sammamish Sea Tac Tukwila Woodinville Auburn Bonney Lake Buckley Edgewood Fife Gig Harbor Milton Puyallup Sumner University Place Arlington Edmonds 2008 Population Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip 60,400 $2,663 119,200 $526 17,130 $2,999 31,540 $948 17,360 $3,053 29,180 $2,615 11,470 $2,643 26,320 $4,839 20,220 $7,287 48,410 $3,787 20,480 $6,272 825 $2,026 9,720 $3,376 51,320 $8,462 78,780 $750 40,550 $14,707 25,720 $1,020 18,080 $1,244 10,560 $1,792 6,605 $2,663 16,220 $4,003 4,560 $4,340 9,595 $4,615 7,525 $5,830 6,910 $2,124 5,710 $2,026 36,930 $4,502 9,060 $1,415 31,440 $3,989 17,050 $3,355 40,760 $841 Collection Timing Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit and Final Plat approval Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit. Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Pending Building Permit Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Snohomish Everett Gold Bar Granite Falls Marysville Mill Creek Monroe Mountlake Terrace Mukilteo Snohomish Stanwood Sultan 102,300 $909 Building Permit and Final Plat approval 2,210 $65 Pending 3,290 $2,250 Pending 37,060 $5,973 Building Permit and Recording Final Plat 17,770 $2,939 Building Permit and Final Plat approval 16,550 $1,759 Building Permit. 20,930 $357 Building Permit 20,050 $1,875 Building Permit 9,020 $1,436 Pending 5,445 $2,316 Building Permit and Final Plat approval 4,550 $5,272 Building Permit $3,229 Land Use ITE Land Use Code Unit of Measure Basic Trip Rate New Trip X New Trip Rate Avg.Trip Le (mile Trip Length Adjustment Impact Fee Rate Impact Fee Rate Cost Per Trip End 3.1 $2 729 $2,729 Residential Single Family (Detached) 210 dwelling 1.01 100% 1.01 3.5 1.129 $3,111.94 $3.112 Multi Family 220, 221,230 dwelling 0.62 100% 0.62 3.7 1.19 $2.019.46 $2,019 Senior Housing 251 dwelling 0.31 100% 0.31 2.8 0.90 $764.12 $764 Mobile Home in MH Park 240 dwelling 0.59 100% 0.59 2.8 0.90 $1,454.29 $1,454 Commercial Services Drive-in Bank 912 sf /GFA 25.82 60% 15.49 1.5 0.48 $20.46 $20.46 Hotel 310 room 0.59 100% 0.59 4.0 1.29 $2,077.56 $2,078 Motel 320 room 0.47 100% 0.47 4.0 1.29 $1,655.01 51,655 Day Care Center 565 sf/GFA 12.46 75% 9.35 2.0 065 $16.45 516.45 Library 590 sf/GFA 7.30 75% 5.48 1.7 0.55 $8.19 $8.19 Post Office 732 sf /GFA 11.12 75% 8.34 1.7 0.55 $12.48 $12.48 Service Station 944 VFP 13.87 40% 5.55 1.7 0.55 88,302.85 $8,303 Service Station with Miniman 945 sf/GFA 97.08 30% 29.12 1.7 0.55 $43.59 543.59 Auto Care Center 942 sf /GLA 3.38 70% 2.37 2.2 0.71 $4.58 $4.58 Movie Theater 444,445 seat 0.07 85% 0.06 2.3 0.74 $120.47 8120 Health Club 492, 493 st /GFA 3.53 75% 2.65 3.1 1.00 $7.23 $7.23 Commercial Institutional Elementary School 520 sf /GFA 1.21 80% 0.97 1.7 0.55 $1.45 $1.45 Middle /Jr Hiqh School 522 sf /GFA 1.19 80% 0.95 27 0.87 $2.26 $2.26 High School 530 sf /GFA 0.97 80% 0.78 3.7 1.19 $2.53 52.53 Assisted Living, Nursing Home 254, 620 bed 0.22 100% 0.22 2.8 0.90 8542.28 $542 Church 560 sf /GFA 0.55 100% 0.55 3.7 1.19 $1.79 $1.79 Hospital 610 sf /GFA 1,14 80% 0.91_ 4.0 129 $3.21 $3.21 Commercial Restaurant Restaurant 931 sf /GFA 7.49 60% 4.49 3.4 1.10 $13.45 $13.45 High Turnover Restaurant 932 sf/GFA 11.15 60% 6.69 2.3 0.74 $13.55 $13.55 Fast Food Restaurant 934 sf /GFA 33.84 50% 16.92 2.0 0.65 529.79 529.79 Espresso with Drive Through 938 sf/GFA 75.00 20% 15.00 2.0 065 526.41 526.41 Commercial Retail Shopping Shopping Center 820 sf/GLA 3.87 70% 2.71 2.1 0.68 $5.01 55.01 Supermarket 850 sf /GFA 10.50 75% 7.88 2.1 0.68 814.56 $14.56 Convenience Market 851 sf/GFA 52.41 45% 23.58 1.3 0.42 $26.99 $26.99 Free Standing Discount Store 813, 815, 857, sf /GFA 4.67 70% 3.27 2.1 0.68 56.04 $6.04 Hardware/Paint Store 816 sf /GFA 4.84 40% 1.94 1.7 0.55 $2.90 $2.90 Specialty Retail Center 814 sf /GFA 2.71 50% 1.36 1.7 0.55 $2.03 82.03 Furniture Store 890 sf /GFA 0.45 60% 0.27 1.7 0.55 $0.40 50.40 Home Improvement Superstore 862 sf/GFA 2.37 70% 1.66 2.1 068 $3.07 $3.07 Pharmacy with Drive Through 881 sf /GFA 10.35 50% 5.18 1.7 0.55 $7.74 57.74 Car Sales -New/ Used 841 sf/GFA 2.59 80% 2.07 4.0 1.29 $7.30 $7.30 Commercial Office General Office 710, 715, 750 sf /GFA 1.49 90% 1.34 4.0 1.29 54.72 $4.72 Medical Office 720 sf/GFA 3.46 75% 2.60 4.0 129 $9.14 $9.14 Industrial Light Industry/Manufacturing 110, 140 sf /GFA 0.97 100% 0.97 4.0 1.29 $3.42 $3.42 Heavy Industry 120 sf/GFA 0.68 100% 0.68 40 1.29 $2.39 $2.39 Industrial Park 130 sf /GFA 0.86 100% 0.86 4.0 1.29 53.03 53.03 Mini Warehouse /Storage 151 sf /GFA 0.26 100% 0.26 40 1.29 50.92 50.92 Warehousing 150 sf /GFA 0.32 100% 0.32 4.0 1.29 $1.13 51.13 City Center Impact Fee Rates Residential Multi- Family (CC) Senior Housing (CC) Drive -in Bank (CC) Day Care Center (CC) Library (CC) Post Office (CC) Movie Theater (CC) Health Club (CC) Restaurant (CC) High Tumover Restaurant (CC) Fast Food Restaurant (CC) Shopping Center (CC) Supermarket (CC) Pharmacy with Drive Through (CC) General Office (CC) Medical Office (CC) 220, 221,230. 233 251 912 565 590 732 444, 445 492, 493 931 932 934 820 850 881 710, 715, 750 720 dwelling dwelling sf/GFA sf/GFA sfGFA sf /GFA seat sf/GFA sf/GFA sf /GFA sf /GFA sf /GLA sf /GFA sf/GFA sf /GFA sf /GFA 0.62 0.31 Commercial Services 25.82 12.46 7.30 11.12 0.07 3.53 7.49 11.15 33.84 3.87 10.50 10.35 1.49 3.46 100% 100% 60% 75% 75% 75% 85% 75% 60% 60% 50% 70% 75% 50% 90% 75% 0.62 0.31 15.49 9.35 5.48 8.34 0.06 2.65 4.49 6.69 16.92 2.71 7.88 5.18 1.34 2.60 3.7 2.8 1.5 2.0 17 1.7 2.3 3.1 3.4 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.7 40 40 1.19 0.90 0.48 0.65 0.55 0.55 0.74 1 00 1.10 0.74 0 65 0.68 0.68 0.55 1.29 1.29 $2,019.46 $764.12 520.46 $16.45 $8.19 512.46 $120.47 $7.23 Commercial Restaurant $13.45 $13.55 $29.79 Commercial Retail Shopping 55.01 $14.56 57.74 $4.72 $9.14 $2,019 5764 $20.46 $16.45 $8.19 $12.48 $120 $7.23 513.45 $13.55 $29.79 $5.01 $14.56 $7.74 $4.72 59.14 City Center Reduction Factor 72% 72% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% City Center Impact Fee Rate $1,453. $550.08 $14.32 $11.52 $5.73 58.74 584.00 55.06 59.42 59.49 $20.85 53.51 510.19 $5.42 $2.83 55.48 City Center Impact Fee Rate 51.454 5550 514.32 $11.52 55.73 58.74 584.00 $5.06 59.42 $9.49 820.85 53.51 510.19 55.42 Commercial Office $2.83 55.48 raon CFA Gross Floor Area CLA Gros Leasable Area CC City Center For uses with Unit of Measure n sF, trip ram is given as trips per 1,000 sF VFP Vehicle Fueling Positions (Maximum number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously) Exhibit "B" Federal Way Impact Fee Components and Schedule CITY OF Federal W EX i b i+ "C" City of Federal Way TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM Prepared by: fp FE. -I Pl t_ 11410 NE 122nd Way Suite 320 Kirkland, WA 98034 February 2009 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION fp FEHR PEERS M 1 r a i This report summarizes the policy and technical development of the Transportation Impact Fee program for the City of Federal Way, Washington. DEFINITION OF IMPACT FEES Impact fees are a broad category of charges on new development assessed to pay for capital improvements (e.g., parks, schools, roads, etc.) necessitated by new development. Cities collect transportation impact fees to fund improvements that add capacity to the transportation system accommodating the travel demand added by new development. The City developed the program based on the following findings: Development activity in the City, including residential, commercial, retail, office, and industrial development, will create additional demand and need for public road facilities; Federal Way is authorized under the state's Growth Management Act (Chapter 82.02.050 RCW) to require new growth and development within the City to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new road facilities serving that new growth and development through the imposition of impact fees; Impact fees (Chapter 92.02) may be collected and spent for public road facilities needed for system improvements that are included within the capital facilities plan in the City's comprehensive plan. LEGAL BASIS The primary enabling mechanism for imposing impact fees in Washington State is the Growth Management Act (GMA). Prior to the passage of the GMA, local agencies primarily relied on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process to require developers to fund mitigation projects necessitated by new development. The GMA, passed in 1990, modified the portion of RCW 82.05.050 regarding impact fees and specifically authorized the use of impact fees for areas planning under the Growth Management Act. The GMA allows impact fees for system improvements that reasonably relate to the impacts of new development, and specifies that fees are not to exceed a proportionate share of the costs of improvements. For a city to impose GMA impact fees, the following specific provisions are required: The city must have an ordinance authorizing impact fees; Fees may apply only to improvements identified in a Capital Facilities Plan; The agency must establish one or more service areas for fees; City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Fees not expended within six years must be refunded with interest. An accounting system is important to ensure that the impact fees collected are assigned to the appropriate improvement projects and the developer is not charged twice for the same improvement. GUIDING PRINCIPLES A set of guiding principles provided consistent direction for development of the transportation impact fee program. The program should: Be legally and technically defensible (provide a nexus to impact); Be financially constrained; City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study FEHR PEERS Mira' A formula or other method for calculating impact fees must be established; The fees cannot be used to finance the portion of improvements needed to pay for existing capacity deficiencies. (Note: the fees can be used to recoup the cost of improvements already made to address the needs of future development); The fees may not be arbitrary or duplicative; The fees must be earmarked specifically and be retained in special interest- bearing accounts; be paid under protest; and, Figure 1. Traffic Impact Fee Fees may P P Program Development Steps DEVELOP IMPROVEMENT UST AND COSTS Growth Portion ALLOCATE COSTS TO GROWTH WITHIN CITY IDENTIFY AVAILABLE FUNDING Be fair, consistent and predictable in its development and application; Have reasonable rates based on improvements necessary to accommodate new growth and development under the Comprehensive Plan; Be simple to administer and not preclude other requirements of SEPA such as safety issues, access improvements, etc.; and, Address multi- jurisdictional issues as much as practicable. These guiding principles were used to test alternative ideas and select an appropriate method of calculating impact fees for the City. IMPACT FEE COSTS IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE February 2009 Page 2 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT f FEHR PtERS M i ra i' IMPACT FEE STRUCTURE The key steps involved in the impact fee process are shown in Figure 1. Steps include developing a list of road improvements and costs, allocating growth- related costs within the City, and identifying available funding. The remaining costs can be charged as impact fees, which are displayed in the form of a fee schedule. Each step is described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report includes the following sections: Introduction Impact Fee Project List Cost Allocation Impact Fee Schedule DATA ROUNDING The data in this study were prepared using computer spreadsheet software. In some tables in this study, there will be very small variations from the results that would be obtained using a calculator to compute the same data. The reason for these insignificant differences is that the spreadsheet software calculated the results to more places after the decimal than is reported in the tables in the report. City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT CHAPTER 2. IMPACT FEE PROJECT LIST Washington State law RCW 82.02.050 specifies that Transportation Impact Fees are to be spent on "system improvements." System improvements can include physical or operational changes to existing roadways, as well as new roadway connections that are built in one location to benefit projected needs at another location. These are generally projects that add capacity (new streets, additional lanes, widening, signalization, et al). The impact fee structure for the City of Federal Way was designed to determine the fair share of road improvement costs that may be charged to new developments. During the transportation planning process, the City identified projects needed by 2030 to meet the transportation needs of the adopted land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The task was accomplished by examining existing roadway deficiencies and forecasting future needs. The City of Federal Way used a cost model to estimate the costs for these capacity improvements.. These capital projects form the basis for the impact fees project list, which includes public and private sources. The impact fee project list was composed of selected capacity projects from the City's 2009- 2014 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), which covers a six -year period and the City's 2009 -2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The project list, shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2 includes 35 projects. City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study fp FEHR PEERS Mira i February 2009 Page 4 Map ID Project Group Project Location Project Description Total Cost 1 D City Center Access Phase 3 Add 2nd SB left turn lane, 3rd SB right- turn lane to 1 -5 SB off-ramp to S 320th St $2,850,000 2 D City Center Access Phase 4 amp over 1 -5, realign Wlooidp en S 32 0th d NSt B bridge ramp 20,621,000 3 B S 320th St 1st Ave S Add 2nd left-turn lanes, WB, NB, SB right -turn lanes, widen 1st Ave S to 5 lanes to S 316th St 12,600,000 4 C S 320th St: 8th Ave S SR 99 Add HOV lanes, install raised median 15,523,000 5 H S 348th St 1st Ave S Add SB, WB right turn lanes, 2nd EB, WB left -turn lanes 5,400,000 6 G 10th Ave SW SW Campus Dr Add SB right -turn lane 1,308,000 7 G SW 344th St: 12th Ave SW 21st Ave SW Extend 3 lane principal collector with bike lanes, sidewalks 7,115,000 8 C S 320th St 20th Ave S Add 2nd left -turn lanes EB, WB 5,760,000 9 G 21st Ave SW SW 336th St Add 2nd t -turn left-turn lane lanes all approaches, WB righ 12,348,000 10 C SR 99 S 312th St Add 2nd left-turn lane NB 8,568,000 11 B SW 312th St: 14th Ave SW SR 509 Widen to 3 lanes with bike lanes, sidewalks, new signal at 14th Ave SW 4,366,000 12 H S 356th St: SR 99 SR 161 Widen to 5 lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks 8,712,000 13 A S 304th St 28th Ave S Add NB right -turn lane, signal 2,148,000 14 H S 352nd St: SR 99 SR 161 Extend 3 lane principal collector and signal at SR -99 5,200,000 15 B SW 320th St 21st Ave SW Add 2nd WB left-turn lane, Interconnect to 26th Ave SW 4,320,000 16 C S 320th St: 1st Ave S 8th Ave S Add HOV lanes, install raised median 15,523,000 17 A Military Rd S: S Star Lake Rd S 288th St Widen to 5 lanes, sidewalks, street lights 13,068,000 18 F SW 320th St 47th Ave SW Install traffic signal 360,000 19 A S 312th St 28th Ave S Add SB right -turn lane 540,000 20 F SW 336th Wy SW 340th St: 26th PI SW Hoyt Rd Widen to 5 lanes, add signal at 26th PI SW 15,312,000 21 E S 336th St: 18th Ave S— Weyerhaeuser Way S Widen to 3 lanes 1,200,000 22 H SR 99: S 340th St S 356th St: W Construct HOV lanes, add B right -tum lane, 2nd SB left -turn lane 348th 33,264,000 23 C S 312th St: 23rd Ave S 28th Ave S Widen to 5 lanes 5,544,000 24 H S 348th St: 1st Ave S 9th Ave S Add HOV lanes 15,523,000 25 C S 324th St: SR 99 23rd Ave S Widen to 5 lanes, add 3rd WB left-turn lane SR 99 7,840,000 26 H 1st Ave S: S 366th St SR 99 Extend 2 -lane road 5,610,000 27 C 14th Ave S: S 312th St S 316th St Ring Road extension 4,066,000 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Table 1. List of Transportation Capacity Projects City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study f P FEHR PEERS Mira]. February 2009 Page 5 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Table 1. List of Transportation Capacity Projects (Continued) FEHR PEERS Mirai 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 G D H A E A C C 'r+ ca tion S 316th St: SR99- 11thP1S S 312th St: 28th Ave S Military Rd SR 18 SR 161 S 304th St SR 99 SR 99 S 336th St Military Rd S: S 288th St —1 -5 SW 330th St 1st Ave S S 312th St: 1st Ave S to 14th Ave S Ring Road extension Extend 5 -lane arterial, interchange 1 -5 Add 3rd SB thru lane, 3rd SB left-turn lane, 2nd NB right -tum lane Add left-turn lanes on 304th Add 2nd EB and SB left lane, widen 336th to 5 lanes to 20th Widen to 5 lanes Signal modifications, extend NB left-turn lane Widen to 5 lanes Total Project Costs 6,160,000 23,894,000 9,072,000 1,080,000 6,300,000 17,424,000 377,000 21,344,000 $320,340,000 City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 6 3i ry N'Sw 340th 5 Sw:344thSt i nset Sw 320th St Sw 312th St Sw 330th St S 336th St m 5 348th St 5 St x,£ nootA S 360th St 5 312th St LEGEND 5 320th Si 5 320th -St.- S.31 rith St iP P FEHR PEERS M i t t i N:\ Projects \SE08.0066_FederalWay- ImpactFee\ Graphics \GIS \MXD \figOx trans_imp fee_update2.mxd 0 Intersection Project Street Project W j City of Federal Way I i City Limits Park Open Space 0 N NOT TO SCALE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROJECTS FIGURE 2 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT CHAPTER 3. COST ALLOCATION The City used an impact fee methodology that distinguishes between facility improvements that address existing deficiencies and those that are needed to serve new growth. For growth- related projects, this method assumes that traffic generated by future development is the reason for the improvement project(s). Figure 3 diagrams the process. Figure 3. Impact Fee Cost Allocation Concept Capacity Projects Portion Due to New Growth Non -City Growth Cost Allocated to Impact Fees City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study List of Pro ects Safety Pedi Bike Maintenance' Other Portion Due to Existing Deficiency i Cost Paid by City or Others I P F'EHR PEERS M i rai TRANSPORTATION DEFICIENCIES RCW 82.02.050(4) (a) requires that the Capital Facilities Element of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan identify "deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development Under the GMA, future development cannot be held responsible for the portion of added roadway capacity needed to serve existing development. To adequately assess both the extent of the existing roadway deficiencies and the magnitude of the future needs on arterial roadways, the City developed a standard evaluation criterion. A criterion selected to be uniform, consistent, and easily applied to the available roadway traffic volume data. The criterion selected is defined by the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) average volume /capacity (v /c) ratio for intersections along a roadway section. The v/c ratio was calculated using the Synchro software. For roadway segments that contain multiple intersections, an average v/c was calculated. The average was weighted according to the February 2009 Page 8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT total traffic volumes passing through each intersection with a v/c ratio greater than 1.0 considered to be over capacity or deficient. The standards used to apply the v/c ratio are documented in the adopted Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Using this methodology e, roadway segments in two project were found to have existing deficiencies with v/c ratios of 1.01 and 1.05. Table 2 summarizes the analysis findings. Next the City needed to determine the "existing deficiency portion" (as opposed to the portion that would be attributable to new growth). Under the GMA, the City is responsible for financing the existing deficiency portion, but the City can charge new development for the remainder of the roadway improvement. The City can select from several approaches to proportionately allocate the cost. The Federal Way Impact Fee Program uses a method based on the amount of excess "existing and future new traffic" that exceeds the current capacity of the roadway facility. The formula for determining the existing deficiency percentage of a road follows. Existing Deficiency Percentage (Existing v/c 1.0) (Existing v/c Improved v /c) As an example, consider the existing deficiency percentage for project 5 (selected from Table 2) that would be calculated as follows. Existing Deficiency Percentage: (1.05 -1.0)= (1.05- 0.78) 0.05_ 0.27 =18.5 percent Using this formula, 18.5 percent of the roadway improvement capacity is attributed to existing traffic. This formula was also applied to the other deficient segment and the resulting percent deficient is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Transportation Deficiency Calculation Refer to Figure 2 City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study F P FEHR PEERS Mirai c ap 5 30 Ca Projects S 348th St 1st Ave S SR 18 SR 161 Add SB, WB right -turn lanes, 2nd EB, WB left-turn lanes 1.05 Add 3rd SB thru lane, 3rd SB left-tum lane, 2nd NB right -turn lane 1.01 0.78 0.87 18.5% 7.1% February 2009 Page 9 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT f P FEHR. PEERS M i ra i TRAVEL GROWTH To match the 2008 -2030 Capital Investment Program, the City used a 23 -year land use growth estimate. Table 3 shows Federal Way land use forecasts in terms of housing (single family and multi family) and employment (retail, office and industrial) units for the years 2008 to 2030. The land use forecasts are listed for the City Center, non -City Center area (rest of the City) and the citywide total. The housing and employment growth estimates were converted to PM peak hour vehicle trip ends' using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition, 2008). These growth estimates result in an increase of 13,974 PM peak hour vehicle trip ends within the City during the 23 -year period. Of the total trip ends, 4,481 trips ends are within the City Center and 9,493 are within the rest of the City. This growth in vehicle trip ends was used to calculate the impact fee rates. Table 3. Federal Way Land Use Growth Households Single Family Multi Family Employment Households Single Family Multi Family Employment Households Single Family Multi Family Employment 1 802 6,490 18,466 15,317 21,838 18,467 16,119 28,328 1 2,242 9,416 20,384 16,078 30,292 20,385 18,320 39,708 Estimated Growth to 2030 City Center 0 1,440 2,926 Non -City Center Area 1,918 761 8,454 City Totals 1,918 2,201 11,380 Source: City of Federal Way, 2008 1 A vehicle trip travels between an origin and a destination. Each vehicle trip has two trip ends, one each at the origin and destination. Trip ends represent the traffic coming to and from a given land use. The trip ends were calculated with trip generation formulas used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 10 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT F P FEHR PEERS M i ra i, COST ALLOCATION RESULTS The cost allocation process distributes the growth costs for each project based upon the travel patterns between the different geographic areas within and outside the City limits. A "select link" assignment procedure provided the origin and destination information for each vehicle trip traveling through a particular improvement project group. The grouping of projects for the select link assignments is shown in the first column of Table 1. Trips that pass through Federal Way, but do not have any origins or destinations internal to Federal Way, were not allocated to Federal Way growth. That is, development in Federal Way would not be charged for impacts by growth in trips passing "through" the City. Figure 4 summarizes the cost allocation results. For discussion purposes, the dollar amounts shown in this figure and the following text descriptions are approximate values expressed in million dollars. The actual amounts used in the calculations are accurate to a single dollar. The total cost of the capacity projects on the capacity project list is $320.3 million. The City has committed developer funds equaling $1.3 million which leaves a need for $319.0 million. The remaining $319.0 was divided into growth costs and existing deficiencies, with the growth costs representing $317.4 million, or 99 percent of the total costs. The growth costs were further divided into "city growth" and "outside city growth" components using the City's traffic model data. The details of this calculation are shown in Appendix A. City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 11 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Figure 4. Impact Fee Cost Allocation Results Total Cost $32O3 M Appropriated SEPA Funds $1.3 M City Growth S136.9 M (43%) New Impact Fee Costs S136.9 M Funds Needed $319.0 M Growth Costs .$317.4 M (99%) Outside City Growth S180.4 M (57%) New PM Peak Hour Trip Ends 13,974 Cost'Trip End $9,800 Existing Deficiencies $1.6 M (1%) Other Funds Needed $1821 M City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study f P i PEERS M i ra i February 2009 Page 12 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Figure 5 shows that the new impact fees could contribute $136.9 million (43 percent) of the total $320.3 million cost of the improvement projects. New grant funds ($116.3 million) would cover approximately 36 percent of the total cost, while growth related SEPA funds and expected SEPA funds from other jurisdictions would each contribute less than one percent of the total project costs. Figure 5. Impact Fee Program Funding Sources Expected SEPA Funds from Other Jurisdictions, $835,000 Expected Impact Fee Funds, $136,945,397 City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study City of Federal Way Cost Allocation of Transportation Improvement Projects (2008 2030) Total Project Costs $320,340,000 Other City Funds, $20,295,306 Growth Related Committed Funds (SEPA), $1,332,097 Equals: Cost per new trip end 9,800 Expected Grant Funds, $116,335,200 City Funds from Utility and Real Estate Excise Taxes, $44,597,000 FEHR Sr PEERS Mirai The final step in the cost allocation process dealt with calculating the "cost per new trip end" within Federal Way, which was derived by dividing the total eligible project cost by the total number of new PM peak hour trip ends based in Federal Way. The City is likely to gain an additional 13,974 new PM peak hour vehicle trip ends within the City between 2008 and 2030. The $9,800 per trip end represents the maximum allowable rate to meet the GMA requirements. The analysis produced the following results. Impact fee costs 136,945,397 Divided by: New PM peak hour trip ends 13,974 February 2009 Page 13 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT CHAPTER 4 IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE fp FEHR PEERS Mira' The impact fee schedule was developed by adjusting the "cost per trip end" information to reflect differences in trip- making characteristics for a variety of land use types within the study area. The rates in the fee schedule represent dollars per unit for each land use category. Table 4 shows the various components of the fee schedule (trip generation rates, new trip percentages, trip lengths, and trip length adjustment for each land use). TRIP GENERATION COMPONENTS Trip generation rates for each land use type are derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition). The rates are expressed as vehicle trips entering and leaving a property during the PM peak hour. Pass by Trip Adjustment Trip generation rates represent the total traffic entering and leaving a property at the driveway points. For certain land uses (e.g., retail), a substantial amount of this traffic is already passing by the property and merely turns into and out of the driveway. These pass by trips do not significantly impact the surrounding street system and therefore are subtracted out prior to calculating the impact fee. The resulting trips are considered "new" to the street system and are therefore subject to the impact fee calculation. The "new" trip percentages are derived partially from ITE data and from available surveys conducted around the country.' Trip Length Adjustment Another variable that affects traffic impacts is the length of the trip generated by a particular land use. The "cost per trip" calculated in the impact fee program represents an average for all new trips generated within Federal Way. Being an average, there will be certain land uses that generate trips of different lengths. If a given trip length is shorter than the average, then its relative traffic impacts on the street system will be lower than average. Conversely, longer trips will impact a larger proportion of the transportation network. To account for these differences, an adjustment factor is used, calculated as the ratio between the trip length for a particular land use type and the "average" trip length for the city. The average trip length estimated for Federal Way was 3.1 miles, based upon the 2030 mix of land use types within the study area and the geographic size of the city. 2 Trip Generation Sources: ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition); ITE Trip Generation Handbook,(March 2001); Pinellas County (FI) Impact Fee Study (1991), Osceola County (FI), Alternative Traffic Generation Rate Study (2004), Polk County (FI) Transportation Impact Fee Study (2005). City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 14 Land. Use tTlv Use Cade Unit of Measure Basic Trip Rate Trips/Unit New Trip Adjustment New Trip R ate Aug. Trip Length (mites) Trip Length, Factor Residential Single Family (Detached) 210 dwelling 1.01 100% 1.01 3.5 1.13 Multi- Family 220 21, 230, 233 dwelling 0.62 100% 0.62 3.7 1.19 Senior Housing 251 dwelling 0.31 100% 0.31 2.8 0.90 Mobile Home in MH Park 240 dwelling 0.59 100% 0.59 2.8 0.90 Commercial Services Drive -in Bank 912 sf /GFA 25.82 60% 15.49 1.5 0.48 Hotel 310 room 0.59 100% 0.59 4.0 1.29 Motel 320 room 0.47 100% 0.47 4.0 1.29 Day Care Center 565 sf /GFA 12.46 75% 9.35 2.0 0.65 Library 590 sf /GFA 7.30 75% 5.48 1.7 0.55 Post Office 732 sf /GFA 11.12 75% 8.34 1.7 0.55 Service Station 944 VFP 13.87 40% 5.55 1.7 0.55 Service Station with Minimart 945 sf /GFA 97.08 30% 29.12 1.7 0.55 Auto Care Center 942 sf /GLA 3.38 70% 2.37 2.2 0.71 Movie Theater 444, 445 seat 0.07 85% 0.06 2.3 0.74 Health Club 492, 493 sf /GFA 3.53 75% 2.65 3.1 1.00 Commercial Institutional Elementary School 520 sf /GFA 1.21 80% 0.97 1.7 0.55 Middle /Jr High School 522 sf /GFA 1.19 80% 0.95 2.7 0.87 High School 530 sf /GFA 0.97 80% 0.78 3.7 1.19 Assisted Living, Nursing Home 254, 620 bed 0.22 100% 0.22 2.8 0.90 Church 560 sf /GFA 0.55 100% 0.55 3.7 1.19 Hospital 610 sf /GFA 1.14 80% 0.91 4.0 1.29 Commercial Restaurant Restaurant 931 sf /GFA 7.49 80% 5.99 3.4 1.10 High Tumover Restaurant 932 sf /GFA 11.15 80% 8.92 2.3 0.74 Fast Food Restaurant 934 sf /GFA 33.84 50% 16.92 2.0 0.65 Espresso w /drive thru 938 sf /GFA 75.00 20% 15.00 2.0 0.65 Commercial Retail Shopping Shopping Center 820 sf /GLA 3.87 70% 2.71 2.1 0.68 Supermarket 850 sf /GFA 10.50 75% 7.88 2.1 0.68 Convenience Market 851 sf /GFA 52.41 45% 23.58 1.3 0.42 Free Standing Discount Store 813, 815, 857, 863, 864 sf /GFA 4.67 70% 3.27 2.1 0.68 Hardware /Paint Store 816 sf /GFA 4.84 40% 1.94 1.7 0.55 Specialty Retail Center 814 sf /GFA 2.71 50% 1.36 1.7 0.55 Furniture Store 890 sf /GFA 0.45 60% 0.27 1.7 0.55 Home Improvement Superstore 862 sf /GFA 2.37 70% 1.66 2.1 0.68 Pharmacy (with Drive Through) 881 sf /GFA 10.35 50% 5.18 1.7 0.55 Car Sales -New/ Used 841 sf /GFA 2.59 80% 2.07 4.0 1.29 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Table 4. Impact Fee Schedule Components F P FEHR PEERS ,Mirai City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 15 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Table 4. Impact Fee Schedule Components (Continued) Commercial Office General Office Medical Office Industrial Light Industry/Manufacturing Heavy Industry Industrial Park Mini Warehouse /Storage Warehousing Use Code 710, 715, 750 720 110, 140 120 130 151 150 sf /GFA sf /GFA sf /GFA sf /GFA sf /GFA sf /GFA sf /GFA 1.49 3.46 0.97 0.68 0.86 0.26 0.32 New Trip 90% 75% 10 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1.34 2.60 0.97 0.68 0.86 0.26 0.32 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Trip Length Adpistmen t Factor 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 Notes: GFA Gross Floor Area GLA Gross Leasable Area For uses with Unit of Measure in SF, trip rate is given as trips per 1000 SF VFP Vehicle Fueling Positions (Maximum number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously) City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study F P I'EHR PEERS M i r a i February 2009 Page 16 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT SCHEDULE OF RATES The impact fee schedule of maximum allowable rates is shown in Table 5. In the fee schedule, fees are shown as dollars per unit of development for various land use categories, as defined in Appendix B. The impact fee program is flexible, in that, if a use does not fit into one of the categories, an impact fee can be calculated based on the development's projected trip generation. Two Zone Approach A two zone approach will start with citywide cost per trip and apply lower trip generation rates in City Center for certain land uses anticipated in the Planned Action SEPA. The City Center is anticipated to have lower trip generation rates due to the higher density of buildings, mix of land uses and the availability of transit. This results in lower impact fee rates in City Center as shown in Table X. Table X Reduced Trip Generation Rates in City Center City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study Insert Table FEHR VEERS Mira February 2009 Page 17 i.aid Use ITS Land Use Code Unit of Measure Impact Fee R Residential Single Family (Detached) 210 dwelling $11,175 Multi- Family 220 233 230 dwelling $7,252 Senior Housing 251 dwelling $2,744 Mobile Home in MH Paric 240 dwelling $5,222 Commercial Services Drive -in Bank 912 sf /GFA $73.46 Hotel 310 room $7,461 Motel 320 room $5,943 Day Care Center 565 sf /GFA $59.09 Library 590 sf /GFA $29.42 Post Office 732 sf /GFA $44.82 Service Station 944 VFP $29,816 Service Station with Minimart 945 sf /GFA $157 Auto Care Center 942 sf /GLA $16.46 Movie Theater 444, 445 seat $433 Health Club 492, 493 sf /GFA $25.95 Commercial Institutional Elementary School 520 sf /GFA $5.20 Middle /Jr High School 522 sf /GFA $8.13 High School 530 sf /GFA $9.08 Assisted Living, Nursing Home 254, 620 bed $1,947 Church 560 sf /GFA $6.43 Hospital 610 sf /GFA $11.53 Commercial Restaurant Restaurant 931 sf /GFA $64.41 High Turnover Restaurant 932 sf /GFA $64.86 Fast Food Restaurant 934 sf /GFA $107 Espresso w /drive thru 938 sf /GFA $94.84 Commercial Retail Shopping Shopping Center 820 sf /GLA $17.99 Supermarket 850 sf /GFA $52.28 Convenience Market 851 sf /GFA $96.93 Free Standing Discount Store 813, 815, 857, 863, 864 sf /GFA $21.70 Hardware /Paint Store 816 sf /GFA $10.41 Specialty Retail Center 814 sf /GFA $7.28 Furniture Store 890 sf /GFA $1.45 Home Improvement Superstore 862 sf /GFA $11.01 Pharmacy (with Drive Through) 881 sf /GFA $27.81 Car Sales -New/ Used 841 sf /GFA $26.20 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule (Maximum Allowable Rates) City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study FEHR PEERS Mira i February 2009 Page 18 Land Use t T£ C Use Unit of Measure t Rate Fee Commercial Office General Office 710, 715, 750 sf /GFA $16.96 Medical Office 720 sf /GFA $32.82 Industrial Light Industry/Manufacturing 110, 140 sf /GFA $12.27 Heavy Industry 120 sf /GFA $8.60 Industrial Park 130 sf /GFA $10.88 Mini Warehouse /Storage 151 sf /GFA $3.29 Warehousing 150 sf /GFA $4.05 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Table 5. Impact Fee Schedule Continued (Maximum Allowable Rates) Notes: GFA Gross Floor Area GLA Gross Leasable Area For uses with Unit of Measure in SF, trip rate is given as trips per 1000 SF VFP Vehicle Fueling Positions (Maximum number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously) City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study FEHR PEERS Mirai', February 2009 Page 19 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Table 6 provides two examples (residential and office) of the calculation. Table 6. Example Calculations of Impact Fee Rate (Maximum Allowable Rates) fp FEHR PEERS x x x PM Pee our Trip Generation (per uni Source: ITE Trip Generation Percent New Trips Trip Length Adjustment Trip Length (miles) Average Trip Length (miles) Average Cost per Trip End Divide by 1000 for rate per square foot Impact Fee Rate (per unit) esktential: Single Family 100% 3.5 3.1 $9,800 NA $11,175 /dwelling General Office 1.49 90% 4.0 3.1 $9,800 1000 $16.96/sq ft City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 20 A Northeast Federal Way B North Central Federal Way, SR 509 C City Center D 1 -5 Interchanges at S 312th St and S 304th St E S 336th Corridor F West Federal Way G South Central Federal Way, 21st Avenue SW F Southeast Federal Way TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT APPENDIX A COST ALLOCATION RESULTS The cost allocation results are summarized in this Appendix. Exhibit A -1 illustrates how the impact fee project costs (shown in Table 1) were divided into growth related costs attributable to the City. In order to determine this proportion, the City's travel demand model was used to identify the portion of trip making associated with existing and growth related traffic. A technique called "select- link" analysis was used to isolate the vehicle trips using each of the impact fee projects. The first column of Exhibit A -1 shows several "project groups which represent the grouping of impact fee projects used in the select link traffic forecasts. Each project group includes impact fee projects that are located within close proximity to each other, representing similar traffic patterns. The grouping of projects is shown at the bottom of Exhibit A -1. Exhibit A -1. Cost Allocation by Project Group Project Group A B C D E F G H Total Total Project Costs (Total) $34,260,000 $21,286,000 $90,705,000 $47,365,000 $7,500,000 $15,672,000 $20,771,000 $82,781,000 $320,340,000 Existing Deficiency Portion $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,648,000 $1,648,000 Gro L__ Related Committed Funding $2,216 $250,697 $381,867 $164,172 $36,885 $0 $253,129 $243,131 $1,332,097 r lest in Deficiencies and Committed Funding $34,257,784 $21,035,303 $90,323,133 $47,200,828 $7,463,115 $15,672,000 $20,517,871 $80,889,869 $317,359,903 $317,359,903 17.4% 28.5% 56.8% 34.2% 37.0% 38.1 41.3% 49.9% 43.2% yect Co vi able for. ct Fees $5,973,801 $5,989,469 $51,322,735 $16,122,584 $2,758,108 $5,972,561 $8,468,565 $40,337,576 $136,945,397 $136,945,397 Project Group Definitions (used for grouping capacity projects for travel modeling) City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study F P 1'EHR PEERS Mira 1 February 2009 Page 21 NNa P Pro f Gro Project Total Cost Existg Deficiency Amount Growth Related Committed Costs Growth Cost 1 D City Center Access Phase 3 $2,850,000 $164,172 $2,685,828 2 D City Center Access Phase 4 20,621,000 20,621,000 3 B S 320th St 1st Ave S 12,600,000 135,331 12,464,669 4 C S 320th St: 8th Ave S SR 99 15,523,000 259,762 15,263,238 5 H S 348th St 1st Ave S 5,400,000 1,000,000 170,446 4,229,554 6 G 10th Ave SW SW Campus Dr 1,308,000 1,308,000 7 G SW 344th St: 12th Ave SW 21st Ave 7,115,000 253,129 6,861,871 8 C S 320th St 20th Ave S 5,760,000 62,121 5,697,879 9 G 21st Ave SW SW 336th St 12,348,000 12,348,000 10 C SR 99 S 312th St 8,568,000 8,568,000 11 B SW 312th St: 14th Ave SW SR 509 4,366,000 110,244 4,255,756 12 H S 356th St: SR 99 SR 161 8,712,000 24,773 8,687,227 13 A S 304th St 28th Ave S 2,148,000 2,148,000 14 H S 352nd St: SR 99 SR 161 5,200,000 47,912 5,152,088 15 B SW 320th St 21st Ave SW 4,320,000 5,122 4,314,878 16 C S 320th St: 1st Ave S 8th Ave S 15,523,000 59,984 15,463,016 17 A S Rd S: S Star Lake Rd S 288th 13,068,000 13,068,000 18 F SW 320th St 47th Ave SW 360,000 360,000 19 A S 312th St 28th Ave S 540,000 2,216 537,784 20 F SW 336th Wy SW 340th St: 26th PI SW Hoyt Rd 15,312,000 15,312,000 21 E S 336th St: 18th Ave S Weyerhaeuser Way S 1,200,000 36,885 1,163,115 22 H SR 99: S 340th St S 356th St: 33,264,000 33,264,000 23 C S 312th St: 23rd Ave S 28th Ave S 5,544,000 5,544,000 24 H S 348th St: 1st Ave S 9th Ave S 15,523,000 15,523,000 25 C S 324th St: SR 99 23rd Ave S 7,840,000 7,840,000 26 H 1st Ave S: S 366th St SR 99 5,610,000 5,610,000 27 C 14th Ave S: S 312th St -S 316th St 4,066,000 4,066,000 28 C S 316th St: SR 99- 11th PIS 6,160,000 6,160,000 29 D S 312th St: 28th Ave S Military Rd 23,894,000 23,894,000 30 H SR 18 SR 161 9,072,000 648,000 8,424,000 31 A S 304th St SR 99 1,080,000 1,080,000 32 E SR 99 S 336th St 6,300,000 6,300,000 33 A Military Rd S: S 288th St -1 -5 17,424,000 17,424,000 34 C SW 330th St 1st Ave S 377,000 377,000 35 C S 312th St: 1st Ave S to 14th Ave S 21,344, 000 21,344, 000 Total $320,340,000 $1,648,000 $1,332,097 $317,359,903 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT Exhibit A -2. Growth Cost Calculations City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study f P FEHR PEERS Mira Exhibit A -2 shows how the growth costs were determined for each impact fee project. The growth costs equal the total project cost subtracted by the existing deficiency amount and growth related committed costs. February 2009 Page 22 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study P P FEHR PEERS Mirai APPENDIX B LAND USE DEFINITIONS The following land use definitions are derived from the ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition). They have been modified as appropriate for the City of Federal Way. Land use codes marked with and asterisk were selected for use in the Impact Fee Schedule. RESIDENTIAL Single Family: One or more detached housing units located on an individual lot. Also includes accessory dwelling units and duplexes. (ITE 210) Multi Family: A building or buildings designed to house three or more families living independently of each other. Includes apartments, condos, attached duplexes and attached townhouses. Includes accessory dwelling units (separate structure) and single room occupancy, if additional parking provided. (ITE #s 220 221, 230, and 233) Senior Housing Residential units similar to apartments or condominiums restricted to senior citizens. (ITE 251. Uses 50 percent of trip generation values used for ITE #s 220 221, 230, and 233) Mobile Home (in Mobile Home Park): Trailers shipped, sited, and installed on permanent foundations within a mobile home park. (ITE 240) COMMERCIAL SERVICES Drive -in Bank: A free standing building, with or without a drive -up window, for the custody or exchange of money, and for facilitating the transmission of funds. (ITE 912) Hotel: A place of lodging providing sleeping accommodations. May include restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities. (ITE 310) Motel: A place of lodging providing sleeping accommodations. Motels generally offer free on -site parking, little or no meeting space, and may have exterior corridors. (ITE 320) Day Care Center: A facility for the care of infant and preschool age children during the daytime hours. Generally includes classrooms, offices, eating areas, and a playground. (ITE 565) Library: A public facility for the use, but not sale, of literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials. (ITE 590) Post Office: Houses service windows for mailing packages and letters, post office boxes, offices, vehicle storage areas, and sorting and distribution facilities for mail. (ITE 732) Service Station: A facility used for the sale of gasoline, oil, and lubricants. May include areas for servicing, repairing, and washing vehicles. (ITE 944) Service Station with Minimart: A facility which combines elements of a convenience store and a gas station. Convenience food items are sold along with gasoline and other car products; gas pumps are primarily or completely self service. (ITE 945) February 2009 Page 23 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT fp FEHR PEERS Mi rain Automobile Care Center: An automobile care center houses numerous businesses that provide automobile related services, such as repair and servicing, stereo installation and seat cover upholstering. (ITE 942) Movie Theater: Consists of audience seating, one or more screens and auditoriums, and a lobby and refreshment stand. Typically includes matinee showings. (ITE #s 444 445) Health Club: Privately owned facilities that primarily focus on individual fitness or training. They generally offer exercise or dance classes, weightlifting, fitness and gymnastics equipments, spas, massage services, locker rooms and small restaurants or juice /snack bars. These may also include ancillary facilities, such as swimming pools, whirlpools, saunas and tennis. (ITE #s 492 493) COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL Elementary School: These are facilities of education serving students attending kindergarten through fifth or sixth grade. (ITE 520) Elementary and Junior High School: These are facilities of education serving students who have completed elementary school and have not yet entered high school. (ITE #s 522) High School: High Schools serve students who have completed middle or junior high school. (ITE 530) Assisted Living, Nursing Home: One or more multi-unit buildings designed for the elderly or those who are unable to live independently due to physical or mental handicap. Facilities may contain dining rooms, medical facilities, and recreational facilities. The primary function of a nursing home is to provide chronic or convalescent care for persons who by reason of illness or infirmity are unable to care for themselves. Applies to rest homes, chronic care, and convalescent centers. (ITE #s 254* and 620) Church: A building providing public worship facilities. Generally houses as assembly hall or sanctuary, meeting rooms, classrooms, and occasionally dining facilities. (ITE 560) Hospital: A building or buildings designed for the medical, surgical diagnosis, treatment and housing of persons under the care of doctors and nurses. Rest homes, nursing homes, convalescent homes and clinics are not included. (ITE #610) COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT Restaurant: An eating establishment, which sells prepared food or beverages and generally offers accommodations for consuming the food or beverage on the premises. Usually serves breakfast, lunch, and /or dinner; generally does not have a drive -up window. Includes bars/ taverns. (ITE 931) High Turnover Restaurant: A sit -down, full service eating establishment with a turnover rate of approximately one hour or less. This type of restaurant is usually moderately priced and frequently belongs to a restaurant chain. Generally, these restaurants serve lunch and dinner; they may also be open for breakfast and are sometimes open 24 hours per day. (ITE 932) City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 24 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study F P FEHR PEERS Mirai Fast Food Restaurant An eating establishment that offers quick food service and a limited menu of items. Food is generally served in disposable wrappings or containers, and may be consumed inside or outside the restaurant building. Restaurants in this category have a drive -up window. (ITE 934) Espresso Drive Thru: A drive -up kiosk serving coffee and related beverages. No inside seating is provided and facilities are typically 200 square feet or smaller (ITE 938; trip rates using local surveys COMMERCIAL- RETAIL Shopping Center: An integrated group of commercial establishments that is planned, developed, owned, or managed as a unit. On -site parking facilities are provided, and administrative office areas are usually included. In addition to the integrated unit of shops in one building or enclosed around a mall, include peripheral buildings located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points. Supermarkets should typically be separated for calculation purposes from the rest of the shopping center. (ITE 820) Supermarket: Retail store (greater than 5,000 gsf) that sells a complete assortment of food, food preparation and wrapping materials, and household cleaning and servicing items. (ITE 850) Convenience Market A use (less than 5,000 gsf) that combines retail food sales with fast foods or take out food service; generally open long hours or 24 hours a day. (ITE 851) Free Standing Discount Store: A free standing store or warehouse with off street parking. Usually offers centralized cashiering and a wide range of merchandise and /or food products. May include items sold in large quantities or bulk. Often is the only store on a site, but can be found in mutual operation with its own or other supermarkets, garden centers and service stations, or as part of community-sized shopping centers. Fred Meyer stores, Costco, and big box consumer electronic /computer /toy stores are examples of this land use. (ITE #s 813, 815, 857, 863, and 864 average of rates used) Hardware/Paint Store: A small free standing or attached store with off -street parking. Stores sell hardware, paint, and related materials. Storage areas are not included in the total gross floor area. (ITE 816) Specialty Retail Center: These retail centers are generally small strip shopping centers that contain a variety of retail shops and specialize in quality apparel; hard goods; and services, such as retail estate offices, dance studios, florists and small restaurants. (ITE 814) Furniture Store: Furniture stores specialize in the sale of furniture, and often, carpeting. The stores are generally large and include storage areas. (ITE 890) Home Improvement Superstore: A free standing warehouse type facility (25,000 to 150,000 gsf) with off -street parking. Generally offers a variety of customer services (home improvements; lumber, tools, paint, lighting, wallpaper, kitchen and bathroom fixtures, lawn equipment, and garden equipment) and centralized cashiering. (ITE 862) February 2009 Page 25 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE REPORT fp FEHR PEERS Mira i Pharmacy (with drive through window): A pharmacy which sells prescriptions and non- prescription drugs, cosmetics, toiletries, medications, stationery, personal care products, limited food products, and general merchandise. The drug stores may contain drive through windows. (ITE 881) Car Sales (New and Used): Facilities are generally located as strip development along major arterial streets that already have a preponderance of commercial development. Generally included are auto services and parts sales along with a sometimes substantial used -car operation. Some dealerships also include leasing activities and truck sales and servicing. (ITE 841) COMMERCIAL- OFFICE General Office: An office building houses one or more tenants and is the location where affairs of a business, commercial or industrial organization, professional person or firm are conducted. The building or buildings may be limited to one tenant, either the owner or lessee, or contain a mixture of tenants including professional services, insurance companies, investment brokers, and company headquarters. Services such as a bank or savings and loan, a restaurant or cafeteria, miscellaneous retail facilities, and fitness facilities for building tenants may also be included. (ITE #s 710 715, and 750) Medical Office: A facility which provides diagnoses and outpatient care on a routine basis but which is unable to provide prolonged in -house medical /surgical care. A medical office is generally operated by either a single private physician. (ITE 720) INDUSTRIAL Light Industry/Manufacturing: A facility where the primary activity is the conversion of raw materials or parts into finished products. Generally also have offices and associated functions. Typical uses are printing plants, material testing laboratories, bio- technology, medical instrumentation or supplies, communications and information technology, and computer hardware and software. (ITE #s 110* and 140) Heavy Industry: These facilities usually have a high number of employees per industrial plant and could also be categorized as manufacturing facilities. Heavy industrial uses are limited to the manufacturing of large items. (ITE 120) Industrial Park: Areas containing a number of industrial or related facilities. They are characterized by a mix of manufacturing, service, and warehouse facilities with a wide variation in the proportion of each type of use from one location to another. Industrial parks include research centers facilities or groups of facilities that are devoted nearly exclusively to research and development activities. (ITE 130) Mini- Warehouse: Buildings in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. Each unit is physically separated from other units, and access is usually provided through an overhead door or other common access point. (ITE 151) Warehousing: Facilities that are primarily devoted to the storage of materials, including vehicles. They may also include office and maintenance areas. (ITE 150) City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fee Rate Study February 2009 Page 26 CITY OF x11;b ;-f- "D Federal Way STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Public Hearing July 1, 2009 Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, Zoning and Development Code Division III. Mitigation and Fees (File No. 09- 102146- 00 -UP) L BACKGROUND The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1995 with Policy (TP85) which calls for the implementation of a Traffic Impact Fee (TM) system to better assure consistency with concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA). TP 85 Develop a transportation impact fee by 2002 to simplify development review, assess mitigation fees consistently and fairly, improve the City's ability to leverage grant funding for transportation founding, and provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate new growth. The impact fees are mitigation payments authorized under GMA (RCW 82.02.050). The Traffic Impact Fee would replace the existing code -based pro -rata fees, and create a more systematic way for applying the fees and fulfill the Comprehensive Plan Policy TP85. 11. EXISTING MITIGATION PROGRAM Currently, the City utilizes two methods to collect traffic mitigation fees; the concurrency system and the City Center Planned. Action. Under the concurrency system which was adopted in June 2006, all development outside the Planned Action SEPA area that generates new trips is required to contribute pro -rata share mitigation to Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) projects impacted by the development consistent with RCW 82.02.020. The mitigation fees assessed are calculated on a case -by -case basis and vary from no mitigation to over $5,900 per trip depending on the location of the development and projects on the TIP. Under the concurrency system, the average pro -rata mitigation fee collected over the last two year is approximately $2,729 per PM Peak Hour trip. For development within the City Center Planned Action SEPA area, a set fee of $2,827 per trip has been established. All development must pay the identified traffic mitigation fees prior to the issuance of a building permit for commercial and mufti- family projects and prior to plat recording for subdivision projects. The funds from the traffic mitigation fees are used to support transportation improvement projects listed in the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Table 1. FW TIF Program Total CIP eligible Project Costs $320 Million Number of eligible projects 35 Projects Traffic Growth New Peak Hour Trip Ends 13,974 Number of Years (Assumed) 23 Years Estimate Fee Revenues (with Maximum Rate of $9,800) $137 Million Portion of Project paid by new development in Federal Way 43% Maximum allowable Cost per PM Peak Hour Trip (Citywide)* $9,800 III. PROPOSED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM The proposed amendments would be a new code section, FWRC Title 19 "Zoning and Development Code," Division [I[ "Mitigation and Fees" requiring developers to mitigate traffic impacts generated by new development to the city. As mentioned above, under the current pro -rata share mitigation program, adopted in June 2006, fees for new development have varied from zero to $5,900 per trip depending on project location. The proposed TIF would replace the existing pro -rata mitigation fee in the concurrency code, create a more systematic way for applying the fees, and provide predictability for the developers. The work involved with development of a TIF includes the following important factors: 1. Forecast growth on the City's transportation network attributed to new traffic growth using the Travel Demand model. 2. Identify transportation improvements, costs and existing deficiencies using adopted level of service (LOS) thresholds. 3. Determine portion of costs attributed to future traffic growth in Federal Way. 4. Identify other revenues needed. 5. Established a maximum impact fee rate based on the trips generated by traffic growth and the costs associated with the transportation improvement projects needed to support that growth. The City Council may refine this fee taking into consideration fees charged by the surrounding cities and the city's ability to fund the transportation improvement projects. On October 21, 2009, staff presented to the Council an overview of the City's current mitigation program and the proposed impact fee program. On February 17, 2009, staff returned to a Council study session to present the result of the study with a maximum allowable impact fee rate of $9,800 per PM Peak Hour Trip and discuss policy direction. The result of the initial study is presented in Table 1 below. *The City Council may refine this fee taking into consideration fees charged by the surrounding cities and the city's ability to fund the transportation improvement projects. Council provided direction to continue refining the fee rate with consideration of the current mitigation fee collected and impact fees from adjacent jurisdictions. Following the Council study session, staff met with the development community (Permit Stakeholders) in early March of 2009 to discuss approaches and the proposed impact fee rate as presented to Council. The Stakeholders list is attached as Exhibit "A As a result of these 2 processes, staff surveyed surrounding cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce County and produced a comprehensive overview of all city impact fees. Local Cities Experience with the TIF Collection Timing and Fee Rate En South King County and North Pierce County, the City of Auburn, City of Puyallup, City of Tukwila and City of Maple Valley all have imposed traffic impact fees on new development. Their traffic impact fee ranges from $1,244 per trip up to $6,272_ The chart below depicts the city's current average pro -rata share mitigation fee along with adjacent cities impact fee. Of the cities surveyed, majority or all collect impact fee at the building permit stage. A more detailed comparison of impact fee rates and collection timing is attached as Exhibit "B" Transportation mpact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, Pierce and King County. $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $3,737 $3,769 $3,578 $2,729 Avg. Citywide Concurrency Mitigation $3,229 Avg. 3 Counties Avg. Cities in Avg. of larger Avg. of KC Cities with Comparable 25,000+ Pop. Cities On May 6, 2009, staff returned to the development community to present the staff recommended impact fee rate between $2,729 to $3,578 per PM Peak Hour Trip and the following key issues: Citywide one zone system Adjustments /reduction up to 40 percent for qualified development within City Center due to lower trip generation Collection of impact fee at building permit for all developments The stakeholders recommended moving the TIF forward with an impact fee rate of $2,729 per PM Peak Hour trip, modifying the collection timing to the Certificate of Occupancy (C /O) and defer implementation to July 2010_ Staff concurred with the recommended fee of $2,729 per PM trip as this is the average pro -rata mitigation fee current collected. Based on the recommended rate of $2,729 per PM trip, a rate schedule was developed and attached as Exhibit "C The following are examples of typical developments and their potential traffic mitigation under the TIF program. 3 Example Land Use Size PM Peak Trip Generated Transportation Impact Fee Rate Total Project Traffic Mitigation Single Family 1 Unit 1.01 Unit $3,112 Unit $3,112 Multi- Family (Townhouse) 10 Units 0.62 Unit $2,019 Unit $2,019 Restaurant 4,000 sf GLA 0.00449 sf $13.45 sf $53,800 Restaurant (City Center) 4,000 sf GLA 0.00449 sf $9.42 sf $37,680 Traffic impact Fee Example IV. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT The proposed amendments are as follows: Exhibit "D" Chapter 19.91 Transportation Impact Fee. This is all new code language and is not underlined. Exhibit "E" Chapter 19.90 Transportation Concurrency Management. The following sections would be amended: Section 19.90.010 "Trip Generation" definition is amended to read as follows: "Trip Generation" means the number of peak hour trips estimated to be produced by the development activity using Institute of Traffic Transportation Engineers (ITE). Section 19.90.130 Concurrency administration Purpose and procedure. Section (4) (j) is deleted entirely as it's not longer applicable with the TIF. Section 19.90.140 (2) is amended to read as follows: (2) Denial. If no appeal is transmitted to the director pursuant to FWRC 19.90.160 within +4 30 calendar days after issuance of the determination, the encumbrance shall be released and made available for subsequent applications. Section 19.90.160 is amended to read as follows: The concurrency determination of the director may be appealed by the applicant or owner using the same process as the underlying development permit application or as provided for in process IV of this title if there is no underlying development permit_ The appeal, in the form of a notice of appeal, must be delivered to the department of public works within -14 30 calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director. In those cases where the proposed development activity may require a public hearing, the hearings may be combined. Section 19.90.060 (2) is amended to read as follows: (2) The following types of development permits are typically exempt from concurrency management review and the requirements of this chapter because they do not create additional long- term.impacts on road facilities. However, if any development permit from the list below generates any net new trips in the peak period, it shall not be exempt from concurrency evaluation. (a) Boundary line adjustment; (b) Demolition permit; (c) Electrical permit; (d) Fire protection system permit; (e) Tenant improvements with no change of use; (f) Land surface modification; 4 (g) Lot line elimination; (h) Mechanical permit. (i) Plumbing permit; (j) Right -of -way modification; (k) Right -of -way use permit: (I) Sign permit; (m) Single family remodeling with no change of use; (n) Rezones; (o) Comprehensive plan amendment; (p) Shoreline permit; (q) Commercial subdivisions: (r) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADUI (s) Binding Site Plan (BSP) (t) Business License (u) Use Process i V. ANALYSIS OE KEY ISSUES The proposed traffic impact fee if adopted would help to mitigate impacts created by new development. This policy complies with the state's Growth Management Act (GMA) intent that new growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. As referenced above, staff met with Permit Stakeholders twice and as a result of this process recommendations /suggestion raised by the group were addressed and incorporated into the proposed code with the exception of collection timing. The following are keys issues from the group with staff responses: How would the TIF affect existing applications (vested for TIF)? Staff Response: Any development permits application with a concurrency application in conjunction with a complete land use application would be vested to the current pro -rata mitigation system. Are there any land uses that are exempt from paying impact fee? Staff Response: Yes, only structures constructed by a regional transit authority as define in RCW 82.02.09. No other uses are exetnpt, which is consistent with current pro -rata mitigation system. How will change of use be handled? Staff Response: The impact fee for change of use would be assessed based on the difference of the fees between the uses. Can the mixed use development reduction/adjustment proposed in City Center be used elsewhere in the City? Staff Response: Yes, with supporting documentation to be provided by the applicant. In developing the impact fee rate, would the City provide average impact fee from other jurisdictions for comparison? Staff Response: In this area, the City of Auburn, City of Puyallup, City of Tukwila and City of Maple Valley all have imposed traffic impact fees on new development. Their traffic impact fee ranges from $1,244 per trip up to $6,272. Staff also considered other cities within the three counties (King, Pierce and Snohomish County) that have a transportation impact fee rates. The impact fee rate from all the cities in the three counties is attached (Exhibit B). Would the City consider using the 6 -Year TIP project list and not the CIP project list as a based for the TIF calculation? Staff Response: Yes. The consultant evaluated both options and provided staff with a cost per trip with pros and cons for each. The maximum allowable cost per trip for the 6 -Year TIP project is 12,587 and $9,800 for the CIP. The 6 -Year TIP project would be approximately $2,787 per trip over the CIP (2030) project. Please see table below for calculations_ When would Impact Fee payment required? Staff Response: Currently, mitigation fees are collected prior to building permit issuance for commercial and multi family projects and prior to plat recording for subdivision projects. Under the proposed impact fee system, staff is proposing to have impact fee payable at building permits issuance for all developments which is consistent with adjacent cities collection method and as recommended by the consultant. Please see attachment of Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce County. On May 6, 2009 meeting with the development community, the consensus among the Stakeholders group was to have the impact fee payable at the issuance of a Certificates of Occupancy (CIO) for all developments with the flexibility for director to modify on a case -by- case basis. It is assumed that pushing the payment to the Certificates of Occupancy would reduce the amount financed by the applicant to complete the project, thereby reducing finance charges; and savings gained by the developer are then passed on to the end user. Only two jurisdictions (Kitsap and Pierce Counties) within Washington have implemented payment of impact fees after building permits issuance. Since then, these jurisdictions have changed their collection timing due to default of impact fee payments. Pierce County repealed their ordinance due to a 27 percent delinquency rate. Kitsap County changed their collection point to final inspection instead of Certificate of Occupancy due to high delinquency rates. The Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorneys Office is currently exploring ways of collecting unpaid impact fees. The following are list of potential pros and cons for each of collection timing method: Building Permits Issuance Pros: 6 2015 TIP 2030 CIP Project Costs $161.6 M $320.3 M Years 6 23 Traffic Growth Trips 5,221 13,974 Cost Per PM Trip $12,587 $9,800 fee ranges from $1,244 per trip up to $6,272. Staff also considered other cities within the three counties (King, Pierce and Snohomish County) that have a transportation impact fee rates. The impact fee rate from all the cities in the three counties is attached (Exhibit B). Would the City consider using the 6 -Year TIP project list and not the CIP project list as a based for the TIF calculation? Staff Response: Yes. The consultant evaluated both options and provided staff with a cost per trip with pros and cons for each. The maximum allowable cost per trip for the 6 -Year TIP project is 12,587 and $9,800 for the CIP. The 6 -Year TIP project would be approximately $2,787 per trip over the CIP (2030) project. Please see table below for calculations_ When would Impact Fee payment required? Staff Response: Currently, mitigation fees are collected prior to building permit issuance for commercial and multi family projects and prior to plat recording for subdivision projects. Under the proposed impact fee system, staff is proposing to have impact fee payable at building permits issuance for all developments which is consistent with adjacent cities collection method and as recommended by the consultant. Please see attachment of Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, King and Pierce County. On May 6, 2009 meeting with the development community, the consensus among the Stakeholders group was to have the impact fee payable at the issuance of a Certificates of Occupancy (CIO) for all developments with the flexibility for director to modify on a case -by- case basis. It is assumed that pushing the payment to the Certificates of Occupancy would reduce the amount financed by the applicant to complete the project, thereby reducing finance charges; and savings gained by the developer are then passed on to the end user. Only two jurisdictions (Kitsap and Pierce Counties) within Washington have implemented payment of impact fees after building permits issuance. Since then, these jurisdictions have changed their collection timing due to default of impact fee payments. Pierce County repealed their ordinance due to a 27 percent delinquency rate. Kitsap County changed their collection point to final inspection instead of Certificate of Occupancy due to high delinquency rates. The Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorneys Office is currently exploring ways of collecting unpaid impact fees. The following are list of potential pros and cons for each of collection timing method: Building Permits Issuance Pros: 6 1. Consistent with most or all of cities with impact fee program 2. Minimal staff time to administer with high collection rate without institutional enforcement 3. Predictability as impact fee would be assessed and payable at the same time Cons: 1. May add financing cost for development due to financing charges Certificate of Occupancy (C /O) Pros: I. May lower financing cost for development 2. Timing of payment of fee coincides with timing of actual impacts Cons: 1. Staff may be pressured to grant Certificate of Occupancy to projects that are completed with the exception of fee payment. 2. Projects often change hands during the construction process and the end user may not realize that fees are tied to Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Increase staff time devoted to tracking deferred fees and delinquent collection activity 4. High delinquency rate as demonstrated in Pierce and Kitsap County 5. Impact fee may be higher at time of collection than at building permit issuance VI. Environmental Review Pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(19), the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from review under the State Environmental Police Act as it relates to governmental procedures and contains no substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment. VILSTAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the code amendment attached as Exhibit "D" and fee schedule as Exhibit "C" be recommended for approval to the City Council. Due to current economic climate and the potential perception that the TIF would be a new fee in addition to, rather than a replacement for the current pro -rata mitigation system, staff proposes to defer implementation to July 1, 2010. VIII. 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: I. To review and evaluate the proposed development regulation amendments. 2. To determine whether the proposed development regulation amendment meets the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.1 30 3. To forward a recommendation to City Council regarding adoption of the proposed development regulation amendment. 7 IX. 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. The proposed FWRC text amendment is consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goals and policies: LUP -6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the permit review process. TP 85 Develop a transportation impact fee by 2002 to simplify development review. assess mitigation fees consistently and fairly. improve the City's ability to leverage grant funding for transportation funding, and provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate new growth. HP -8 Consider the economic impact of all development regulations on the cost of housing. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed amendment bears substantial relationship to public health, safety, and welfare as it seeks to ensure funding for capital projects in meeting concurrency and provide development with predictability, consistency and fairness in assessing traffic impact thus may reduce finance charges to the developer. Consistency and predictability for developers may encourage new development bringing new jobs and providing more economic activity in the city. 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the City. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city as its intent is to have new development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth, ensure funding for capital projects to meet concurrency needs and provide predictability, consistency and fairness to the developers in assessing development impact fees. X. 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 to reflect the Permit Stakeholders preference for Impact Fee collection prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; 8 3. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to City Council adoption of the FWCC text amendments as modified; 4. Recommend to City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted; or 5. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to City Council without a recommendation. EXHIBITS A Stakholders Distribution List Name B Transportation Impact Fee Rates for Cities in Snohomish, Pierce, and King County C Federal Way Impact Fee Components and Schedule D Chapter 19.91 Transportation Impact Fees E Chapter 19.90 Transportation Concurrency Management Report Prepared by: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer 9 July 1, 2009 7:00 p.m. Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Lawson Bronson, Wayne Carlson, Tom Medhurst, Tim O'Neil, and Sarady Long. Commissioners absent: none. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Public Works Director Marwan Salloum, City Traffic Engineer 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 May 20, 2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None COMMISSION BUSINESS K:1Piaming Comm ssion12009\Meming Summary 07- 01 -09.do r CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall Council Chambers PUBLIC HEARING Traffic Impact Fee Commissioner Long recused himself as he is the city's project manager for the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF). He asked if it would be acceptable for him to remain in the audience to be available to answer questions. Chair Pfeifer replied that would be acceptable. Mr. Perez delivered the staff report. He explained that currently the city uses a concurrency analysis to determine if traffic mitigation is necessary. The city uses a pro -rata share mitigation method (which can result in fees ranging from zero up to $5,600 per trip) to arrive at the mitigation fee. For projects in the city center, a set fee (as determined by the City Center Planned Action) is used. SEPA mitigation is used for construction improvements beyond projects identified in the program and site specific impacts. The city is proposing a set TIF as opposed to the pro -rata share mitigation method. The concurrency analysis would still be done and SEPA mitigation will not change. Mr. Don Samdahl with Fehr Peers/Mirai continued the presentation with information on the reasons to have a TIF, state requirements, and how the proposed amount of the fee was developed. Mr. Perez stated that the city worked closely with a Stakeholders Group. That group agrees with the city's proposal, with the exception of when the payment of the fee should be made. The Stakeholders Group believes the payment of the TIF should occur at the time of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). The city believes the fee should be paid at the time of building permit issuance. The pros and cons are Planning Commission Minutes as follows: Certificate of Occupancy (CO) Pros: May lower financing cost for development Payment of mitigate fee coincide with timing of actual impacts Cons: Staff may be pressured to grant Certificate of Occupancy to projects that are completed with exception of fee payment Projects often change hands during the construction process and the end user may not realize that fees are tied to Certificate of Occupancy Increased staff time to: develop a new system, track deferred fees, and collect delinquent fees High delinquency rate as demonstrated in Pierce and Kitsap County Impact fee may be higher at time of collection than at building issuance Building Permit Issuance Pros: Consistent with most or all of cities with impact fee program Minimal staff time to administer with high collection rate without institutional enforcement Predictability as impact fee would be assessed and payable at the same time Consistent with current practice for school impact fee Cons: May add financing cost for development due to financing charges K:1P Wining Commtission\2009\Meenng Summary 07- 01- 09.doc Page 2 July 1, 2009 Commissioner O'Neil asked if under the current system, unused funds are returned. Mr. Perez replied that funds are retuned if they have not been spent on the designated project within five years_ Commissioner O'Neil how much has been returned in the last ten years. Mr. Perez stated that he has been with the city about 13 years. En that time the city has, on average, collected over a million dollars a year in traffic mitigation. Of the total funds collected in those years, the city has had to return less than $10,000. Commissioner O'Neil asked how often the TIF amount will be adjusted. Mr. Perez replied that it will be adjusted annually for inflation and a new rate study will be performed every three years. Commissioner Carlson commented that this is one of the best TIFs he has seen. He believes that in light of the pros and cons, collection should be done at the building permit issuance. A number of other jurisdictions collect a TIF and do so at the building permit issuance stage. Commissioner Carlson expressed some concern with the projected Capital improvement Program (CIP) project cost of approximately $320 million. Does it reflect potential impacts from surrounding communities, or just growth within Federal Way? Mr. Perez replied that it is based on historical averages for growth within Federal Way. Growth in surrounding communities could increase the amount. Vice -Chair Elder commented that she would prefer that the TIF be collected at the building permit issuance stage in order to protect a new homeowner from a possible unexpected fee at the time of the CO_ Commissioner Medhurst asked if a contractor's cost of improvements would offset the TIF. Mr. Perez replied that it would depend upon the location of the project; whether it was on the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and if so, it is possible that the cost of improvements could offset the TIF. Mr. Perez stated that due to the current economic climate it is possible the TIF could be regarded as a new fee, as opposed to a replacement of the current system. Because of this, staff recommends that Planning Commission Minutes implementation of the TIF be deferred to July 1, 2010. Commissioner Bronson noted that the current project map shows only one project on a state highway. Does the state help pay for improvements on 99? Mr. Perez replied that city attempts to obtain state funds, but the state focus is on major freeways and does not have much money for smaller highways. Chair Pfeifer asked if other cities use our current system of the pro -rata share mitigation method. Mr. Perez responded that some do use it, but more and more cities are moving to a TIF because of its predictability. Chair Pfeifer asked if the TIF amount is more expensive than the current pro -rata share mitigation method. Mr. Perez responded that while it would depend upon the project, the staffs research showed that for many projects the overall TIF cost would be lower than the current method. Specifically, the Rivera Office/Medical building paid $258,019 under the current system, but under the proposed TIF it would have been $129,500. The Fred Meyer fuel project paid $207,664, but would have paid only $83,030 under the proposed TIF. Finally, the Sound Credit Union Bank, which is a city center project, paid $255,551, but under the proposed TIF would have paid only $52,454. Commissioner O'Neil commented that according to Staff Report Exhibit B, the amount of the TIF varies greatly between cities. Mr. Samdahl responded that one reason for that is that the cities use different methods to arrive at the TIF amount. Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to recommend adoption of the staff recommendation with collection of the TIF to occur at the building permit issuance. There was one abstain and six yes; the motion passed. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Ms. Clark stated that the Planning Commission regularly scheduled meeting of July 15 has been moved to July 22, 2009. At that time, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Plat and Land Use Application Time Limit Extensions and Vesting Clarification. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. K7Phnning Comm s>ion Summary 07.01- 09.doc Page 3 July 1, 2009 and ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to Transportation Impact Fee (TIF); and adding new sections to Federal Way Revised Code chapters. 19.91. 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; 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, the City Council finds that new growth and development in the City will create additional demand and need for public facilities; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Chapter 82.02 RCW to require new growth and development within the City to pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities to serve such new development activity through the assessment of impact fees; and WHEREAS, the impact fees assessed pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW must be based upon a showing that new growth and development creates additional demand and need for public facilities, that the impact fees do not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of such additional public facilities, and that the fees spent for facilities reasonable related to the new growth and development; and Ordinance No.09- Page 1 of 22 WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Chapter 82.02 RCW to impose impact fees for system improvement costs previously incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements; and WHEREAS, impact fee may be collected and spent for system improvements that are included within a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive plan,; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a list of transportation capital facilities in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, RCW 58.17.110 and RCW 58.17.060 require the Council and administrative personnel to make written finding that public facilities; such as roads and streets, are adequate before approving proposed subdivisions, dedications, short plats, and short subdivisions; and WHEREAS, to meet these requirements with respect to public streets and roads, the Council finds that it must assure that public street and roads are adequate to serve new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that it is in the public interest, and consistent with the intent and purposes of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A et seq., for the City to adopt transportation impact fees which are uniform to the greatest extent practicable; and WHEREAS, The City has conducted extensive research and analysis documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new growth and development on public streets and roads, and has prepared the report "City of Federal Way Transportation Impact Fees Program" dated February 2009 which serves as the basis for the actions taken by the Council; and WHEREAS, the Council hereby incorporates the Rate Study into this ordinance by reference. The Rate Study utilizes a methodology for calculating transportation impact fees which fulfills all of the requirement of RCW 82.02.060(1); and Ordinance No.09- Page 2 of 22 WHEREAS, based on information in the Rate Study, the Council has determined that the City is composed a single services area for purposes of assessing transportation impact fees; and WHEREAS, in developing the impact fees for public facilities contained in this ordinance, the City has provided adjustments for past and future taxes paid or to be paid by new growth and development, which are earmarked or proratable to the same new public facilities that will serve the new growth and development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on July 1, 2009; 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 14, 2009 and recommended adoption of the text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission with further modifications as follows: (1) Chapter 19.91.060 to provide option for single family residential development to either pay the impact fee prior to the issuance of Building Permit or the City record a covenant against the property for the payment of the impact fee in effect at time of payment. 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 providing a more systematic way for applying the impact fees, and provide predictability for developers. Ordinance No.09- Page 3 of 22 (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: TG11 Develop and implement funding mechanisms to: a. Leverage state and federal funds for transportation improvements. b. Meet GMA 's concurrency requirements. c. Provide consistent, fair, and predictable assessment of sufficient mitigation fees for development consistent with SEPA. d. Assure that adequate transportation infrastructure is provided to accommodate forecast growth. TP82 Assure cost effective maintenance of transportation facilities under the City's jurisdiction. TP 85 Develop a transportation impact fee by 2002 to simplify development review, assess mitigation fees consistently and fairly, improve the City's ability to Ordinance No.09- Page 4 of 22 leverage grant funding for transportation funding, and provide adequate infrastructure to accommodate new growth. LUG2 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public /private partnership. LUP4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. 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. HPIO Encourage community input, where appropriate, into the development permit process by providing thorough and timely information to the public. (b) The proposed FWRC amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because it would replace the existing code -based pro -rata fees in the concurrency code and the Planned Action SEPA fee, create a more systematic way for applying the fees in this national economic conditions that impact local land development and housing related industries by implementing development regulations to provide predictability for developers during the development review process that is not provided in the current code; and clarifies to increase the efficiency of the development review process. (c) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way as it will provide the developer with an up front cost of the impact fees for development proposal, which results in attracting and continued development within the City, thus aiding the local economy. Ordinance No.09- Page 5 of 22 Section 3. A new section is added to chapter 19.91 FWRC to read as follows: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Sections: 19.91.010 Title 19.91.020 Purpose and Intent 19.91.030 Findings and authority 19.91.040 Definitions 19.91.050 Transportation Impact Fees Methodology 19.91.060 Assessment of Impact Fees 19.91.070 Independent Fee Calculations 19.91.080 Exemptions 19.91.090 Credits 19.91.100 Adjustments 19.91.110 Establishment of Impact Fee Account 19.91.120 Authorization for interlocal agreements 19.91.130 Administrative Guidelines 19.91.140 Refunds 19.91.150 Use of Funds 19.91.160 Periodic Adjustment of Rate 19.91.170 Administrative Fees 19.91.180 Appeals 19.91.190 Existing authority unimpaired 19.91.200 Relationship to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 19.91.210 Relationship to Concurrency 19.91.010 Title. This code shall be hereinafter known as the City of Federal Way transportation impact fee (TIF). 19.91.020 Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this chapter is for the collection of impact fees for streets and roads, and providing for certain other matters in connection therewith. 19.91.030 Findings and authority. The City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby finds and determines that development activities, including but not limited to new residential, commercial, retail, office, and industrial development in the City of Federal Way will create additional demand and need for public facilities in the City, and the Council finds that such new Ordinance No. 09- Page 6 of 22 growth and development should pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve the new growth and development. The City of Federal Way has conducted extensive research and analysis documenting the procedures for measuring the impact of new developments on public facilities, has prepared the "Rate Study for Transportation Impact Fees, City of Federal Way" dated February 2009 "Rate Study and incorporates that Rate Study into this title by this reference. The Rate Study utilizes a methodology for calculating impact fees that fulfills all of the requirements of RCW 82.02.060(1). A copy of the Rate Study shall be kept on file with the City Clerk and is available to the public for review. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 82.02 RCW, the Council adopts this title to assess impact fees for streets and roads. The provisions of this title shall be liberally construed in order to carry out the purposes of the Council in establishing the impact fee program. 19.91.040 Definitions. The following words and terms shall have the following meanings for the purposes of this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms otherwise not defined herein shall be defined pursuant to RCW 82.02.090, or given their usual and customary meaning. A. Applicant means a person who applies for a building permit under this article and who is the owner of the subject property or the authorized agent of the property owner. B. Building Permit means an official document or certification which is issued by the building official and which authorizes the construction, alteration, enlargement, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, erection, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or structure. C. Capital Facilities Plan means the capital facilities element of the City's Comprehensive Plan adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A and such plan as amended. D. Council means the City Council of the City. E. Department means the City's Department of Public Works. Ordinance No.09- Page 7 of 22 F. Development Activity means any work, condition, or activity which requires a permit or approval under the city's subdivision, zoning, or building code. Exempt permits are set forth in FWRC 19.91.080. G. Development Approval means any written authorization from the City authorizing the commencement of a development activity or use. H. Director means the Director of the Department of Public Works of the City of Federal Way or her/his designee I. Encumbered means to reserve, set aside, or otherwise earmark the impact fees in order to pay for commitments, contractual obligations, or other liabilities incurred for public facilities. J. Hearing Examiner means the hearing examiner operating pursuant to the powers and duties set forth by Chapter 2.20 FWRC. K. Impact fee means a payment of money imposed by the City of Federal Way on development activity pursuant to this title as a condition of granting development approval. "Impact fee" does not include a reasonable permit fee, an application fee, the administrative fee for collecting and handling impact fees, or the cost of reviewing independent fee calculations. L. Independent Fee Calculation means the street and road impact calculation, and/or economic documentation prepared by a applicant, to support the assessment of an impact fee other than by the use of the rates listed in the fee schedule, or the calculations prepared by the Director where none of the fee categories or fee amounts in the traffic impact fee in the fee schedule accurately describe or capture the impacts of the development activity on public facilities. M. Interest means the average interest rate earned in the last fiscal year by the City of Federal Way. N. ITE Land Use Code means the classification code number assigned to a type of land use by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the latest Edition of Trip Generation. Ordinance No.09- Page 8 of 22 O. CITY CODE SECTION means the City of Federal Way Revised Code or, when followed by a numerical designation, a provision of the FWRC Code. P. P.M. Peak Hour means the highest volume of traffic for a continuous hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Q. P.M. Peak Hour Trips means the total vehicular trips entering and leaving a place of new development activity on the adjacent public road or street during the p.m. peak hour. R. Project Improvements mean site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular development project and are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project, and are not system improvements. No improvement or facility included in a capital facilities plan adopted by the Council shall be considered a project improvement. S. Public Facilities, for purposes of this chapter, means the following capital facilities owned or operated by the City of Federal Way or other governmental entities: public streets and roads. T. Rate Study means the "Transportation Impact Fees Program," City of Federal Way, by Fehr Peers Mirai, dated February 2009. U. Residential or Residential Development means all types of construction intended for human habitation. This shall include, but is not limited to, single- family, duplex, triplex, and other multifamily development. V. RCW means the Revised Code of Washington or, when followed by a numerical designation, a provision of the Revised Code of Washington. W. Square Footage means the square footage of the gross floor area of the development as defined in FWRC. X. Street or Road means a public right -of -way and all related appurtenances, which enables motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians to travel between destinations, and affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including avenue, place, way, drive, Ordinance No.09- Page 9 of 22 lane, boulevard, highway, street, and other thoroughfare. For purposes of this chapter, public streets and roads are collectively referred to as "transportation. Y. System Improvements means public facilities that are included in the City of Federal Way's capital facilities plan, and such plan as amended, and are designed to provide service to service areas within the community at large, in contrast to project improvements. Z Transportation means public streets and roads and related appurtenances. AA. Transportation Impact Fee Account(s) means the account(s) established for the transportation impact fees that are collected. The account(s) shall be established pursuant to FWRC 19.91.110, and shall comply with the requirements of RCW 82.02.070. 19.91.050 Transportation Impact Fees Methodology and Applicability. The transportation impact fee rates are generated from the formula for calculating impact fees set forth in the Rate Study, which is on file with the Public Works Department. Except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in FWRC 19.91.070, exemptions in FWRC 19.91.080, and credits in FWRC 19.91.090, all new development activity in the City will be charged the transportation impact fee applicable to the type of development as set forth in the Traffic Impact Fee in the current Fee Schedule as adopted by Council. 19.91.060 Assessment of Impact Fees. A. The City shall collect impact fees, based on the land use categories and rates on the current Fee Schedule, from any applicant seeking development permits from the City where such development activity requires the issuance of a building permit or approval for a change in use, except for development exempt under FWRC 19.91.080. This shall include, but is not limited to, the development of residential, commercial, retail, office, and industrial land, and includes the expansion of existing uses that creates a demand for additional system improvements as well as a change in existing use that creates a demand for additional system improvements. The public works department is authorized to determine the appropriate land use category found in the rate schedule applies to the application. Ordinance No.09- Page 10 of 22 B. All impact fees shall be due and payable prior to issuance of the building permit or at the time of permit approval for a change in land use when no building permit is required based on the land use categories on the Fee Schedule. Prior to issuance of a single family residential building permit, the applicant may elect to defer payment of the impact fee to the time of closing of sale of the unit. If this option is selected, the City shall record a covenant against the property for the payment of the impact fee in effect at time of payment. Any fees associated with filing/recoding the covenant shall be paid by applicant. Unless the use of an independent fee calculation has been approved, or unless a development agreement entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 provided otherwise, the fee shall be calculated based on the impact fee schedule in effect at the time a completed building permit application is filed. For a change in use for which no building permit is required, the fee shall be calculated based on the impact fee schedule in effect on the date of payment of the impact fee. C. The public works department shall establish the traffic impact fee rate for a land use that is not listed in the fee schedule. The applicant shall submit all information requested by the City for purposes of determining the impact fee rate pursuant to FWRC 19.91.070. D. For a change in use of an existing building or dwelling unit, including any alteration, expansion, replacement or new accessory building that generate additional trips, the impact fee shall be the applicable impact fee for the land use category of the new use, less any impact fee previously paid for the land use category of the prior use. If no impact fee was paid for the prior use, the impact fee for the new use shall be reduced by an amount equal to the current impact fee rate of the current use. E. For mixed use developments, impact fees shall be imposed for the proportionate share of each land use based on the applicable measurement in the traffic impact fee rates set forth in the fee schedule. F. The Community Development Department shall not issue the required building permit until the traffic impact fees set forth in the fee schedule have been paid as set forth in the fee schedule or in the amounts that they exceed any credits allowable under this chapter. For a Ordinance No.09- Page 11 of 22 change in use where a building permit is not required, the applicant shall not occupy or permit a tenant to occupy the subject property unless and until the impact fee has been paid. 19.91.070 Independent Fee Calculations. A. If in the judgment of the director, none of the fee categories or fee amounts set forth in foregoing section of this title accurately describes or captures the impacts of a new development on roads, the department may conduct independent fee calculations and the director may impose alternative fees on a specific development based on those calculations. B. The applicant may opt not to have the impact fees determined according to the fee structure in the traffic impact fee schedule listed in the City Fee Schedule, in which case the applicant shall prepare and submit to the director an independent fee calculation for the development activity for which a development permit is being sought. The documentation submitted shall be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer and shall show the basis upon which the independent fee calculation was made using procedures consistent with those established in the Trip Generation Handbook, current edition, by the institute of Transportation Engineers. An independent fee calculation shall use the same methodology used to establish impact fees set forth in the traffic impact fee schedule, shall be limited to adjustments in trip generation rates and lengths used in the Rate Study, and shall not include travel demand forecasts, trip distribution, transportation service areas, costs of road projects, or cost allocation procedures. C. The applicant submitting an independent fee calculation will be required to pay the City of Federal Way a fee to cover the cost of reviewing the independent fee calculation. The fee required by the City for conducting the review of the independent fee calculation shall be charged on an hourly rate as adopted by council at the time of the submittal. D. There is a rebuttable presumption that the calculations set forth in the Rate Study and the fee set forth in the traffic impact fee in the fee schedule are valid. The director shall consider the documentation submitted by the applicant, but is not required to accept such documentation or analysis which the director reasonably deems to be inapplicable, inaccurate or not reliable. The director may require the applicant to submit additional or different documentation for consideration. The director is authorized to adjust the impact fees on a case -by -case basis based Ordinance No.09- Page 12 of 22 on the independent fee calculation, the specific characteristics of the development, and /or principles of fairness. E. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this section may be appealed as set forth in FWRC 19.91.180. 19.91.080 Exemptions. A. Except as provided for below, the following shall be exempted from the payment of transportation impact fees: 1. Alteration or replacement of an existing nonresidential structure that does not expand the usable space, add any residential units or generate any additional p.m. peak trips. 2. Miscellaneous improvements which do not generate increased p.m. peak trips, including, but not limited to, fences, walls, residential swimming pools, and signs; 3. Demolition or moving of a structure when additional p.m. peak hour trips are not generated. 4. A change of use that does not generate one or more p.m. peak hour trips. 5. Miscellaneous permits such as Electrical, Fire Protection System, Mechanical, Plumbing, Right -of -way use, Shoreline and sign permits which do not generate any new trips. 6. Rezones, Comprehensive plan amendments, Land surface modifications, Commercial subdivisions, Boundary line adjustment and Lot line eliminations, which does not generate any trips. 7. Structures constructed by regional transit authority as define in RCW 82.02.09. 8. Any development permit application that has been submitted to the City before 5:00 p.m. the business day before the effective date of this chapter and subsequently determined to be a complete land use application conjunction with a concurrency application, based on the information on file as of the effective date of this chapter. B. The director shall be authorized to determine whether a particular development activity falls within an exemption identified in this FWRC 19.91.080 or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be subject to the appeals procedures set forth in FWRC 19.91.180. Ordinance No.09- Page 13 of 22 19.91.090 Credits A. An applicant may request that a credit or credits for impact fees be awarded to him/her for the total value of system improvements, including dedications of land, improvements and /or construction provided by the applicant. Credits will be given only if the land, improvements, and /or the facility constructed are: 1. For one or more of the transportation projects listed in the Rate Study as the basis for calculating the impact fee. B. The director shall determine if requests for credits meet the criteria in subsection A, above or under other applicable law. Determinations of the director shall be subject to the appeals procedure set forth in FWRC 19.91.180. C. Each request for a credit or credits shall include a legal description of the dedicated land, a detailed description of improvements or construction provided, and a legal description or other adequate description of the development to which the credit will be applied. D. For each request for a credit or credits, the director shall determine the value of the dedicated land, improvements, or construction on a case -by -case basis. In the event that the applicant disagree with the director's valuation, the applicant may submit an appraisal for the director's consideration, prepared by a state certified MAI (Member of the American Institute of Appraisers) or licensed engineer and be licensed in good standing pursuant to RCW 18.40 et.seq., in the category for the property to be appraised, and shall not have a fiduciary or personal interest in the property being appraised. E. The appraiser and /or licensed engineer shall be directed to determine the fair market value of the total value of the dedicated land, improvements, and /or construction provided by the applicant. The applicant shall pay for the actual costs for the appraisal. F. After receiving and reviewing the appraisal, the director will determine the dollar amount of any credit, the basis for the credit, the legal description of the real property dedicated where applicable, and the legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credit may be applied with issuance of the building permit. If the total value of any Ordinance No.09- Page 14 of 22 such dedication, improvement or construction cost exceeds the amount of the impact fee obligation, the developer will not be entitled to reimbursement of the difference. G. No credit shall be given for project improvements or right -or -way dedications for direct access improvements to and /or within the subject development above and beyond what is proposed in the capital facilities plan. H. Any claim for credit must be made before payment of the impact fee and prior to the issuance of the building permit or a permit for a change in use. The failure to timely file such a claim shall constitute a final bar to later request any such credit. I. Determinations made by the director pursuant to this chapter shall be subjected to the appeals procedures set forth in FWRC 19.91.180. J. No impact fee for a specific development shall be increased or decreased once said fee has been paid. 19.91.100 Adjustments. Pursuant to and consistent with the requirements of RCW 82.02.060, the Rate Study has provided adjustments for future taxes to be paid by the development activity which are earmarked or pro ratable to the same new public facilities which will serve the new development. The traffic impact fee rates in the fee schedule have been reasonably adjusted for taxes and other revenue sources which are anticipated to be available to fund public improvements. 19.91.110 Establishment of Impact Fee Account. A. Impact fee receipts shall be earmarked specifically and deposited in a special interest bearing account. B. The City shall establish a separate impact fee account for the fees collected pursuant to this chapter: Transportation Impact Fee Account. Funds withdrawn from the account must be used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and applicable state law. Interest earned Ordinance No.09- Page 15 of 22 on the fees shall be retained in the account and expended for the purposes for which the impact fees were collected. C. On an annual basis, the finance director shall provide a report to the Council on the transportation impact fee account showing the source and amount of all moneys collected, earned, or received, and the public improvements that were financed in whole or in part by impact fees. Impact fees shall be expended or encumbered within six (6) years of receipt, unless the Council identifies in written findings of extraordinary and compelling reasons for the City to hold the fees beyond the six (6) year period. Under such circumstances, the Council shall establish the period of time within which the impact fees shall be expended or encumbered. 19.91.120 Authorization for interlocal agreement. The city manager is authorized to execute, on behalf of the city, an interlocal agreement with other agencies having authority over transportation facilities to identify impacts and provide mitigation for those impacts. In no case shall mitigation payments to the city be reduced to account for mitigation payments to other jurisdictions. 19.91.130 Administrative Guidelines. The Public Works Director is hereby authorized to adopt internal guidelines for the administration of transportation impact fees, which may include the adoption of a procedures guide for transportation impact fees. 19.91.140 Refunds A. If the City fails to expend or encumber the impact fees within six (6) years of when the fees were paid, or where extraordinary or compelling reasons exist, such other time periods as established pursuant to 19.91.110, the current owner of the property on which impact fees have been paid may receive a refund of such fees. In determining whether impact fees have been expended or encumbered, impact fees shall be considered expended or encumbered on a first in, first out basis. Ordinance No.09- Page 16 of 22 B. The City shall notify potential claimants by first class mail deposited with the United States Postal Service at the last known address of such claimants. A potential claimant or claimants must be the owner of record of the real property against which the impact fee was assessed. C. Property owners seeking a refund of impact fees must submit a written request for a refund of the fees to the director within one (1) year of the date the right to claim the refund arises or the date that notice is given, whichever is later. D. Any impact fees for which no application for a refund has been made within this one -year period shall be retained by the City and expended on the appropriate system improvements. E. Refunds of impact fees or offsets against subsequent impact fees under this section shall include any interest earned on the impact fees by the City. F. When the City seeks to terminate any or all components of the impact fee program, all unexpended or unencumbered funds from any terminated component or components, including interest earned, shall be refunded pursuant to this section. Upon the finding that any or all fee requirements are to be terminated, the City shall place notice of such termination and the availability of refunds in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) times and shall notify all potential claimants by first class mail at the last known address of the claimants. All funds available for refund shall be retained for a period of one (1) year after the second publication. At the end of one (1) year, any remaining funds shall be retained by the City, but must be expended for the appropriate public facilities. This notice requirement shall not apply if there are no unexpended or unencumbered balances within the account or accounts being terminated. G. The City shall also refund to the current owner of property for which impact fees have been paid all impact fees paid, including interest earned on the impact fees, if the development activity for which the impact fees were imposed did not occur; provided, however, that, if the City has expended or encumbered the impact fees in good faith prior to the application for a refund, the director can decline to provide the refund. If within a period of three (3) years, the same or subsequent owner of the property proceeds with the same or substantially similar development activity, the owner can petition the director for an offset in the amount of the fee Ordinance No. 09- Page 17 of 22 originally paid and not refunded. The petitioner must provide receipts of impact fees previously paid for a development activity of the same or substantially similar nature on the same real property or some portion thereof. The director shall determine whether to grant an offset, and the determinations of the director may be appealed pursuant to the procedure in Section 19.91.180. 19.91.150 Use of Funds. A. Pursuant to this title, transportation impact fees: 1. Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development activity; 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities; and 3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operation. B. Transportation impact fees may be spent for public improvements to streets and roads as herein defined and, including, but not limited to, transportation planning, engineering design studies, land survey, right -of -way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off-site improvements, engineering, architectural, permitting, financing, administrative expenses, construction of streets and roads and related facilities such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes, storm drainage and installation of traffic signals, signs and street lights, applicable impact fees or mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized. C. Transportation impact fees may also be used to recoup system improvement costs previously incurred by the City to the extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or incurred costs. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of public improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. Ordinance No. 09- Page 18 of 22 19.91.160 Periodic Adjustment of Rates. A. The traffic impact fee in the fee schedule will be amended to reflect changes to the twenty -year transportation project list as part of adoption of amendments to the capital facilities element of the City's comprehensive plan. Amendment to the schedule for this purpose shall be adopted by the council. B. The traffic impact fee in the fee schedule shall be indexed to provide for an automatic fee increase each January 1 si beginning in the year 2011. A three -year moving average of the Washington State Department of Transportation Construction Cost Index will be used to determine the increase in fees for each year to reflect increased project costs. C. A new rate study, which established the traffic impact fee in the fee schedule, shall be updated every three years, unless the city determines that circumstances have not changed to warrant an update. 19.91.170 Administrative Fees. A. There shall be a fee for the administration of the Transportation Impact Fee Program in an amount equal to three percent (3 of the amount of the total traffic impact fee determined from the fee schedules. The administrative fee shall be deposited into an administrative fee account within the transportation impact fee funds. Administrative fees shall be used to defray the cost incurred by the City in the administration and update of the transportation impact fee program. The administrative fee is not creditable or refundable. B. The administrative fee, in addition to the impact fee, shall be paid by the applicant at the same time as the impact fee. 19.91.180 Review by Director and Appeals. A. The applicant may pay the impact fees imposed by this title under protest so that the building permit, or a change in use when no building permit is required. No appeal shall be permitted until the impact fees at issue have been paid. B. Requests for review regarding the impact fees imposed on any development activity may be filed only by the applicant for the development activity at issue. Ordinance No.09- Page 19 of 22 C. The applicant must first file a request for review regarding impact fees with the director, as provided herein: 1. The request shall be in writing on the form provided by the City; 2. The request for review by the director shall be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days after the applicant's payment of the impact fee at issue. The failure to timely file such a request shall constitute a final bar to later seek such review; 3. No administrative fee will be imposed for the request for review by the director; and 4. The director shall issue his/her determination in writing. D. Determinations of the director with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, or the director's decision concerning the independent fee calculation which is authorized in Sect. 19.91.070, or any other determination which the director is authorized to make pursuant to this title, may be appealed by the applicant or owner using the same process as the underlying development permit application or process I of Chapter 19 FWRC if there is no underlying development permit, substituting the director of public works for the director of community development. The appeal, in the form of a letter of appeal, must be delivered to the department of community development within 14 calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director. In those cases where the proposed development activity may require a public hearing under the authority of other chapters of this code, the hearings may be combined. For example, if the underlying development permit application is a preliminary plat, the appeal shall be heard at the preliminary plat public hearing. 19.91.190 Existing Authority Unimpaired. Nothing in this title shall preclude the City from requiring the applicant or the proponent of a development activity to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of a specific development pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, based on the environmental documents accompanying the underlying development approval process, and /or Chapter 58.17 RCW, governing plats and subdivisions; so long as the exercise of such authority is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 43.21 C RCW and Chapter 82.02 RCW. Ordinance No.09- Page 20 of 22 19.91.200 Relationship to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (1) All development shall be subject to the environmental review pursuant to SEPA and other applicable city ordinances and regulations. (2) Further mitigation in addition to the impact fee shall be required for identified adverse impacts appropriate for mitigation pursuant to SEPA that are not mitigated by an impact fee program. 19.91.210 Relationship to Concurrency Management Neither compliance with this chapter or the payment of any fee hereunder shall constitute a determination of transportation concurrency under this chapter. 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 any other persons or circumstances. Section 5._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 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 July 1, 2010 as provided by law. Ordinance No.09- Page 21 of 22 ATTEST: PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 200 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.: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY Ordinance No.09- Page 22 of 22 and ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to Transportation Concurrency Management; amending FWRC 19.90.010, 19.90.060, 19.90.130, 19.90.140, and 19.90.160. (Amending Ordinance No. 06 -525) 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; 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 amend FWRC 19.90 Transportation Concurrency Management, which establishes development regulations to meet the Growth Management Act within the City of Federal Way; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that creating Chapter 19, Article IV, "Transportation Concurrency Management" meets the intent of Chapter 36.70A RCW Growth Management; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that these code amendments will implement and are consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that new growth and development in the City will create additional demand and need for public facilities; and Ordinance No.09- Page 1 of 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on July 1, 2009; 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 14, 2009 and recommended adoption of the text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission with further modifications. 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 providing a more systematic way for applying the impact fees, and provide predictability for developers. (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. Ordinance No.09- Page 2 of 10 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: TG11 Develop and implement funding mechanisms to: a. Leverage state and federal funds for transportation improvements. b. Meet GMA 's concurrency requirements. c. Provide consistent, fair, and predictable assessment of sufficient mitigation fees for development consistent with SEPA. d. Assure that adequate transportation infrastructure is provided to accommodate forecast growth. TP84 Develop a concurrency ordinance by 2002 as required by the GMA consistent with the City's adopted LOS standard. LUP4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. 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 would replace the existing code -based pro -rata fees in the concurrency code and the Planned Action SEPA fee, create a more systematic way for applying the fees and provide predictability for developers during the development review process that is not provided in the current code. Ordinance No.09- Page 3 of 10 (c) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way because it will provide the developer with an up front cost of the impact fees for development proposal, which results in attracting and continued development within the City. Section 3. FWRC 19.90.010 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.90.010 Definitions. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Terms not defined here are defined according to Chapter 19.05 FWRC or FWRC 1.05.020 in that order. The public works director shall have the authority to resolve questions of interpretation or conflicts within this chapter. "Affected intersection" means any intersection within the city meeting the requirements of FWRC 19.90.070 and having a direct traffic impact as a result of development activity. "Available capacity" means capacity which can be encumbered, reserved, or committed to future users, expressed in an appropriate unit of measure, such as p.m. peak hour trips. "Background traffic" means existing traffic levels and the anticipated traffic from all proposals for which CRCs have been approved under the provisions of this chapter. "Build -out year conditions" means the volume of traffic that is projected to occur on the roadway system as of the anticipated date of occupancy of a proposal. Traffic conditions include regional traffic and the anticipated traffic from all proposals for which CRCs have been approved under the provisions of this chapter. "Capacity" means the availability of an affected intersection to accommodate increased traffic resulting from a development without causing the LOS to fall below the standards established in the comprehensive plan. "Capacity reserve certificate (CRC) means the certificate issued by the city pursuant to the terms and conditions of this chapter which constitutes the proof that adequate capacity for each affected intersection has been reserved to serve the densities and intensities of development within the time frame designated on the certificate. "City of Federal Way development standards" means those standards adopted by the Federal Way public works director. "Concurrency denial letter" means a letter issued by the director which summarizes the results of the concurrency evaluation and the reason for denying the request for a concurrency reserve certificate. "Concurrency evaluation" means the evaluation by the director to ensure that necessary roadway improvements are made concurrent with proposed development activity, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070. "Concurrency management" means the process local jurisdictions use to ensure that necessary roadway improvements are made concurrent with proposed development activity, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070. Ordinance No.09- Page 4 of 10 "Direct traffic impact" means any net increase in vehicle traffic generated by a proposed development. "Director" means the director of the department of public works or her/his designee. "Level of service (LOS) means a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, described with alphabetical representations of "A" through "F" as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual prepared by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council, to indicate the amount of congestion and delay at particular locations, and adopted by the city. "Net new trips" means the trip generation of the development activity less any allowable credit for existing activity that will be replaced, demolished or abandoned as part of the development activity. "Peak hour" means the highest volume of traffic for a continuous hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. "Reserved capacity" means capacity which has been allocated to a particular property through issuance of a capacity reserve certificate reserving capacity for a set period of time. "Select zone analysis" means a travel demand model analysis that identifies trips generated within a selected transportation analysis zone. "Six year transportation improvement program (TIP) means the annually adopted transportation improvement program which identifies all the city's transportation needs over the next six years, including the total project costs. "Standards" means the adopted city of Federal Way development standards. "Total project cost" means the total cost for the transportation projects, as defined in the current TIP. This cost includes, but is not limited to, studies, design, right -of -way acquisition, utility relocation, grading, and construction. "Transportation analysis zone" means the area defined within a travel demand model representing all the land uses contained within that area. "Trip assignment" means the determination within a travel demand model of the number and type of trips using a defined roadway. "Trip distribution" means the determination within a travel demand model of the number and type of trips traveling between any given pair of transportation analysis zones. "Trip generation" means the number of peak hour trips estimated to be produced by the development activity using Institute of Traffic Transportation Engineers (ITE), current edition, or other methodology approved by the director. "Trip generation credit" means a reduction in the number of new peak hour trips attributed to an application as described in FWRC 19.90.080, equal to the number of peak hour trips generated on the site described on the application from uses that have had a SEPA analysis prior to the effective date of the ordinance adopting this chapter that have ceased or will cease if the development permit is granted. Ordinance No.09- Page 5 of 10 Section 4. FWRC 19.90.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.90.060 Exempt development. 1) Any development activity or development permit may be exempted from this chapter if the development activity or development permit is deemed by the director to generate no net new trips in the peak hour. 2) The following types of development permits are typically exempt from concurrency management review and the requirements of this chapter because they do not create additional long -term impacts on road facilities. However, if any development permit from the list below generates any net new trips in the peak period, it shall not be exempt from concurrency evaluation. (a) Boundary line adjustment; (b) Demolition permit; (c) Electrical permit; (d) Fire protection system permit; (e) Tenant improvements with no change of use; (f) Land surface modification; (g) Lot line elimination; (h) Mechanical permit; (i) Plumbing permit; (j) Right -of -way modification; (k) Right -of -way use permit; (1) Sign permit; (m) Single family remodeling with no change of use; (n) Rezones; (o) Comprehensive plan amendment; (p) Shoreline permit; (q) Commercial subdivisions; (r) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (s) Binding Site Plan (BSP) (t) Business License (u) Use Process I 3) Exemption from concurrency review fees. City -owned facilities shall be exempted from the concurrency review fees. City -owned facilities shall not be exempted from concurrency review and appropriate mitigation, if any. Section 5. FWRC 19.90.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.90.130 Concurrency administration Purpose and procedure. Where either the city or the applicant may perform any part of the concurrency transportation impact analysis, analysis prepared by the applicant is subject to the review and approval of the city at the applicant's expense. The applicant may also review and comment on any analysis prepared by the city. Ordinance No.09- Page 6 of 10 (1) The concurrency management transportation impact analysis may be prepared by the city or the applicant and shall follow the procedure outlined below. Each development permit subject to this chapter shall be analyzed in the order the concurrency application is deemed complete by the director, as described in subsection (2) of this section. Concurrency transportation impact analyses shall be completed sequentially in the order of receipt of the concurrency application. The most recent concurrency management transportation impact analysis shall be the beginning point for each succeeding concurrency management transportation impact analysis. (2) In performing the concurrency evaluation, the city or the applicant subject to the city's approval shall determine the impact of the traffic generated by the proposed development activity on the city's road system. The evaluation shall be based on data generated by the city, by professional associations, by the applicant and, if needed, by independent analysis. The city shall examine the data to verify that existing and projected trip generation is consistent with the latest version of the ITE's Trip Generation or documented generation for uses not typical of uses in Trip Generation. Upon successful evaluation, the concurrency application will be deemed complete by the director. (3) The city or the applicant shall perform level of service calculations for all applicable intersections affected by the development based upon build -out year conditions with and without the proposed development. The city or the applicant shall determine if the capacity on the city's road facilities, plus the capacity that is or shall be generated by all existing, reserved, and approved development, can be provided while meeting the LOS standards set forth in the comprehensive plan. (4) Technical provisions for each concurrency evaluation shall be prepared in the following format: (a) Project description shall be provided by the applicant in enough detail to accurately determine the scope of analysis required. (b) Analysis scope shall be provided by city after consultation with affected departments. (c) The city, based on the information supplied by the applicant, shall determine project trip generation. If the applicant provides a detailed trip generation study, that data shall be used for concurrency management traffic impact analysis at the discretion of the public works director. The applicant may also review and comment on a city prepared calculation of trip generation. (d) Project trip assignment to the street system shall be provided by the city, consistent with the most current and updated travel demand forecasting model. Three levels of analysis are defined based on the number of new trips generated: (i) For applications generating less than 50 peak hour trips, a select zone analysis shall be conducted. (ii) For applications generating 50 peak hour trips or more, but less than 500 peak hour trips, a new trip assignment shall be conducted. (iii) For applications generating 500 or more peak hour trips, a new trip distribution and assignment shall be conducted. (e) Traffic volumes at existing intersections that include background traffic shall be provided by the city. Ordinance No.09- Page 7 of 10 (f) The city shall include appropriate through traffic to each affected intersection to obtain a revised traffic assignment for affected roadways and intersections. (g) The applicant or the city, at the applicant's request and expense, in compliance with the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual, shall complete the capacity analysis, using the city's chosen software. The applicant may review and comment on a city prepared capacity analysis. (h) After verification of the capacity analysis, the applicant or the city, at the applicant's request and expense, shall prepare the final report. (i) The applicant or the city, at the applicant's request and expense, may propose suggested mitigation measures for any LOS failures identified in the capacity analysis. {j} The applicant or the city, at the, applicant's request and expense, shall also Section 6. FWRC 19.90.140 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.90.140 Concurrency determination letter. The director shall issue a concurrency determination letter to the applicant advising the applicant as to whether available capacity exists. If the applicant is not the property owner, the concurrency determination letter shall also be sent to the property owner. The concurrency determination letter shall identify the application and identify which status is determined to be applicable to the application: approval; approval with mitigation; or denial. (1) Approval with mitigation shall include a recommendation that would provide adequate capacity and a description of the options available to the applicant. These may include: (a) The applicant may agree to construct the recommended mitigation measures at the applicant's cost; (b) The applicant may agree to construct alternative mitigation measures that address the level of service deficiencies, subject to the approval of the director; or (c) The applicant may modify the development proposal to reduce trip generation to within available capacity by any combination of capacity improvements and transportation demand management measures, subject to the approval of the director. (2) Denial. If no appeal is transmitted to the director pursuant to FWRC 19.90.160 within 4-430 calendar days after issuance of the determination, the encumbrance shall be released and made available for subsequent applications. Section 7. FWRC 19.90.160 is hereby amended to read as follows: 19.90.160 Appeals. The concurrency determination of the director may be appealed by the applicant or owner using the same process as the underlying development permit application or as provided for in process IV of this title if there is no underlying development permit. The appeal, in the form of a notice of appeal, must be delivered to the department of public works within 4 -430 calendar days after issuance of the decision of the director. In those cases Ordinance No.09- Page 8 of 10 where the proposed development activity may require a public hearing, the hearings may be combined. 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 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 take effect and be in force July 1, 2010 as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 200 ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY Ordinance No.09- Page 9 of 10 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.09- Page 10 of 10 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 6, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL CATEGORY: Consent to (20 109 City Council Business Linda Kochmar, Chair COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 ITEM E: d SUBJECT: Ordinance establishing the time of payment, interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual special assessments for the North Lake Management District Number Two. POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council adopt an Ordinance establishing the time of payment, interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual special assessments for the North Lake Management District Number Two? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: September 21, 2009 2. Do not adopt the Ordinance and provide direction to staff. Ordinance Public Hearing Resolution Other STAFF REPORT BY: William Appleton, P.E. Surface Water Mana DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated September 21, 2009. Options Considered: 1. Adoption of an Ordinance establishing the time of payment, interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual special assessments for the North Lake Management District Number Two. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1 be forwarded to the October 6, 2009 City Council Ordinance Agenda for first reading. t CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: e Committee -Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the October 6, 2009 City Council Ordinance Agenda for first reading. errell, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: 1s Reading of Ordinance (October 6, 2009): "I move to forward the ordinance to the second reading for enactment on the October 20, 2009 City Council Ordinance Agenda." r Reading of Ordinance (October 20, 2009): "1 move to enact the ordinance establishing the time of payment, interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual special assessments for the North Lake Management District Number Two." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION o t -10-09 DATE: September 21, 2009 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager ,'A FROM: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager Daniel Smith, Water Quality Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Ordinance establishing the time of payment, interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual special assessments for the North Lake Management District Number Two BACKGROUND: On September 1, 2009, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 09 -622 creating a lake management district known as North Lake Management District (LMD) Number 2. Pursuant to RCW 36.61.120 and RCW 36.61.140, all notice and hearing requirements for establishing the roll of rates and charges for the LMD have been satisfied. In addition to establishing the roll of rates and charges, an ordinance must be put into place to establish the time of payment, interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual special assessments for the North Lake Management District Number Two. The proposed Ordinance will establish May 31 of each year as the due date for all annual assessments, will impose interest in the amount of one percent (1 per month on the balance of any delinquent special assessments, and establish the penalty for late payment as the minimum allowed by RCW 36.61.200, which is five- percent (5 of the delinquent special assessment. The Ordinance also allows for a lien to be placed upon those lots, tracts, parcels of land and other properties in the special assessment roll that fail to pay their special assessments, penalties and interest. Attachment: Ordinance establishing the time of payment, interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual special assessments for the North Lake Management District Number Two CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE TIME OF PAYMENT, INTEREST, AND PENALTIES TO BE IMPOSED ON DELINQUENT ANNUAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 FOR NORTH LAKE. WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, the City Council of the City of Federal Way adopted Ordinance No. 09 -622 creating a lake management district known as North Lake Management District Number 2 "District and WHEREAS, on 2009, the City Council of the City of Federal Way passed Resolution No. confirming and approving a special assessment roll for the purpose of imposing annual special assessments within North Lake Management District Number 2; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.21.403 and RCW 36.61.200, the City Council of the City of Federal Way must establish by ordinance interest and penalties to be imposed on delinquent annual assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Due Date and Interest Penalties on Delinquent Annual Special Assessments. Annual special assessment payments are due on the thirty -first (31) day of May of each year. Interest in the amount of one percent (1 per month shall be imposed on the balance of delinquent special assessments. Monthly interest shall be charged on the first day of June and each subsequent month. The penalty for late payment shall be the minimum allowed by RCW 36.61.200. Ordinance No.09- Page 1 of 3 Section 2. Lien. Pursuant to RCW 35.21.403 and RCW 36.61.230, special assessments, including penalties and interest, imposed within North Lake Management District No. 2 shall be liened upon the respective lots, tracts, parcels of land, and other property in the special assessment roll, which lien shall be paramount and superior to any other lien or encumbrance theretofore or thereafter created except a lien for general taxes. The cost associated with filing a lien and any other collection effort will be borne by the property owner. No lien shall extend to public property subjected to special assessments. Section 3. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter, or its application to any person or situation, be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or its application to any other person or situation. The City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 4. 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 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Ordinance No.09- Page 2 of 3 Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 200 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.: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY Ordinance No.09- Page 3 of 3 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 9 DCIvber2o,. Zoa°t ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code to meet the Construction Site Runoff Program requirements of the NPDES Phase II Permit (Proposed amendments include adoption of the 2009 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual, the 2008 King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and the 2005 Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for the Puget Sound). POLICY QUESTION: Should Council approve the proposed amendments to the City of Federal Way Revised Code, which are designed to align the City's.construction site runoff program with our NPDES Phase II Permit? COMMITTEE: LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: June 15, 2009 CATEGORY: 11 Consent 10 120 (ol Ordinance Public Hearing City Council Business Resolution Other STAFF REPORT BY: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager DEPT: Public Works Background: On June 15 2009, staff brought forward to LUTC an Ordinance crafted to keep the City of Federal Way in compliance with both the construction site runoff and IDDE program requirements in our NPDES Phase II permit. The ordinance had been forwarded to LUTC by the Planning Commission with a recommendation for adoption. On June 17` the Department of Ecology issued a revision to the NPDES permit, extending the deadline for meeting the construction site runoff program requirements to February 16 2010, while holding the deadline for implementing the IDDE program requirements unchanged at August 16 2009. In order to take advantage of the deadline extension, staff divided the single ordinance into two, an ordinance addressing the IDDE requirements and one addressing the construction site runoff requirements. The Ordinance addressing the IDDE program changes has since been enacted by Council with an effective date of August 16 2009. The proposed Construction Site Runoff Ordinance is now being brought before Council for adoption with an effective date of February 16 2010. There have been no substantive changes to the original ordinance language as a result of splitting the original Ordinance into two. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance amending City Code to address Construction Site Runoff code changes necessary to meet NPDES Phase II Permit requirements. Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated June 15, 2009. Options Considered: 1. Approve the proposed Construction Site Runoff Code Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code to be effective February 16 2010. 2. Do not approve the proposed Code Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the September 15, 2009 City Council Ordinance Agenda for first reading. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: p. W' J 61 I RE TOR APPROVAL: Committee Council Committee Council Committee Recommendation: Forward Option 1 to the September 15, 2009 City Council Ordinance Agenda for first reading. Linda Kochmar, Chair Jim Ferrell, Member Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: 1 Reading of Ordinance (September 15 2009): "I move to forward the ordinance to the second reading for the enactment on the October 6 2009 City Council Ordinance Agenda." 2 Reading of Ordinance (October 6 2009): "I move for approval of the LUTC's recommendation to adopt the proposed code amendments necessary to meet the requirements the NPDES Phase II Permit." COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION Ordinance No. 09- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Phase II Permit requirements; amending FWRC Chapter 13.15, `Building Construction Standards Chapter 14.25, "Environmental Policy Statements Title 16, "Surface Water Management Chapter 18.60, "Subdivision Improvements Chapter 19.05, Zoning and Development in General", Chapter 19.125 Outdoors, Yards, and Landscaping Chapter 19.135, "Development Improvements" and Chapter 19.120, "Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention"; and adding new sections to FWRC 16.50 Discharges to Federal Way Waters and Storm Drainage Systems. (Amending Ordinance Nos. 07 -563, 04 -468, 09 -593, 99 -352, 90-43, 09 -597, 07 -554, 09 -610 and 07 -559) WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Ecology issued the Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Permit) on January 17, 2007 pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); and WHEREAS, the NPDES Permit requires effected cities and counties, such as Federal Way, to develop a Stormwater Management Program consistent with the terms of the NPDES permit.; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need to periodically modify its development code language within Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), 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, the City needs to make both programmatic and regulatory modifications in order to meet the requirements of the NPDES Permit, including revisions to development regulations and regulatory manuals referenced or contained within Titles 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19; and Page 1 of 41 Rev 3/09 WHEREAS, this ordinance, containing amendments to the text of Titles 13, 14, 16, 18 and 19 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), has complied with Process VI review, Chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to chapter 19.35 FWRC; and; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Federal Way conducted a study session on these code amendments on May 6,2009; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these code amendments on May 20, 2009, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the City Council of the City of Federal Way held a public hearing on the proposed code amendments on June 15, 2009, and recommended adoption of the text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Determination ofNon- Significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed code amendments pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) on April 11, 2009 and no comments or appeals were received, and the DNS was finalized on May 11, 2009; WHEREAS, the proposed regulatory code amendments will serve to better protect the City's natural water resources (i.e. lakes, streams, wetlands and the Puget Sound) in terms of both water quality and water quantity; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Federal Way find it in the best interest of the City to modify the regulatory code to meet the NPDES Permit requirements and that amending these sections bears a substantial relationship to the public health and safety, or welfare of the people of Federal Way; is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; and is in the best interest of the residents of the City; Ordinance No.09- Page 2 of 41 Rev 3/09 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: providing stormwater regulations consistent with regional standards; establishing additional stormwater management techniques in the form of low impact development; and providing improved protection to our natural waterways. (b) These code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management. (c) These code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of Titles 13, 14, 16, 18 and 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. 09- Page 3 of 41 Rev 3/09 Ordinance No.09- LUG1 Improve the appearance and function of the built environment. LUP6 Conduct regular reviews of the development regulations to determine how to improve upon the permit review process. LUP19 Consider special development techniques (e.g., lot size averaging, cottage housing, and planned unit developments) in single family areas, provided they result in residential development consistent with the quality and character of existing neighborhoods. LUP20 Preserve site characteristics that enhance residential development (trees, water- courses, vistas, and similar features) using site planning techniques such as clustering, planned unit developments, and lot size averaging. 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 FWRC, and that has no adverse impacts. HP19 Increase the amount of undeveloped open spaces in both infill and new development parcels, by expanding the use of cluster development and allowing housing techniques such as lot averaging, and zero lot line standards. NEG1 To preserve the City's natural systems in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to maintain the integrity of the natural environment. NEP2 Preserve and restore ecological functions, and enhance natural beauty, by encouraging community development patterns and site planning that maintains and complements natural landforms. NEP 18 The City shall maintain regulations and standards to carry out the Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan's policy of restricting stormwater runoff from all new development and redevelopment in order to minimize the potential for flooding and stream bank erosion, and preserve and enhance development and redevelopment. City policies, regulations, and standards will meet the comprehensive stormwater program requirements of the Puget Sound Plan, and will comply with NPDES permit requirements as applicable. (b) The proposed FWRC amendments bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because the proposed regulatory code amendments will serve to better Page 4 of 41 Rev 3/09 protect the City's natural water resources (i.e. lakes, streams, wetlands and the Puget Sound) in terms of both water quality and water quantity. (c) The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way because they bring the City of Federal Way in compliance with Federal NPDES requirements and provide improved environmental protection to our natural waterways. Section 3. FWRC 13.15.020 "Amendments." shall be amended to read as follows: 13.15.020 Amendments. The following amendments to the Code adopted in FWRC 13.15.010 are hereby adopted: (1) Section R105.2 is amended to read as follows: Work exempt from permit. Permits shall not be required for the following activities except when the work occurs in a regulated area, including but not limited to steep slopes, critical areas, buffers and wetlands. Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. (2) Section R105.2 item 1 is amended to read as follows: One -story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet (18.58 sq. m.). (3) Sections 105.3.2 and R105.3.2 are amended to read as follows: An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued; except that the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 180 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. (4) Sections 106.1.1 and R106.1.1 are amended and supplemented by the addition of a new paragraph to read as follows: The applicant must supply as much information as required to provide an accurate environmental disclosure. (5) Sections 106.4 and R106.4 are amended and supplemented by the addition of new sections to be known as 106.4.1 and R106.4.1, respectively, to read as follows: Amended Permit. When the size of the building is increased or the scope for which the permit was issued is changed, the building official may amend the building permit. When such fees specified in sections 108 and R108 have been paid and when changes to the plans and application are approved, the building official shall issue an "amended permit," which includes the approved changes as well as the original plans and specifications. The issuance of such amended permit shall void the original permit. Ordinance No.09- Page 5 of 41 Rev 3/09 (6) Sections 110.1 and R110.1 are amended and supplemented by the addition of a second paragraph to read as follows: Buildings or other projects authorized by a building permit that do not require a certificate of occupancy in order to be occupied shall not be occupied until such permit has written final approval from the building inspector as authorized by the building official. (7) Sections 110.3 and R110.3 are amended in their entirety to read as follows: Limited Access Agreement. Limited use may be granted for any building not yet issued a Certificate of Occupancy pursuant to sections 110.1 or R110.1 through a properly executed Limited Access Agreement. (8) Sections 112.1 and Ri 12.1 are amended in their entirety to read as follows: General. Appeals of decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretation of this Code, except orders, rulings or decisions pertaining to enforcement of this Code, shall be made to the hearing examiner pursuant to FWRC 13.05.060. (9) Sections 112.2 and R112.2 are amended in their entirety to read as follows: Limits of authority. The hearing examiner shall have no authority relative to the interpretation of the administrative provisions of this Code nor shall the hearing examiner be empowered to waive any requirements of this Code. (10) Sections 112.3 and R112.3 are deleted in their entirety. (11) Sections 113.2 and R113.2 are amended in their entirety to read as follows: Occupancy violations. Whenever any building or structure or equipment therein regulated by this Code is being used contrary to the provisions of this Code, the building official may, by issuance of an order to cease activity under the FWRC 1.15.030, order such use discontinued and the structure, or portion thereof, vacated. (12) Sections 114.1 and R114.1 are amended in their entirety to read as follows: Orders to cease activity. Whenever any work is being done contrary to the provisions of this Code, or other pertinent laws or ordinances implemented through the enforcement of this Code, the building official may order the work to cease by issuance of an order to cease activity pursuant to the FWRC 1.15.030. (13) Sections 114.2 and R114.2 are amended to read as follows: Issuance. The order to cease activity shall be in writing and given to the owner of the property involved, or to the owner's agent, or to the person doing the work. Upon issuance of an order to cease activity, the cited activity shall immediately cease. The order to cease activity shall state the reason for the order, and the conditions under which the cited activity will be permitted to resume. (14) Sections 114.3 and R114.3 are amended to read as follows: Unlawful continuance. Any person who shall continue any activity after having been served with an order to cease activity, except such work as that person is directed to perform to remove a violation or unsafe condition, shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by law. (15) Section 1008.1.8.3 is amended by the deletion of exception 2.1. (16) Section R313.2.1 is amended by the addition of exception 3 to read as follows: Ordinance No.09- Page 6 of 41 Rev 3/09 Remodels which do not add bedrooms and have a construction valuation of less than $20,000 may use battery operated smoke alarms in existing areas of the structure which are not affected by the permitted work. (17) Sections 1807.4.3 and R405.1 are amended in their entirety to read as follows: Drainage. Provisions shall be made for the control and drainage of surface water around buildings. Adequate provisions shall be made to ensure that underfloor spaces remain free of running or standing water. As a minimum, such drains shall be installed around the perimeter of the building at the footings. Additional drains may be required in the underfloor space. The drainpipes shall be of sufficient size to adequately convey water to an approved location, but shall not be less than four inches in diameter. Provisions shall be made to prevent the drainage system from becoming blocked with soil. The building official may waive the provisions of this section when soils appear to adequately drain the site and no water will stand or run under the building. (18) Clearing and grading activities shall be reviewed under FWRC Title 19, Chapter 19.120. Clearing, Grading and Tree and Vegetation Retention as well as Appendix Chapter J of the International Building Code. All clearing and grading approvals are subject to the provisions of the Surface and Stormwater Management Chapter of Federal Way City Code. (Ord. No. 07 -563, 1(A), 10- 16 -07; Ord. No. 04- 465, 6, 10 -5 -04; Ord. No. 99 -342, 6, 5 -4- 99; Ord. No. 95 -234, 1, 6 -6 -95; Ord. No. 92 -143, 3 12, 6- 16 -92; Ord. No. 90 -48, 1, 3- 20-90; Ord. No. 90 -33, 8 25, 2- 13 -90. Code 2001 5 -67.) Section 4. FWRC 14.25.070 "State Environmental Policy Act policies." shall be amended to read as follows: 14.25.070 State Environmental Policy Act policies. (1) The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city. (2) The city designates and adopts by reference the policies in this section as the basis for the city's exercise of authority under this chapter. The city shall use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may: (a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (d) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage; Ordinance No.04- Page 7of41 Rev 3/09 (e) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (f) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (g) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. (3) The city recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. (4) The city adopts by reference the following city codes, ordinances, resolutions, plans and policies as now exist or as may hereinafter be amended or superseded: (a) The Federal Way Comprehensive Plan; (b) The Federal Way Revised Code and documents adopted by reference therein, including without limitation the following titles: (i) Zoning (FWRC Title 19) and the official zoning map; (ii) Subdivisions (FWRC Title 18); (iii) Surface and Stormwater Management (FWRC Title 16); (iv) Shoreline Regulation and the Shoreline Management Master Program (FWRC Title 15); (v) Methods to Mitigate Development Impacts (FWRC Title 19, Division III); and (vi) Solid Waste (FWRC Title 11); (c) The Shoreline Management Guide Book (DOE); (d) The Washington State Flood Reduction Plan (1993 DCD); (e) Ordinances relating to Surface Water Runoff and Surface Water Management; (f) The Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Sewer System Plan; (g) The Lakehaven Utility District Comprehensive Water System Plan; (h) The Federal Way Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Plan; (i) The Federal Way Fire Department Long Range Plan; (j) The Federal Way School District Number 210 Capital Facilities Plan; (k) The Code of the King County Board of Health; (1) The Executive Proposed Basin Plan Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound, King County Surface Water Management, July 1991; (m) The King County County -Wide Planning Policies, to the extent currently adopted by the Federal Way city council, and as may be adopted hereafter; (n) The 2001 King County Final Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan; (o) The Federal Way Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan; (p) Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971; (q) The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan; (r) The King County Division of Parks and Recreation Play Area Design and Inspection Handbook; (s) The Sea -Tac International Airport Impact Mitigation Study, February 1997, prepared by Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum, Inc., and Raytheon Infrastructure Services, Inc., under a grant from the state of Washington; Ordinance No.09- Page 8 of 41 Rev 3/09 (t) The Washington State Department of Transportation Pavement Guide, February 1995; (u) The Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1997; (v) The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, 1991; (w) The King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and the Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM; (x) The Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology, August 2001; (y) The King County Stormwater Pollution Gemmel Prevention Manual and Best Management Practices (BMP manual); (z) The January 2002 URS Federal Way Stream Inventory; and (aa) Planning documents not specifically listed above but referenced in the environmental analysis of the city's comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 04 -468, 3, 11- 16 -04; Ord. No. 00 -365, 3, 3 -7 -00; Ord. No. 95 -246, 2, 11- 21 -95; Ord. No. 93 -202, 1, 12- 21 -93; Ord. No. 93 -184, 1, 8- 17 -93; Ord. No. 92 -140, 3, 6 -2 -92; Ord. No. 92 -137, 1, 5 -5 -92; Ord. No. 92 -136, 3, 4- 21 -92; Ord. No. 92 -130, 3, 3- 17 -92; Ord. No. 91 -114, 3, 12 -3 -91; Ord. No. 91 -109, 2, 9- 17 -91; Ord. No. 90 -40, 1(20.230.10, 20.230.20), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 18 -122.) Section 5. FWRC 16.05.110 "K definitions." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.05.110 K definitions. "King County Stormwater Pollution Control Prevention Manual (KCSPEPM) also described as the `BMP manual," means the document prepared by King County and adopted by Federal Way, that describes best management practices, design, maintenance, procedures, and guidance. "King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) means the manual (and supporting documents as appropriate) describing surface and stormwater design and analysis requirements, procedures, and guidance, and which is formally adopted herein by the city of Federal Way. The King County Surface Water Design Manual will be available from the King County department of development and environmental services or the department of natural resources. (Ord. No. 09 -593, 22, 1 -6 -09; Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21- 1.11.) Section 6. FWRC 16.05.120 "L definitions." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.05.120 L definitions. "Lake" means an area permanently inundated by water in excess of two meters (seven feet) deep and greater than 20 acres in size as measured at the ordinary high water mark. "Landslide" means episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock and includes but is not limited to rockfalls, slumps, mudflows, and earthflows. Ordinance No.09- Page 9 of 41 Rev 3/09 "Leachable materials, wastes, or chemicals" means those substances which, when exposed to rainfall, measurably alter the physical or chemical characteristics of the rainfall runoff; examples include erodible soil, uncovered process wastes, manure, fertilizers, oily substances, ashes, kiln dust, garbage dumpster leakage, etc. "Low impact development" (LID) means a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes conservation and use of existing features integrated with distributed, small -scale stormwater controls to more closely mimic natural hydrologic patterns in residential, commercial, and industrial settings. (Ord. No. 09 -593, 22, 1 -6 -09; Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21- 1.12.) Section 7. FWRC 16.05.180 "R definitions." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.05.180 R definitions. "Receiving waters" means bodies of water or surface water systems receiving water from upstream manmade or natural systems. "Redevelopment" For the purposes of determining water quality review requirements "redevelopment" means, on an already developed site: the creation or addition of impervious surface; the expansion of a building footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; structural development including an increase in gross floor area and/or exterior construction or remodeling, where the structural development exceeds 50 percent of the assessed or appraised value of the structure or improvement being redeveloped; the repair or replacement of impervious surface that is not part of a routine maintenance activity; a change of use which has a potential to release a new pollutant(s) to the city's surface water systems; or land disturbing activities associated with the creation, repair, replacement, or addition of impervious surface. For the purposes of determining_flow control and other stormwater review requirements, the definition of "redevelopment project" identified in the KCSWDM applies. "Regional retention/detention system" means a stormwater quantity control structure designed to prevent or correct existing or future excess surface water runoff problems of a basin or sub basin. The area downstream has been previously identified as having existing or predicted significant and regional flooding and/or erosion problems. This term is also used when a detention facility is used to detain stormwater runoff from a number of different businesses, developments or areas within a catchment. "Retention" means the process of collecting and holding surface and stormwater runoff with no surface outflow. Ordinance No.09- Page 10 of 41 Rev 3/09 "Retention/detention facility (R/D)" means a type of drainage facility designed either to hold water for a considerable length of time and then release it by evaporation, plant transpiration, and/or infiltration into the ground; or to hold surface and stormwater runoff for a short period of time and then release it to the surface and stormwater conveyance system. "Run -on or blow -in of rainfall" means stormwater from uphill that could regularly run through an area, or rainfall that could regularly be blown in and wet the pavement surface. (Ord. No. 09 -593, 22, 1 -6 -09; Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21- 1.18.) Section 8. FWRC 16.15.010 "Regulated activities." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.15.010 Regulated activities. The following projects or activities are subject to the provisions of this title, unless exempted in FWRC 16.15.020 below: (1) New development. (a) Single family residential or (b) Projects that add -52,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface; or (c) Projects that propose 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity; or (ed) Projects that propose to construct or modify a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12 inches or more in size /depth, or receives surface and stormwater runoff from a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12 inches or more in size /depth; or (2) Redevelopment, as defined in this title (-alas also defined in FWRC 19.30.120), which meets or exceeds one of the following thresholds or criteria: Ordinance No.09- footprint or other structure by 5,000 square fcct of surface area or more; (de) Collection and concentration of surface and stormwater runoff from a drainage area of more than 5,000 square feet; or (eff Projects which contain, are adjacent to or directly discharge to a floodplain, stream, lake, wetland, or closed depression, groundwater recharge area, or other water quality sensitive area, or a receiving water with a documented water quality problem as determined by the public works director, based on a written map, policy, water quality monitoring data or plan in existence or implemented by the director prior to Page 11 of 41 Rev 3/09 Redevelopment projects that are subject to water quality improvements may phase construction of the improvements as described in FWRC 19.30.120, Non conforming water quality. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -6.) follows: submission of a redevelopment application which is determined to trigger application of this subsection, or based on information developed during review of a particular redevelopment application; or (fg) Projects that involve a change in use, and the changed use has a potential to release a new pollutant(s) to surface water systems within the city. For the purposes of this subsection, "new pollutant(s) means a pollutant that was not discharged at that location immediately prior to the change in use, as well as a pollutant that was discharged in less quantities immediately prior to the change in use; or (gh) Redevelopment Projects other than normal maintenance or other than tenant improvements, but including any increase in gross floor area, in any one consecutive 12 -month period which exceeds 50 percent of the assessed or appraised value (whichever is greater) of the structure or improvement being fedeveloped; or water-quality-problem7 (i) Project proposing $100,000 or more of improvements to an existing high use site. 'Note: the dollar amount indicated can be adjusted based on the consumer price index as identified in the KCSWDM in section 1.1.1.] Section 9. FWRC 16.20.010 "Manuals and addendum adopted." shall be amended to read as 16.20.010 Manuals and addendum adopted. The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), the Federal Way Addendum to the King County Surface Water Design Manual, and the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Prevention Manual, and the latest edition of the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound as they exist on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter or as hereafter amended, are hereby adopted by this reference. They are referred to in this title respectively as the KCSWDM, Federal Way Addendum, LID Manual and the KCSPGPM. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -9.) Ordinance No.09- Page 12 of 41 Rev 3/09 Section 10. FWRC 16.20.020 "Stormwater best management practices (BMPs) shall be amended to read as follows: 16.20.020 Stormwater best management practices (BMPs). (1) General. BMPs, as specified in the KCSWDM, KCSPGPM, and the LID Manual, shall be used to control pollution from stormwater, and to comply with the standards in this title. (2) Experimental BMPs. In those instances where appropriate BMPs are not specified in the KCSWDM, KCSPEPM, and the LID Manual, experimental BMPs should be considered. Experimental BMPs are encouraged as a means of solving problems in a manner not addressed by the KCSWDM, KCSPEPM, and the LID Manual in an effort to improve stormwater quality technology. Experimental BMPs must be approved by the director of public works prior to construction. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -10.) follows: Section 11. FWRC 16.25.010 "Core and special requirements." shall be amended to read as 16.25.010 Core and special requirements. Depending on the type of drainage review required, as described in FWRC 16.25.020, one or more core or special requirements shall be met. The core and special requirements, described below, are also described in detail in the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum adopted by reference in FWRC 16.20.010. (1) Core requirements. (a) Core Requirement #1 Discharge at the Natural Location. All surface and stormwater runoff from a project must be discharged at the natural location so as not to be diverted onto or away from downstream properties. The manner in which runoff is discharged from the project site must not create a significant adverse impact to downhill properties or drainage systems. (b) Core Requirement #2 Off-Site Analysis. All proposed projects must submit an off -site analysis report that assesses potential off -site drainage impacts associated with development of the project site and proposes appropriate mitigations of those impacts. The initial permit submittal shall meet the requirements outlined in inelude the KCSWDM and the Ordinance No. 09 Federal Way Addendum. (c) Core Requirement #3 Flow Control. All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide on -site flow control facilities to mitigate the impacts of increased storm and surface water runoff generated by the addition of new impervious surface, new pervious surface and replacement impervious surfaces d land co nvernion. These facilities shall, at a minimum, meet the performance Page 13 of 41 Rev 3/09 criteria for one of the area specific flow control standards and be implemented according to the applicable flow control implementation requirements described in the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum. Flow control BMP's must beprovided as directed in the KCSWDM. (d) Core Requirement #4 Conveyance System. All engineered conveyance system elements for proposed projects must be analyzed, designed, and constructed to provide a minimum level of protection against overtopping, flooding, erosion, and structural failure as specified in the KCSWDM (e) Core Requirement #5 Erosion and Sediment Control. All proposed projects that will clear, grade, or otherwise disturb the site must provide erosion and sediment controls to prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties. To prevent sediment transport, erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures that are appropriate to the project site must be applied and performed as described in the KCSWDM. are required and shall porfefn as described in Chapter 1.2.5.2 of the Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM. Both temporary and permanent erosion and sediment controls shall be implemented as described in Chapter 1.2.5.3 of the KCSWDM (f) Core Requirement #6 Maintenance and Operations. Maintenance and operation of all drainage facilities is the responsibility of the applicant or property owner, except those facilities for which Federal Way is granted an easement, tract, or right -of -way and officially assumes maintenance and operation as described in the KCSWDM and Fcdcral Way Addendum. Drainage facilities must be maintained and operated in compliance with Federal Way maintenance standards. (g) Core Requirement #7 Financial Guarantees and Liability. All drainage facilities constructed or modified for projects (except downspout infiltration and dispersion systems), and any work performed in the right -of -way, must comply with the financial guarantee requirements in FWRC Title 19. (h) Core Requirement #8 Water Quality. All proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, must provide water quality (WQ) facilities to treat the runoff from new and/or replaced pollution generating impervious surfaces and pollution generating pervious surfaces. Redevelopment projects may also be required to provide WQ facilities to treat existing pollution generating impervious surfaces. These WQ facilities shall be selected and implemented according to the applicablo WQ implementation ioqu cmcnts in Chapter 1.2.8.2 of the Fcdcral Way Adde t„ the KCSWDM. (2) Special requirements. (a) Special Requirement #1 Other Adopted Area Specific Requirements. King County has developed several types of area specific plans and regulations that contain requirements for drainage design. These regulations include critical drainage areas, master drainage plans, basin plans, lake management plans, and shared facility Ordinance No. 09- AEI Page 14 of 41 Rev 3/09 drainage plans. In some cases, these plans and regulations could overlap with the city of Federal Way's jurisdictional area. The Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan is the only one of these area specific regulations that currently affects Federal Way. King County developed this basin plan which recommends specific land uses, regional capital projects, and special drainage requirements for future development within the Hylebos and lower Puget Sound basin. The drainage requirements of adopted area- specific regulations such as basin plans shall be applied in addition to the drainage requirements of the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum unless otherwise specified in the adopted regulation. Where conflicts occur between the two, the drainage requirements of the adopted area specific regulation shall supersede those in the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum. (b) Special Requirement #2 Floodplain /Floodway Delineation. Floodplains and floodways are subject to inundation during extreme events. The 100 -year floodplains are delineated in order to minimize flooding impacts to new development and to prevent aggravation of existing flooding problems by new development. Regulations and restrictions concerning development within a 100 -year floodplain are found in Federal Way's environmentally sensitive areas and flood hazard regulations. If an approved flood hazard study exists, then it may be used as the basis for delineating the floodplain and floodway boundaries provided the study was prepared in a manner consistent with the KCSWDM and other Federal Way flood hazard regulations. If an approved flood hazard study does not exist, then one shall be prepared based on the requirements described in Chapter 4.4.2 of the KCSWDM, "Floodplain/Floodway Analysis." (c) Special Requirement #3 Flood Protection Facilities. Developing sites protected by levees, revetments, or berms requires a high level of confidence in their structural integrity and performance. Proper analysis, design, and construction is necessary to protect against the potentially catastrophic consequences if such facilities should fail. The applicant is required to demonstrate conformance with FEMA regulations using the methods specified in Chapter 4.4.2 of the KCSWDM and-the-Feder-al-Way Addendum. In addition, certain easement requirements (outlined in Chapter 4.1 of the KCSWDM must be met in order to allow city access for maintenance of the facility. (d) Special Requirement #4 Source Control. Water quality source controls, many of which are listed in the KCSPGPM and the LID Manual, prevent rainfall and runoff water from coming into contact with pollutants, thereby reducing the likelihood that pollutants will enter public waterways and violate water quality standards. When applicable, structural source control measures, such as car wash pads or dumpster area roofing, shall be shown on the site improvement plans submitted for engineering review and approval. Other nonstructural source control measures, such as covering storage piles with plastic or isolating areas where pollutants are used or stored, are to be implemented after occupancy and need not be addressed during the plan review Ordinance No.09- Page 15 of 41 Rev 3/09 process. All commercial and industrial projects (irrespective of size) undergoing drainage review are required to implement applicable source controls. (e) Special Requirement #5 Oil Control. Projects proposing to develop or redevelop a high -use site must provide oil controls in addition to any other water quality controls required by this manual. Such sites typically generate high concentrations of oil due to high traffic turnover or the frequent transfer of oil. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -12.) Section 12. FWRC 16.25.020 "Drainage review." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.25.020 Drainage review. (1) When required. Drainage review is required for any proposed project, including new development and redevelopment (except for those proposing only routine maintenance, repair, or emergency modifications) which is or includes a regulated activity under FWRC 16.15.010, and for which city approval, including but not limited to any approval listed in FWRC 16.15.030, is required. (2) Type of drainage review required. One of the following three four types of drainage review will be required, depending on the project; provided, however, that a project which qualifies for small site drainage review may also require targeted drainage review if the requirements for targeted drainage review are met: (a) Small site drainage review. Small site drainage review is required for single family residential or subdivision projects that will result in 2,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface, replaced surface or newplus replaced impervious surface or 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity, AND that meets one of the following criteria: (i) The project will result in no more than 10,000 square feet of total impervious surface added on or after January 8, 2001, no more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, and no more than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface, OR (ii) The project will result in no more than 10,000 square feet of total impervious surface added on or after January 8, 2001, and its new pervious surface area will be no more than 35,000 square feet minus 3.25 times the area of new impervious surface being proposed by the project (for sites larger than 22,000 square feet, a factor of 2.25 maybe used instead of 3.25). Compliance shall be demonstrated through the implementation of an approved small site drainage plan and a small site erosion and sediment control plan. Detailed design specifications and submittal requirements are presented in Appendix C of the KCSWDM, titled: "Small Site Drainage Requirements." (b) Full drainage review. Full drainage review is required for any proposed project, including a redevelopment Ordinance No.09- Page 16 of 41 Rev 3/09 impervious surfacc.proiect as determined in FWRC 16.15.010, AND meets one or more of the following criteria: (i) The project will result in 2,000 square feet or more of new impervious surface, replaced impervious surface or new plus replaced impervious surface, but is not subject to Small Project Drainage Review as determined in FWRC 16.25.020. (ii) The project will result in 7,000 square feet or more of land disturbing activity but is not subject to Small Project Drainage review per FWRC 16.25.020. (iii) The project is a redevelopment project on a parcel or combination of parcels in which the total of new, plus replaced impervious surface is 5,000 square feet or more and whose valuation of proposed improvements (including interior improvements and excluding required mitigation and frontage improvements) exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the existing parcel improvements. If full drainage review is required, then the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the following requirements: (i) All core requirements specified in FWRC 16.25.010. (ii) All special requirements specified in FWRC 16.25.010. c,) Large project drainage review. Large project drainage review is applied to development proposals that are large and/or involve resources or problems of a special sensitivity or complexity. Large project drainage review is required for any proposed project that is subject to drainage review as determined in FWRC 16.15.010 AND that meets any one of the following criteria: (i) The project would, at full build -out, result in 50 acres or more of new impervious surface within a single subbasin or multiple subbasins that are hydraulically connected across subbasin boundaries, OR (ii) The project site is 50 acres or more (including growth reserve areas) within a critical aquifer recharge area. If Large Project Drainage Review is required, compliance shall be achieved through the implementation of the scope of requirements as specified in Section 1.1.2.4, Large Project Drainage Review, of the KCSWDM. (edl) Targeted drainage review. Targeted drainage review is required for any proposed projects, including redevelopment projects, that are subject to drainage review but are not subject to full drainage review, and which fall into one or more of the following project categories of project TDR Category #1: Projects that contain or are adjacent to floodplains or environmentally sensitive areas; OR projects that propose 7,000 square feet (1 acre if in Small Project Drainage Review) or more of land disturbing activity. TDR Category #2: Projects proposing to construct or modify a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12 inches or larger in size /depth or receives runoff from a drainage pipe /ditch that is 12- inches or more in size /depth. TDR Category #3: Redevelopment projects as defined in FWRC 19.30.120 If targeted drainage review is required, then the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project complies with the selected core and special requirements Ordinance No.09- Page 17 of 41 Rev 3/09 corresponding to the appropriate category or categories of project that best match the proposed project. The specific requirements for each TDR category are as follows: (i) TDR Project Category #1. (A) The following requirements apply to TDR Category #1 projects, but may have exemptions or thresholds that preclude or limit their application to a specific project: (I) Core Requirement #5 Erosion and Sediment Control. (II) Special Requirement #1 Other Adopted Area- Specific Requirements. (III) Special Requirement #2 Floodplain/Floodway Analysis. (IV) Special Requirement #3 Flood Protection Facilities. (V) Special Requirement #4 Source Control. (B) The following requirements may be applied to projects in TDR Category #1 at the discretion of public works based on site specific conditions: (I) Core Requirement #1 Discharge at the Natural Location. (II) Core Requirement #2 Off -Site Analysis. (III) Core Requirement #3 Flow Control. (IV) Core Requirement #4 Conveyance System. (V) Core Requirement #6 Maintenance and Operations. (VI) Core Requirement #7 Financial Guarantees and Liability. (VII) Core Requirement #8 Water Quality. (ii) TDR Project Category #2. (A) The following requirements apply to projects in TDR Category #2: (I) Core Requirement #1 Discharge at the Natural Location. (II) Core Requirement #2 Off -Site Analysis. (III) Core Requirement #4 Conveyance System. (IV) Core Requirement #5 Erosion and Sediment Control. (V) Core Requirement #6 Maintenance and Operations. (B) The following requirements apply to projects in TDR Category #2, but have exemptions or thresholds that may preclude or limit their application to a specific project: (I) Core Requirement #7 Financial Guarantees and Liability. (II) Special Requirement #4 Source Control. (iii) TDR Project Category #3. (A) The following requirements apply to the projects in TDR Category #3: (I) Core Requirement #1 Discharge at the Natural Location. (II) Core Requirement #5 Erosion and Sediment Control. (III) Core Requirement #6 Maintenance and Operations. (B) The following requirements apply to projects in TDR Category #3, but have exemptions or thresholds that may preclude or limit their application to a specific project: (I) Core Requirement #7 Financial Guarantees and Liability. (II) Core Requirement #8 Water Quality. (III) Special Requirement #4 Source Control. Ordinance No..09- Page 18 of 41 Rev 3/09 (IV) Special Requirement #5 Oil Control. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -13.) Section 13. FWRC 16.30.020 "Types of adjustments." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.30.020 Types of adjustments. There are fetwfive types of adjustments, as follows: (1) Standard adjustments; (2) Complex adjustments; (3) Preapplication adjustments; (34) Experimental design adjustments; (45) Blanket adjustments. The appropriate use for each adjustment type is described in the KCSWDM and-Federal-Way Addendum. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -18.) Section 14. FWRC 16.30.030 "Authority." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.30.030 Authority. The director shall have authority to approve or deny all fwfive types of adjustments for any regulated activity requiring drainage review under this title. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -19.) follows: Section 15. FWRC 16.30.040 "Criteria for granting adjustments." shall be amended to read as 16.30.040 Criteria for granting adjustments. Adjustments to the requirements in the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum may be granted; provided, that the adjustment will: (1) Produce a result comparable to that which would be achieved by satisfaction of the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum requirements, and which is in the public interest; and (2) Meet the objectives of safety, function, appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability based on sound engineering judgment. WhenIf an applicant demonstrates to the director's satisfaction that meeting either the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum requirements, or the requirement to produce a comparable result will deny thean applicant all reasonable use of his or her property, the approval of the adjustment will require an adjustment criteria exception to be approved by the City of Federal Way as Ordinance No.09- Page 19 of 41 Rev 3/09 described in Section 1.4.2, Criteria for Granting Adjustments, of the KCSWDM applicant shall Any adjustment that would conflict with the requirements of any other title of the Federal Way Revised Code must first be reviewed and approved by the department responsible for administration of that title. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -20.) Section 16. FWRC 16.30.050 "Experimental design." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.30.050 Experimental design adjustments. Adjustments utilizing an experimental water quality facility or flow control facility may be approved by the director on a limited basis if the following criteria are met: (1) The newexperimental design is likely to meet the identified target pollutant removal goal or flow control performance based on performance data and theoretical considerations; and (2) Construction of the facility can, in practice, be successfully carried out; and (3) Maintenance considerations are included in the design, and costs are not excessive or are borne and reliably performed by the applicant or property owner; and (4) The applicant or property owner contributes a share of the cost of monitoring to determine facility performance. The director may condition approval of an experimental design adjustment upon the applicant's agreement to reserve sufficient land area and post a bond or other financial guarantee satisfactory to the director, for construction of a conventional facility should the experimental facility fail. The director may approve release of the set aside area and financial guarantee upon proof of operation of the experimental facility to the satisfaction of the director. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -21.) Section 17. FWRC 16.30.060 "Adjustment application and review process." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.30.060 Adjustment application and review process. (1) Timing. Requests for standard and complex adjustments will be accepted only for permits pending approval or approved permits that have not yet expired. Applications for preapplication adjustments and experimental design adjustments may be submitted prior to permit application if the applicant provides justification at a preapplication meeting with public works that an adjustment decision is needed to determine the viability of the proposed project. There is no application process for blanket adjustments because they are initiated and issued solely by the city. Ordinance No.09- Page 20of41 Rev 3/09 (2) Submission of application. The completed adjustment request application forms must be submitted to the director, along with sufficient engineering information (described in Chapter 2 of the KCSWDM and Federal Way Addendum) to evaluate the request. The application shall identify the specific requirement for which the adjustment is sought. (3) Review of application. The director or his or her designee will review and either approve or deny the adjustment request in writing following the director's determination that all necessary information has been received from the applicant. Approvals of standard and complex adjustments will expire upon expiration of the permit to which they apply. Approvals of preapplication adjustments will expire one year after the approval date, unless a complete permit application is submitted and accepted. If a criteria exception is required for the adjustment, the director may require additional engineering or information to document that denial of reasonable use would occur, that every effort was made to achieve compliance, and that the best practicable alternative will not cause significant adverse impacts. (4) Blanket adjustments. Blanket adjustments may be issued by the director based on: (a) A previously approved standard, complex, preapplication, or experimental design adjustment and supporting documentation; and (b) Information describing the need for the blanket adjustment. Typically, blanket adjustments should apply globally to design or procedural requirements and be independent of site conditions. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -22.) Section 18. FWRC 16.30.070 "Appeal procedure." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.30.070 Appeal procedure. (1) Appeal procedure. The applicant may appeal the denial or approval conditions of an adjustment request or criteria exception decision by submitting a formal letter to the director within 15 working days of the decision. This letter must include justification for review of the decision, along with a copy of the adjustment request with the conditions (if applicable) and a listing of all previously submitted material. The department director shall respond to the applicant in writing within 15 working days; this decision shall be final and not subject to subsequent appeal, either independently or as part of an appeal of overall project land use or building permit approval. A per -hour review fee will be charged to the applicant for the director's review of an appeal. (2) Director's decision on appeal. The public works director or designee may grant an exception from the adjustment denial or approval conditions or criteria exception decision; provided, that the director finds that the request satisfies the following criteria: (a) The exception provides equivalent environmental protection and is in the overriding public interest; and that the objectives of safety, function, environmental protection and facility maintenance, based upon sound engineering, are fully met; (b) That there are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting the property such Ordinance No.09- Page 21 of 41 Rev 3/09 that the intent of the core and special requirements has been met; (c) That granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public health and welfare, nor injurious to other properties in the vicinity and/or downstream, and to the quality of waters of the state; and (d) The exception is the least possible exception that could be granted to comply with the intent of the core and special requirements. Exceptions granted shall expire upon expiration of the permit to which they apply. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -23.) follows: Section 19. FWRC 16.35.020 "Maintenance responsibility." shall be amended to read as 16.35.020 Maintenance responsibility. (1) Generally. All stormwater facilities shall be maintained in accordance with this title and Appendix A and Chapter 6 of the KCSWDM Drainage facilities shall be maintained so that they operate as intended. Systematic, routine preventive maintenance is preferred. (2) Public stormwater facilities. The responsibility of the city of Federal Way shall be limited to maintenance and operation of the city of Federal Way stormwater system, and the city of Federal Way assumes no responsibility for maintenance and operation of private systems. (3) Private stormwater facilities. Property owners are responsible for the maintenance, operation or repair of stormwater drainage systems and BMPs. Property owners shall maintain, operate and repair these facilities in compliance with the requirements of this title and Appendix A and Chapter 6 of the KCSWDM e (4) New subdivisions and new short plats. In new subdivisions and short plats, maintenance responsibility for private drainage facilities shall be specified on the face of the subdivision or short plat. (5) Existing subdivisions and existing short plats. If a private drainage facility serves multiple lots and the responsibility for maintenance has not been specified on the subdivision plat, short plat or other legal document, maintenance responsibility shall rest with the homeowners' association, if one exists, or otherwise with the owners of the properties served by the facility. If owners of the properties served by the facility cannot be located, maintenance responsibility shall rest with the owner(s) of the property on which the facilities are located. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -27.) Ordinance No.09- Page 22 of 41 Rev 3/09 as follows: Section 20. FWRC 16.35.030 "Minimum maintenance standards." shall be amended to read 16.35.030 Minimum maintenance standards. The following are the minimum standards for the maintenance of stormwater facilities: (1) All stormwater facilities shall be inspected at regular intervals and maintained and repaired in accordance with Appendix A and Chapter 6 of the the approved designs for stormwater facilities, stormwater permits which may be issued by the city of Federal Way, the State Department of Ecology, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), applicable construction standards, and the minimum requirements as stated in the stormwater management manual. (2) Where maintenance and repair is necessary to correct health or safety problems, to prevent harmful materials from entering the stormwater system, or to remove harmful materials that have entered the stormwater system, such work shall be completed by the owner or operator of the stormwater system or stormwater facility within 24 hours of discovery of the need for maintenance or repair. When maintenance and repair is found necessary to prevent water quality degradation, such work shall be completed within 14 calendar days of discovery of the need for maintenance or repair. For other related problems, maintenance or repairs shall be completed within 30 calendar days of discovery or repair. (3) Where lack of maintenance is causing or contributing to a water quality problem, immediate action shall be taken to correct the problem. Within one month, the director shall revisit the facility to assure that it is being maintained. (4) Should the public works director have reasonable cause to believe that the situation at a private stormwater facility is so adverse or hazardous so as to preclude written notice, he or she may take the measures necessary to eliminate the hazardous situation; provided, that he or she shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner before acting. In such instances the owner of the property and/or the person responsible for the maintenance of the facility shall be obligated for the payment of all costs incurred. If costs are incurred and a bond pursuant to this title or other city requirement has been posted, the public works director shall have the authority to collect against the bond to cover costs incurred. (5) Illicit discharges to the stormwater system are prohibited, unless such discharges are authorized in accordance with Chapter 173 -216 WAC (State Waste Discharge Permit Program) or Chapter 173 -220 WAC (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program). (6) Harmful and prohibited materials, as defined in this title, shall not be allowed to enter any stormwater system. All such substances shall be stored, handled and disposed in a manner that will prevent them from entering the stormwater system. Further, storage, handling and disposal shall be conducted in accordance with Chapters 173 -303 and 173 -304 WAC. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -28.) Ordinance No.09- Page 23 of 41 Rev 3/09 Section 21. FWRC 16.45.010 "Purpose." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.45.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the city's surface and groundwater quality by providing minimum requirements for reducing and controlling the discharge of contaminants from commercial, industrial, governmental, agricultural, residential and other land use activities in Federal Way. The city council recognizes that water quality degradation can result directly from one discharge or through the collective impact of many small discharges. Therefore, this title prohibits the discharge of contaminants into surface water, stormwater and groundwater and outlines preventative measures to restrict contaminants from entering such waters, including the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) In addition, the city council also recognizes the importance of maintaining economic viability while providing necessary environmental protection. An additional purpose of this title it to assist in the achievement of both goals. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -35.) Section 22. FWRC 16.45.030 "Scope." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.45.030 Scope. This chapter establishes the following water quality standards based on how the water leaves the subject property: (1) FWRC 16.45.040 establishes water quality standards for water that flows directly from the subject property into a stream, a lake or Puget Sound. (2) FWRC 16.45.050 establishes water quality standards for water that is conveyed into the public stormwater system directly from the subject property. (3) FWRC 16.45.060 establishes water quality standards for water that enters the groundwater system by penetrating through the surface of the subject property. (4) Water that leaves the subject property by conveyance directly into a sanitary sewer system or from a septic tank system is not regulated by this title. akehaven Utility District Resolution, Midway Sewer District Resolution and/or Code of the King County Board of Health, Title 13 applies to water quality in these situations. (Ord. No. 90 -43, 2(115.150(1)), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 22- 1196.) Section 23. FWRC 16.45.030 "Scope." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.45.040 Quality of water entering streams and lakes. (1) Generally. The quality of any water entering any stream or lake or Puget Sound directly Ordinance No.09- Page 24 of 41 Rev 3/09 from the subject property must meet the water quality standards established under the authority of Chapter 90.48 RCW, and contained within Chapter 173 -201 WAC, which standards are hereby incorporated by reference. (2) Classifications. Under the authority of Chapter 173 201 WAC, the city hereby classifies all (Ord. No. 90 -43, 2(115.150(2)), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 22- 1197.) Section 24. FWRC 16.45.090 "Enforcement." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.45.090 Enforcement. (1) Violations. Notwithstanding the requirements of Chapter 16.50 FWRC and FWRC 16.55.010, if a person has properly designed, constructed, implemented, and is maintaining BMPs according to the BMP manual, is carrying out AKART as required or approved by the director, and/or has modified existing practices as specified by the director, and contaminants continue to enter surface water and stormwater or groundwater; or the person can demonstrate that there are no additional contaminants being discharged from the site above the background conditions of the water entering the site, then that person shall not be in violation of water quality provisions of this chapter. Said person however, remains liable for any prohibited discharges through illicit connections, dumping, spills, improper maintenance of BMPs, or other discharges in violation of this chapter that allow contaminants to enter surface water and stormwater or groundwater. (2) Additional gaidaneeprocedures. The director, in consultation with other departments of Federal Way government, maywill develop and implement additional guidance information which describes the goals, objectives, policies, and procedures for a water quality investigation and enforcement program. These procedures will describe how the city will characterize, investigate and respond to reports or instances of noncompliance with this title and shall identify by title the official(s) responsible for implementing the enforcement procedures. These procedures will also include direction on removing the source of discharge, notification of appropriate authorities, notification of property owner, and the means of providing technical assistance for eliminating the discharge. In addition these procedures will include escalating enforcement and legal actions. (3) Sampling and analysis. Whenever the director determines that any person has violated or is violating the provisions of this chapter, the director may require the person responsible for the violation to sample and analyze any discharge, surface and stormwater, groundwater, and/or sediment, in accordance with sampling and analytical procedures or requirements determined by the director. A copy of the analysis shall be provided to the Federal Way surface water management division. (4) Summary abatement. Whenever any violation of this chapter causes or creates a condition which constitutes 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 Ordinance No.09- Page 25 of 41 Rev 3/09 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 the abatement. The costs of such summary abatement shall be recoverable via procedures for recovery of abatement costs as set forth in Chapter 1.1.5 FWRC, Civil Enforcement of Code. (Ord. No. 09 -597, 62, 1 -6 -09; Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -41.) Section 25. FWRC 16.50.010 "Illicit connections." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.50.010 Illicit connections. No person may connect a conveyance system which was not constructed or intended to convey precipitation runoff, or which has been converted from such usage to another use, to a storm drainage system or groundwater infiltration system. The construction, use, maintenance, or continued existence for illicit connections to surface water, stormwater, groundwater or the Puget Sound is prohibited. This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under the law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of construction. except that tThe following connections or discharges may be made: (1) Allowable discharges as defined below; (2) Discharges authorized by a NPDES or state waste discharge permit; (3) Connections conveying effluent from an approved on -site sewage disposal system to its drainfield. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -36.) Section 26. FWRC 16.50.020 "Prohibited discharges." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.50.020 Prohibited discharges. It is unlawful for any person to discharge contaminants into surface water, and stormwater, groundwater, or the Puget Sound. Contaminants include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Trash or debris; (2) Construction materials; (3) Petroleum products including but not limited to oil, gasoline, grease, fuel oil, heating oil; (4) Antifreeze and other automotive products; (5) Metals in either particulate or dissolved form; (6) Flammable or explosive materials; (7) Radioactive material; (8) Batteries; (9) Acids, alkalis, or bases; (10) Paints, stains, resins, lacquers, or varnishes; (11) Degreasers and/or solvents; (12) Drain cleaners; Ordinance No.09- Page 26 of 41 Rev 3/09 (13) Pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers; (14) Steam cleaning wastes; (15) Soaps, detergents, or ammonia; (16) Swimming pool or spa filter backwash; (17) Chlorine, bromine, or other disinfectants; (18) Heated water; (19) Domestic animal wastes; (20) Sewage; (21) Recreational vehicle waste (22) Animal carcasses; (23) Food wastes; (24) Bark and other fibrous materials; (25) Collected lawn clippings, leaves, or branches; (26) Concrete and concrete by products including waste water from concrete saw cutting, (2627) Silt, sediment, or gravel; (2728) Dyes (except as described below under "allowable discharges (2829) Chemicals not normally found in uncontaminated water; (2930) Any other process associated discharge except as otherwise allowed in this section; (3931) Any hazardous material or waste not listed above. (Ord. No. 99- 352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -37.) Section 27. FWRC 16.50.030 "Allowable discharges." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.50.030 Allowable discharges. Subject to provisions of the BMP manual, the following types of discharges shall not be considered prohibited discharges for the purpose of this title unless the director or his/her designee determines that the type of discharge, whether singly or in combination with others, is causing pollution of surface water and stormwater or groundwater: (1) Natural uncontaminated surface water; (2) Diverted stream flows; (3) Spring water; (24) Uncontaminated water from crawl space pumps or footing drains; (5) Uncontaminated pumped groundwater:, (6) Uncontaminated groundwater infiltration defined in 40 CFR 35.2005(20); (7) Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands; (8) Collected rainwater that is uncontaminated; (3) Lawn watcring; (9) Irrigation water from agricultural sources that is commingled with urban stormwater; (510) Materials placed as part of an approved habitat restoration or bank stabilization project; Ordinance No.09- Page 27 of 41 Rev 3/09 (8) Common practices for watcr well disinfection; (911) Discharges resulting from diffuse or ubiquitous sources such as atmospheric deposition; (4-012) Discharges resulting from dye testing authorized by the director; (13) Air conditioning condensation; (4414) Discharges which result from emergency response activities or other actions that must be undertaken immediately or within a time too short to allow full compliance with this title so as to avoid an imminent threat to public health or safety. (The director may further define qualifying activities in administrative guidance. The person responsible for said emergency response activities shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the discharges resulting from such activities are minimized and ensure that future incidents are prevented to the greatest extent possible). In addition, this person shall evaluate BMPs and the site plan, where applicable, to restrict recurrence; (4-215) Other types of discharges as determined by the director. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -38.) Section 28. A new section is added to chapter 16.50 "Discharges into Federal Way Waters and Storm Drainage Systems" FWRC to read as follows: 16.50.040 Conditional discharges. The following types of discharges shall not be considered prohibited discharges for the purposes of this chapter if they meet the stated conditions, or unless the director or his/her designee determines that the type of discharge, whether singly or in combination with others, is causing or is likely to cause significant contamination of surface water, stormwater or groundwater: (1) Discharges from potable water sources, including water line flushing, hyperchlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic test water that have been de- chlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH- adjusted, if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent resuspension of sediments to surface water, stormwater, groundwater, or the Puget Sound; (2) Lawn watering and other irrigation runoff. These discharges shall be minimized through, at a minimum, public education activities and/or water conservation efforts; (3) Discharges from swimming pools that have been de- chlorinated to a concentration of 0.1 ppm or less, pH- adjusted and reoxygenized if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent resuspension of sediments to surface water, stormwater, groundwater, or the Puget Sound; (4) Street and sidewalk wash water, water used to control dust, and routine external wash down that does not use detergents (these discharges shall be minimized through, at a minimum, public education activities and/or water conservation efforts); Ordinance No.09- Page 28 of 41 Rev 3/09 (5) Non stormwater discharges covered by a separate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Waste Discharge permit, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations; and provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge to the storm drain system (6) Other stormwater discharges. The discharges shall be in compliance with the requirements of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) reviewed and approved by Surface Water Management, which addresses control of such discharges by applying AKART to prevent contaminants from entering surface water, stormwater, groundwater, or the Puget Sound. Section 29. FWRC 16.55.010 "Stormwater Pollution Control Manual." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.55.010 Stormwater Pollution ControlPrevention Manual. (1) General. The King County Stormwater Pollution GentrelPrevention Manual (BMP manual), adopted in FWRC 16.20.020 and 16.20.030, applies to existing facilities and activities and to new development activities not covered by the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM. The BMP manual describes the types of regulated activities, the types of contaminants generated by each activity, the contaminant's affect on water quality, the required source control BMPs, and the available treatment BMPs. The BMP manual includes information on design, maintenance, allowable use of alternative BMPs, and a schedule for BMP implementation. (2) Priority of BMP implementation. Compliance with this section shall be achieved through the use of best management practices described in the BMP manual. In applying the BMP manual, the director or his/her designee shall first require the implementation of source control BMPs unless the BMP manual specifically requires treatment BMPs. If source control BMPs (or treatment BMPs if required by the BMP manual) do not prevent contaminants from entering surface and stormwater or groundwater, the director or his/her designee may require implementation of additional source control BMPs and/or treatment BMPs according to AKART. (3) Prevention of pollution of surface and groundwaters. BMPs shall be applied as required herein, so that when all appropriate combinations of individual BMPs are utilized, pollution of surface or groundwaters is prevented. If all BMPs required herein, or by the director are applied, and pollution still occurs, the discharger shall modify existing practices or apply further water pollution control measures, as specified by the director. In the absence of implementation of applicable BMPs, the director shall be authorized to conclude that individual activities are causing pollution in violation of this chapter, and shall be authorized to enforce this chapter accordingly. (4) Technical assistance. The Federal Way surface water management division will provide, Ordinance No.09- Page 29 of 41 Rev 3/09 upon reasonable request, available technical assistance materials and information, and information on outside financial assistance options, to persons required to comply with this title. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -39.) Section 30. FWRC 16.55.020 "Exemptions." shall be amended to read as follows: 16.55.020 Exemptions. It is intended that all persons shall apply appropriate BMPs, whether as required by this title or under the authority of another program. Notwithstanding the requirements of FWRC 16.55.010, implementation of BMPs prescribed by this chapter is not required when: (1) Alternative BMPs are being implemented pursuant to another federal, state, or local program, unless the director determines the alternative BMPs will not prevent or sufficiently reduce the discharge of contaminants. If the other program permitting alternative BMPS requires the development of a best management practices plan, the person shall, upon request and at no cost to the city, provide the director a copy of the BMP plan within five days of the request; (2) A general or individual NPDES permit for stormwater discharges has been issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology for the property or activity in question, and the NPDES permit includes a water quality pollution control plan; unless the director determines that the plan is not being implemented or that implementation of the water quality pollution control plan will not prevent or sufficiently reduce the discharge of contaminants; (3) A farm management plan approved by the director is being implemented and maintained according to the plan; (54) An approved forest practices application has been approved by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources for forest practices, with the exception of forest practices occurring on lands platted after January 1, 1960, or on lands being converted to another use, or regulatory approval has otherwise been issued by the city of Federal Way or other local government under RCW 76.09.240; (65) The director is authorized to and has issued an exemption from BMP requirements under another provision of this title. (Ord. No. 99 -352, 3, 11- 16 -99. Code 2001 21 -40.) Ordinance No.09- Page 30 of 41 Rev 3/09 follows: Section 31. FWRC 18.60.050 "Streets and rights -of- way." shall be amended to read as 18.60.050 Streets and rights -of -way. (1) Streets within an approved land division shall be within a dedicated public right -of -way. Private tracts or easements may be used in short subdivisions and cluster subdivisions using those cross section types "Y" as described for this purpose in the Development Standards FWRC 19.135.250. Ingress /egress and utilities easements and alleys may be utilized when certain conditions established in the city of Federal Way public works development standards are met. (2) All streets within the public rights -of -way shall be improved to the standards specified in Chapter 19.135 FWRC, regarding required improvements to rights -of -way. Improvements to private tracts, alleys, and ingress /egress and utilities easements shall comply with the city of Federal Way public works department development standards. (3) LID alternatives, such as permeable surfacing and on -site stormwater management facilities are encouraged where appropriate based on existing site conditions and when approved by the City. (34) All streets abutting a land division shall be improved in accordance with Chapter 19.135 FWRC, and the city of Federal Way public works development standards regarding required improvements. (45) All traffic control devices within a land division shall be provided by the developer as required by the director of public works. (66) Streets shall be provided to develop a street network with a block perimeter of no greater than 2,640 feet, as measured on centerlines. This requirement may be modified if connections cannot be made due to: (a) Topographical constraints. (b) Environmentally sensitive areas. (c) Adjacent development not being conducive. (67) Additional off -site street and traffic control improvements may be required to mitigate impacts resulting from the land division. (Ord. No. 07 -554, 5(Exh. A(2)), 5- 15 -07; Ord. No. 98- 330, 3, 12- 15 -98; Ord. No. 97 -291, 3, 4 -1 -97; Ord. No. 90 -41, 1(16.300.10 16.300.50), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 20 -180.) Section 32. FWRC 18.60.080 "Storm drainage." shall be amended to read as follows:. 18.60.080 Storm drainage. (1) All land divisions shall be provided with an adequate storm drainage system designed and constructed in accordance with the surface water management requirements in FWRC Title 16, and the storm and surface water utility requirements in FWRC Title 11, Division III. Ordinance No.09- Page 31 of 41 Rev 3/09 (2) As required by the director of public works, land divisions shall provide stormwater detention or retention facilities. Such required systems should include biofiltration swales, oil /water separation devices, or any other appropriate systems approved by the public works director. LID best management practices are encouraged when site and soil conditions make it a feasible option. LID facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of Title 16 Surface Water Management. (3) As appropriate, the storm drainage system shall be dedicated to the city upon approval of the final recorded document. (Ord. No. 07 -554, 5(Exh. A(2)), 5- 15 -07; Ord. No. 98 -330, 3, 12- 15 -98; Ord. No. 97 -291, 3, 4 -1 -97; Ord. No. 90 -41, 1(16.330), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 20 -183.) Section 33. FWRC 19.05.120 "L definitions." shall be amended to read as follows: 19.05.120 L definitions. "Land division" means any process by which individual lots, parcels, or tracts are created for the purpose of sale, lease, or transfer. Land divisions include, but are not limited to, conventional subdivisions (both short and long plats), binding site plans, cluster subdivisions, cottage housing, zero lot line townhouse development, and small lot detached development. "Land surface modification" means the clearing or removal of trees, shrubs, groundcover and other vegetation and all grading, excavation and filling activities. "Landscaping" means the planting, removal and maintenance of vegetation along with the movement and displacement of earth, topsoil, rock, bark and similar substances done in conjunction with the planting, removal and maintenance of vegetation. "Landward" means toward dry land. "Linear frontage of subject property means the frontage of the subject property adjacent to all open, improved rights -of -way other than Interstate 5. If the subject property is not adjacent to an open, improved right -of -way, "linear frontage" means the frontage of the subject property on any public access easements or tracts which serve the subject property and adjacent unopened and/or unimproved rights -of -way. "Lot" means a parcel of land, of sufficient area to meet minimum zoning requirements, having fixed boundaries described by reference to a recorded plat, to a recorded binding site plan, to metes and bounds, or to section, township and range. "Lot area" means the minimum lot area per dwelling unit based on the underlying zone. For single family lots, the area of a vehicular access easement, private tract, flag pole, or access panhandle shall not be credited in calculation of minimum lot area. "Low density use" means a detached dwelling unit on a subject property that contains at least five acres. "Low density zone" means the following zones: SE and comparable zones in other jurisdictions. "Low impact development (LID)" means a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes conservation and use of existing features integrated with distributed, small -scale stormwater controls to more closely mimic natural hydrologic patterns in residential, commercial, and industrial settings. Ordinance No.09- Page 32 of 41 Rev 3/09 (Ord. No. 09 -593, 24, 1 -6 -09. Code 2001 22- 1.12.) Section 34. FWRC 19.120.3 (New Clearing, Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Retention Code) "Exemptions." shall be amended to read as follows: 19.120.030 Exemptions. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to allow clearing, grading, and/or the removal of trees or other vegetation within sensitive areas or sensitive area buffers where prohibited under FWRC Title 19, Division IV, Critical Areas, or in designated native growth protection areas. Clearing and grading activities are also subject to review under Appendix Chapter J of the International Building Code. The following actions shall be exempt from the provisions of this article: (1) Digging and filling for cemetery graves. (2) Clearing and grading in a right -of -way authorized in writing by the director of the department of public works for pothole and square cut patching; overlaying existing asphalt or concrete pavement with asphalt or concrete without expanding the area of coverage; shoulder grading; reshaping/regrading drainage systems; crack sealing; resurfacing with in -kind material without expanding the road prism; and vegetation maintenance. (3) Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing, stockpiling of rock, sand, gravel, aggregate, or clay where a permit has been issued by the state department of natural resources. (4) Exploratory excavations under the direction of a professional engineer licensed in the state; provided that the extent of the clearing and grading does not exceed the minimum necessary to obtain the desired information. (5) Normal maintenance and repair of the facilities of a common carrier by rail in interstate commerce within its existing right -of -way. (6) Excavations for utility service connections to serve existing and/or new structures and that is outside any area that is within the jurisdiction of FWRC 19.145.010 et seq. (7) Actions which must be undertaken immediately, or within a time too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this article, to avoid an imminent threat to public health or safety; to prevent an imminent danger to public or private property; or to prevent an imminent threat of serious environmental degradation. This determination will be made by the director. (8) Clearing and grading actions that are an integral part of an ongoing agricultural or horticultural use on the subject property. (9) Tree and vegetation removal actions conducted on a residential lot that contains a detached dwelling unit together with any contiguous lots under the same ownership that are being maintained for the use and enjoyment of the homeowner that comply with the following criteria: (a) Any trees or vegetation removed must be outside any area that is within the jurisdiction Ordinance No.09- Page 33 of 41 Rev 3/09 of FWRC 19.145.010 et seq. (b)No trees or vegetation will be removed if that vegetation was required to be retained by or through any development permit issued under this chapter or any prior zoning code. (c) Tree and vegetation removal will not change the points where the stormwater or groundwater enters or exits the subject property and will not change the quality or velocity of stormwater or groundwater. (d) Trees with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of up to six inches and vegetation may be removed without city review and approval if criteria a -c contained in this section are met. (e) Trees with a dbh of six inches or greater may be removed subject to the minimum tree units per acre standard established by Table 19.120- XX18.1 and subject to criteria a -c of this section. (f)Removal of trees with a dbh of six inches or greater that will result in the subject property falling below the minimum tree units per acre standard per Table 19.120- XX18.1 shall require planting of replacement trees as necessary to meet the minimum tree units per acre standard, or the existing tree units per acre represented by the trees proposed for removal, whichever is less. (g)Hazard trees and nuisance vegetation may be removed without city review and approval if criteria a -c contained in this section are met. (10) Clearing and grading actions that comply with all of the following criteria: (a)The subject property contains a permanent building or an active use. (b)The clearing or grading activity will not change the points where the stormwater or groundwater enters or exits the subject property, and will not change the quality or velocity of stormwater or groundwater. (c) The clearing or grading activity is outside any area that is within the jurisdiction of FWRC 19.145.010 et seq. (d) Grading, filling, and excavation totals less than 100 cubic yards. Quantities of excavation and fill are calculated separately and then added together to determine total excavation and fill. (e) No trees or vegetation will be removed if that vegetation was required to be retained by or through any development permit issued under this chapter or any prior zoning code. (11) Routine maintenance of trees and vegetation necessary to maintain the health of cultivated plants. Topping of trees as defined in FWRC 19.05 Definitions, is considered tree removal, not maintenance. (12) Removal of overhanging vegetation and fire hazards, or removal of invasive species, hazard trees, nuisance vegetation, or dead, dangerous, or diseased trees when authorized by the director or his/her designee. (13) Removal of trees in easements and rights -of -way for the purposes of constructing public streets and utilities. Protection of trees shall be a major factor in the location, design, construction, and maintenance of streets and utilities. These activities are subject to the purpose and intent of this division. (14) Removal of trees on sites zoned City Center -Core (CC -C) and City Center Frame (CC -F). Ordinance No.09- Page 34 of 41 Rev 3/09 (Ord. No. 09 -610) Section 35. FWRC 19.120.6 (New Clearing, Grading, and Tree and Vegetation Retention Code) "Review and approval of clearing, grading and tree /vegetation retention plans." shall be amended to read as follows: 19.120.060 Review and approval of clearing, grading, and tree /vegetation retention plans. (1) Review of plans required under this article shall be conducted as follows: (a) Where clearing and grading plans and/or tree and vegetation retention plans are required, the plans and/or application shall be reviewed by the departments of public works and community development services. Plan review approvals under this section are subject to the provisions of Title 16 of the Federal Way Revised Code, "Surface Water Management (b) Where the city determines that clearing and grading plans and/or tree and vegetation retention plans shall also be reviewed by the city's consultant(s), the applicant shall cover the cost of the third party review. (c) Where project sites contain or are adjacent to electrical substations, utility rights -of- way and/or easements, the applicant must also obtain written comment from the appropriate utility representative(s) for any required clearing, grading, or tree /vegetation retention plans. (2) Approval and Notice to Proceed shall be required prior to undertaking any clearing, grading, and/or tree and vegetation removal actions pursuant to the requirements of this section. Approval and Notice to Proceed shall not be issued until the applicant can demonstrate readiness to proceed with the site development work and the ability to complete such work in a timely manner. The following will be considered in determining readiness: (a) The applicant shall have received engineering plan approval for erosion control and construction of required on -site infrastructure including, roadways and stormwater facilities as allowed by the public works director, and; (b) The applicant shall have received approval of a proposed project timeline that demonstrates how site development work and revegetation of the site shall be completed per approved revegetation and landscaping plans within 12 months of commencement of site work. (c) Projects that will not be completed within 12 months of initial clearing, grading, and tree/ vegetation removal activity shall be required to submit plans for interim aesthetic treatment of the site in its cleared and non developed state that shall be subject to review under section (a) of this section. Methods for addressing site aesthetics in cases where a project will not be completed within a 12 month period shall include: (i). Phased clearing, grading, and tree /vegetation removal in conjunction with phased site development as follows: Ordinance No.09- Page 35 of 41 Rev 3/09 a. Phased clearing, grading, and tree /vegetation removal shall be considered for all projects that will not be completed within 12 months of, and up to 5 years from, commencement of clearing, grading and tree /vegetation removal activity. b. Phased clearing, grading and tree /vegetation removal shall be required for all projects that will not be completed within five years of commencement of clearing, grading and tree/ vegetation removal activity. (ii). Installation of permanent vegetation per approved plans in cases where vegetation can become established and will not be harmed during completion of site work and building construction. (iii) Temporary revegetation and/or vegetation retention per an approved plan that provides visual screening of the site from neighboring properties and rights -of way. (3) Approval of plans under this article shall be binding upon the applicant. Any proposed changes to approved clearing, grading, and/or tree and vegetation retention plans shall be resubmitted for review and approval subject to the applicable review process(es) associated with the permit(s) required. (Ord. No. 09 -610) Section 36. FWRC 19.125.040 "General landscaping requirements All zones." shall be amended to read as follows: 19.125.070 Parking lot landscaping. (1) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to break up large areas of impervious surfaces, mitigate adverse impacts created by vehicle use areas which include noise, glare and increases in heat reflection by buffering, screening adjacent properties and shading, respectively, to facilitate movement of traffic, and improve the physical appearance of vehicle use areas. Developments are encouraged to use parking lot landscaping as on -site LID stormwater infiltration facilities, unless such techniques are infeasible. LID stormwater infiltration facilities shall be designed and constructed accordance with Title 16 Surface Water Management. (2) Type IV Landscaping. Type IV landscaping shall be provided within surface parking areas as follows: (a) Required interior lot landscaping. Landscape area shall be provided at the following rate within paved areas: (i) Commercial, industrial, and institutional developments shall provide the following: (A) Twenty square feet per parking stall when up to 49 parking stalls are provided; and (B) Twenty -two square feet per parking stall when 50 or more parking stalls are being provided. Ordinance No. 09- Page 36 of 41 Rev 3/09 (ii) Residential developments with common parking areas including, but not limited to, subdivisions, PUDs or multifamily, shall provide landscape areas at a rate of 15 square feet per parking stall. Ordinance No.09- Figure 7 FWRC 19.125.070(3) (3) Landscape islands. Landscape islands shall be a minimum size of 64 square feet and a maximum of 305 square feet, and a minimum width of six feet at the narrowest point for islands at the end of 90- degree parking rows, three feet at the end of rows with angled parking, and eight feet in width for islands used to separate head -to -head parking stalls and shall be provided at the following locations: (a) At the end of all rows of parking; and (b) For separation buffering between loading doors or maneuvering areas and parking areas or stalls; and (c) Any remaining required landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the interior parking area in a manner to reduce visual impact of the parking lot; (d) Deciduous trees are preferred for landscape islands within interior vehicle use areas. (4) Curbing. Permanent curbing shall be provided in all landscape areas within or abutting parking areas. Based upon appropriate surface water considerations, other structural barriers may be substituted for curbing, such as concrete wheel stops. Page 37 of 41 Rev 3/09 Ordinance No.09- Figure 8 FWRC 19.125.070(4) (5) Parking areas /screening for rights -of -way. (a) Parking areas adjacent to public right -of -way shall incorporate berms at least three feet in height within perimeter landscape areas; or alternatively, add substantial shrub plantings to the required perimeter landscape type, and/or provide architectural features of appropriate height with trees, shrubs and groundcover, in a number sufficient to act as efficient substitute for the three -foot berm, to reduce the visual impact of parking areas and screen automobiles, and subject to approval by the director of community development. (b) Parking adjacent to residential zones shall reduce the visual impact of parking areas and buffer dwelling units from light, glare, and other environmental intrusions by providing Type I landscaping within required perimeter landscape areas. (6) Vehicular overhang. Vehicular overhang into any landscaping area shall not exceed two feet. Figure 9 FWRC 19.125.070(6) Page 38 of 41 Rev 3/09 (7) Landscaping and irrigation. (a) All landscape islands within parking areas shall use drought- tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcovers. The use of plants native to the Pacific Northwest is encouraged. Lawn shall not be permitted in landscape islands less than 200 square feet and shall be used as an accessory planting material to required trees, shrubs, and other groundcovers. (b) No plant material greater than 12 inches in height shall be located within two feet of a curb or other protective barrier in landscape areas adjacent to parking spaces and vehicles use areas. (Ord. No. 07 -559, 3(Exh. A), 7 -3 -07; Ord. No. 93 -170, 4, 4- 20 -93. Code 2001 22- 1567.) Section 37. FWRC 19.135.100 "Exceptions." shall be amended to read as follows: 19.135.100 Exceptions. The following provisions of this article shall apply: (1) A vehicular access easement or tract (ingress /egress and utilities easement) may be permitted subject to the conditions established in the city of Federal Way public works development standards. (2) If the vehicular access easement or tract that does not have adequate width for the installation of the improvements required by this chapter, the public works director shall determine the nature and extent of the improvements to be installed in the vehicular access easement or tract on a case -by -case basis. At a minimum the vehicular access easement or tract must have a concrete or asphalt surface at least 20 feet in width. Pervious paving techniques may be used on private roads where feasible, as authorized by the public works director and in accordance with Title 16 Surface Water Management. (3) Streetlights are required at the intersection of a vehicular access easement or tract and a right -of -way, but not at any other location within the vehicular access easement or tract, unless specifically required by the public works director. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision in this chapter, vehicular access easements and tracts must comply with applicable standards of the serving fire district. (Ord. No. 07 -554, 5(Exh. A(12)), 5- 15 -07; Ord. No. 98 -330, 3, 12- 15 -98; Ord. No. 90 -43, 2(110.35(2)), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 22- 1497.) Section 38. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter, or its application to any person or situation, be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter or its application to any other person or situation. The City Council of the City of Federal Way hereby declares that it would have adopted this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, Ordinance No.09- Page 39 of 41 Rev 3/09 clauses, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 39. 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 40. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 41. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage and publication, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of 200 ATTEST: CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON Ordinance No.09- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY Page 40 of 41 Rev 3/09 FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: Ordinance No.09- Page 41 of 41 Rev 3/09 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: S 352" Street Extension Project from Enchanted Parkway South to Pacific Highway South 30% Design Status Report POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to proceed with design of the S 352" Street Extension Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 85% design completion for further reports and authorization? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business STAFF REPORT BY: Marwan Salloum P.E., Deputy Public Works Director DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated October 5, 2009. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S 352n Street Extension Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization. 2. Do not authorize staff to proceed with finalizing the present design of this project and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 20, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY" MANAGER APPROVAL: 3 1 Committee Linda Kochm. Chair COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 Ordinance Resolution Council DIRECTOR APPROVAL: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 e October 20, 2009 Council Consent Agenda for approval. J im Fe Member (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION ITEM 5 MEETING DATE: October 5, 2009 Public Hearing Other Committee Council Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: I o to authorize staff to proceed with the design of the S 352" Street Extension Project and return to the LUTC and Council at the 85% design completion stage for further reports and authorization." CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5, 2009 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director John Mulkey, P. E., Street Systems Project Engineer >®ZN -c SUBJECT: S 352" Street Extension Project from Enchanted Parkway South to Pacific Highway South 30% Design Status Report BACKGROUND: This project consists of the extension of S 352 Street from Enchanted Parkway South (State Route 161) to Pacific Highway South (State Route 99). This extension includes a three -lane cross- section with a two way left turn lane and bike lanes. A new traffic signal is planned at the intersection of S 352n Street and Pacific Highway South. Widening of the west leg of the intersection of South 352 Street and Enchanted Parkway South is planned to accommodate a new right -turn only lane. Other improvements include curb, gutter and sidewalk, planter strips between the curb and sidewalk, utility undergrounding and illumination. The following provides a brief synopsis of the progress on this project to date. Currently, the project design is approximately 30% complete, which includes the following completed tasks: The Topographical Surveys The Geotechnical Investigation Preliminary Right of Way Plan Channelization Plans Project Design to 30% SEPA Approval Ongoing Tasks Include: Right of Way Requirements (Property Appraisals, Review Appraisals, Negotiation and Acquisition) Interlocal Agreement with Lakehaven Utility District for Water and Sewer line relocation/replacement design and construction Utility Underground Conversion Design Agreement with Puget Sound Energy within project limits The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Phase I WSDOT approval of Channelization Plans Project Design to 85% This project is scheduled to go to bid in April 2011 with construction beginning June 2011 if grant funding from the State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) is obtained. Land Use and Transportation Committee S 352nd Street Extension October 5, 2009 Page 2 of 2 PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design 525,000 ROW Acquisition 1,600,000 2009 Construction Cost (estimate) 3,700,000 10% Construction Contingency 370,000 Construction Management 370,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 6,565,000 AVAILABLE FUNDING: Utility Tax (2009) 1,000,000 Utility Tax (2010) 1,400,000 REET (2010) 200,000 Mitigation 52,200 Interest 6,700 TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET 2,658,900 At this time, staff anticipates obtaining Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) funds for the balance of the project cost. K: \LUTC\2009 \10 -05 -09 S352nd Street Extension 30% Design Status Report.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20 2009 SUBJECT: 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and authorize staff to proceed with the design and bid of the proposed 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business Uc `-cam- Linda Ko mar, Chair COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA* "BILL El Ordinance Resolution STAFF REPORT BY: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated October 5, 2009. Options Considered: 1. Approve the list of streets for the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project as presented. Furthermore, authorize staff to bid all or part of the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project, returning with a request for permission to 'award the project within the available 2010 Asphalt Overlay Budget to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. 2. Direct staff to modify the preliminary list and return to Committee for further action. 3. Take no action and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the October 20, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 4/ DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Committee COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Optio Council Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 mov a' iroval of the list of streets for the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project as presented. Furthermore, 1 authorize sta to bid all or part of the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project, returning with a request for permission to award the project within the available 2010 Asphalt Overlay Budget to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL I reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION ITEM 5. MEETING DATE: October 5, 2009 Public Hearing Other Council e October 20, 2009 Council Consent Agenda for approval. Dini Duclos, Member CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5, 2009 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director Jeff Huynh, Street Systems Engineer SUBJECT: 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND: Public Works staff has developed a list of recommended streets for the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program. The total estimated budget for the program is $1,713,267 and is comprised of the following: 2010 Proposed Overlay Budget $1,400,000 2010 Structures Budget $146,267 2009 Carry Forward (estimate) $67,000 Mitigation (estimate) $100,000 TOTAL FUNDING AVAILABLE $1,713,267 The $146,267 from the structures budget is for the City's annual Sidewalk Maintenance Program, and will cover the costs associated with the replacement of substandard wheelchair ramps, and repairing existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks within the overlay project area. The following is a preliminary list of streets to be included in the 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program. The streets were selected using the City's Pavement Management System and were verified by field reconnaissance. The costs shown are estimated and will be refined as the design of each schedule is completed. A project vicinity map and more detailed area maps are attached for your information. October 5, 2009 SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT A 1st Way South —S 338 to S 344 Street $538,000 B S 317 Street 23 to 28 Ave $172,000 C Milton Road (S 369 to City limit) $286,000 D 23 Ave S 319 to S 322 Street $161,000 E S 320 Street 11 Ave to 8 Ave $276,000 F S 320 Street 8 Ave to 6 Ave $210,000 ESTIMATED SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS: $1,643,000 10% Construction Contingency $164,300 Pavement Management System $35,000 In -house Design $63,000 Construction Administration $115,000 City's Administrative Fee $72,000 Printing and Advertising $3,500 ESTIMATED TOTAL PROGRAM COST: $2,095,800 Land Use and Transportation Committee 2010 Asphalt Overlay Program Page 2 of 2 The estimated cost of $2,095,800 is a preliminary figure used for estimating purposes only and includes construction administration, ten percent construction contingency, in -house design and construction management, printing and advertising. The 2010 Asphalt Overlay Project will be awarded within the available overlay program budget. Once Council approves the list of streets for the Overlay Program, staff will begin the final design. The anticipated date for advertising is February 2010, with construction beginning in May 2010. k \Iutc\2009 \9 -21-09 2010 Asphalt Overlay list.doc 1st Way S S 317th street Milton Road 23rd Ave S E S 320th Street F S 320th Street City of Federal Way Map Printed -Sep 17 2009 Map made by -crazy bird lady 2010 Asphalt Overlay Preliminary List Federal Way CityMap Note: This map Ls intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. PAap made by-kcm Schedule A 1st Way South Federal Way CityMap Map Printed Sep 17 2009 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The city of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. ST Map Printed-Sep 17 2009 Map made by -kcm 314 S 315 LN S316LN 9L s S 317 ST s 319 PL S 320 S N CO z J N Schedule B S 317th St Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warrmity as to its accwacy. Map Printed -Sep 17 2009 Map made by scan Schedule C MiltonfRoad S Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. ST S 316 ST Map Printed-Sep 17 2009 Map made by scam ST S 315 LN S 316 LN 9 G s S317ST S 319 PL S320S CA) co S 322 ST J 4N Schedule D 23rd Ave S Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal way makes no warranty as to is acaaacy. Map Printed Sep 17 2009 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Map made by .ken Schedule E S 320th Street Federal Way CityMap co S 315 ST 0o 3 317 ST S316ST a S316ST co Q co /07 S 317 ST 1 S� S320ST 0 r- LL 0 Q a. 61 379 If o Q- co S321 s cn J a_ S 322 ST l• PL Map Printed Sep 17 2009 Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. Map made by .ken Schedule E S 320th Street Federal Way CityMap S318PL S 321 PL a Map Printed-Sep 17 2009 Map made by -kam 323 \ST �\.7 ST 7 S321ST J 0 ti co S 320TH ST Schedule F S 320th Street S317ST Nkr- co co 61 049 1 )4 S 321 ST Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. 1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Department of Ecology Saltwater Algae Grant FY 2010 Grant Funding Offer POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to pursue two State Department of Ecology Saltwater Algae Grants, totaling up to $70,000, plus a $17,500 City match, one to be used to research the causes of intense algae blooms in Dumas Bay and the other to be used to address planning for a Beach Management District, education/outreach, algae removal, and permitting issues? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: October 5, 2009 CATEGORY: 0 Consent n Ordinance Public Hearing City Council Business Resolution Other STAFF REPORT BY: William Appleton, P.E. Surface Water Mana ed. DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated October 5, 2009. Options Considered: 1. Authorize Staff to pursue two State Department of Ecology Saltwater Algae Grants, totaling up to $70,000, plus a $17,500 City match, one to be used to research the causes of intense algae blooms in Dumas Bay and the other to be used for either planning for a Beach Management District, education/outreach, algae removal, and/or adressing permitting issues. Also authorize using $17,500 from SWM unallocated funds to meet matching requirements. 2. Do not authorize staff to pursue the subject grants. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the October 20, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. l 04 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation to the October 20, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 Jim ell, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I eve to authorize Staff to pursue two State Department of Ecology Saltwater Algae Grant, totaling up to $70, 000, one to be used to research the causes of intense algae blooms in Dumas Bay and the other to be used to address planning for a Beach Management District, education/outreach, algae removal, and permitting issues, and authorize the use of $17,500 from SWM unallocated funds to meet matching requirements." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1sT reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION ITEM 5.h Dini Duclos, Member .2 DATE: October 5, 2009 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager Daniel Smith, Water Quality Program Coordinator SUBJECT: DOE Grant for Saltwater Algae Study BACKGROUND: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM During the summers of 2005 and 2006, an explosive growth of saltwater algae (Ulva) occurred in nearshore areas of Puget Sound which negatively affected beaches surrounding Dumas Bay in Federal Way. The large amounts of accumulated sea lettuce eventually decayed and a release hydrogen sulfide (H gas occurred. Local residents became concerned due to the obnoxious odors produced, and the potential public health hazards associated with H exposure. In late 2006 and into 2007, Surface Water Management began coordinating both community meetings and state agency working meetings to study the problem and discuss solutions. In 2007, the DOE budgeted $50,000 towards a pilot project to remove excessive sea lettuce in Dumas Bay, the city also contributed $50,000; which occurred during the late summer of 2008. In addition, the State Legislature authorized the formation of Beach Management Districts (BMD) in 2008 as a means to provide a long -term funding source to manage problematic sea lettuce accumulations. Discussions and public meetings with affected community residents are currently planned concerning the BMD option, but district formation is ultimately dependant upon a positive public vote. In 2009, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) developed a Saltwater Algae Program which targets projects involving the management of sea lettuce accumulations. The City of Federal Way is eligible to apply for this new funding source. Two grants are available, one for conducting research on the cause of the algae blooms and the other for planning a Beach Management District, education/outreach, algae removal, and/or adressing permitting issues. The maximum amount of each grant is $35,000, with a matching requirement of 25- percent ($8,750). SWM unallocated funds would be used to match any grant funds obtained. Surface Water Management is requesting authorization to submit an application to receive Saltwater Algae Program funding to research the environmental processes that produce the blooms and distribute the algae. The research portion of the project will likely be a collaboration between the City and Seattle Pacific University, which is actively pursuing additional grant funding to conduct an extensive sea lettuce study in the South Sound. The City will also use a portion of the funds to investigate algae removal alternatives, education and outreach, permitting issues and planning for a Beach Management District. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, -BILL SUBJECT: Acceptance of King County Conservation Futures Funds and Authorization to Proceed with Land Acquisition within the South Hylebos Basin. POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to accept King County Conservation Futures Funds for the purchase of the Enticknap property in the amount of $132,000 and authorize staff to proceed with acquisition of both the Enticknap and Snyder properties? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: October 5, 2009 CATEGORY: Consent Ordinance Public Hearing City Council Business Resolution Other STAFF REPORT BY: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager, DEPT: Public Works Attachments: Memorandum to Land Use and Transportation Committee dated October 5, 2009. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to accept King County Conservation Futures Funds for the purchase of the Enticknap property in the amount of $132,000 and authorize staff to proceed with the acquisition process for both the Enticknap and Snyder properties. 2. Authorize staff to accept the Conservation Futures Funds but not to proceed with the acquisition process. 3. Do not authorize staff to accept the Conservation Futures Funds but proceed with the acquisition process. 4. Take no action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the October 20, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 13 1.-41,,, 1 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Oaf( Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward s -s— ecommendation to the October 20, 2009 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. inda Kochmar, Chair COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 im F 'ell, Member ITEM 5. Committee Council Dini Duclos, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I mov authorize Staff to accept King County Conservation Futures Funds for the purchase of the Enticknap property in the amount of $132,000 and proceed with the acquisition process for both the Enticknap and Snyder properties." (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: October 5, 2009 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager SUBJECT: Acceptance of King County Conservation Futures Funding Hylebos Land Acquisition Update BACKGROUND: In June of 1990, the City of Federal Way entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with King County for open space acquisition projects. Specifically, open space land means any land area, the preservation of which in its present use would conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources or protect stream or water supply, or promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes. The City Of Federal Way has since developed a list of properties considered to have high conservation value within the South Hylebos Basin (Spring Valley), which is provided below and shown on the attached map: 1. Tom Campbell 2. E.K.Kwon (Goldmax Inc.) 3. Jonny Kim 4. Evelyn Castellar 5. Roy Corrine Snyder 6. Donald Barrovic In addition to those properties listed above that were formally approved by Council for future acquisition, numerous other properties in this same area have been identified as potential future purchases, including the Enticknap property in March of 2008. The Enticknap property contains forested wetlands, tributary streams to the Hylebos and a pond, (See attached map) all of which combine to give this property a high conservation value. Additionally, the owners have been receptive to the idea of selling their property. As such, in the spring of 2008, SWM staff applied for King County Conservation Futures Funds specifically for the purchase of 6.35 acres of wetlands, 5.35 acres of combined wetland buffer and upland and a conservation easement of approximately 0.75 acres. King County Conservation Futures Funds for the purchase of the Enticknap property are available in the amount of $132,000 and have a 50/50 match requirement. Staff is requesting authorization from Council to accept these funds. The surface water utility has budgeted funds to meet the 50/50 match requirement. Surface water Management has completed environmental assessments and formal appraisals for both the Enticknap and Snyder properties_ Staff is requesting authorization to proceed with acquisition of both of these properties, bring any proposed purchase back before Council for final approval. cc: Project File Day File :2 South Hylebos Selected Parcel Information Legend Streams Potential Future Purchase Wetlands City Owned Parcels CO City Limits County Owned Parcels This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only The City of Federal Way makes (10 warranty as to its accuracy. Map Date: July 2007 GIS Division City of Federal Way P.O.Box 9718 33325 8th Ave S. Federal Way Wa. 98063-9718 (253) 835 7000 www.cityotfederalway.com I.vi lot 21019034 name Leroy Jr •r, 7005 Donn son Acres v§ Tl 322104 9013 Castellar Jose V.Evelyn B no Site Address' 3.41 A c res k it mit ...„r r ,r� 322101 9033 Parke Wayne Leroy Jr 06 Johnson Rd NE 4.15 Acres 292104 9118 Bridges David W 8 Lori 36612 8th ave S 10.72 Acres 322134 9069 Foster Ken no Site Address 84 Acres 322104 9057 17orr son Leonard T +Richard D+ Russell J +If ichael D 'no Site Address' 4.80 Acres 292104 9110 Corrington Greta 933 s 364th St 4rifsl�ra 1.35 Acres !!"t -1� 292104 9111 Kane Shauna W 805 s 364th St 3.21 Acres 1111 mew im 322104 9141 Enticknap Edward L no Site Address' 5.35 Acres 2921019081 Corrington Greta 933 s 3641h 51 2.02 Acres P ig r An 292104 99113 Gowers Witham L 'no Site Address' 1.97 Acres 292104 9141 t;� Enticknap E 36817 12th Av e S 6.35 Acres WA r 292104 9112 Enticknap E L 'no Site Address' Acres COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business Attachments: Memo, layout drawings. Committee Chair COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 ITEM G �J SUBJECT: PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT ALDERDALE PARK POLICY QUESTION: Should an agreement to provide playground equipment be awarded to Northwest Playground Equipment, Inc., to replace the playground system at Alderdale Park? COMMITTEE: PRHSPS MEETING DATE: Oct. 13, 2009 STAFF REPORT BY: Stephen Ikerd, Parks Facilities Manger Options: #1- Approve request to purchase the playground system with poured in place fall protection. Total agreement amount; $97,312.00 #2 Approve request to purchase the playground system without poured in place fall protection. Total agreement amount; $46,200.00 #3 Do not approve the purchase of the Playground system STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve option #1 and accept the quote from Northwest Playground, Inc. and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute an agreement for the supply and installation of playground equipment for Alderdale Park in the amount of $97,312.00. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ,Q t.Ak., /o /02dA4.' DIRECTOR APPROVAL: to Committee to Council MI Cot mittee To Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: SEE ATTAC MEMO Ordinance Public Hearing Resolution Other DEPT: PRCS Co mittee Member Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move pproval of option #1 for the purchase of playground equipment from Northwest Playground Equipment, Inc and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute an agreement for the supply and installation of a playground system for Alderdale Park in the amount of $97, 312.00" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION 010( 4■.. Federal Way CITY OF Parks and Facilities Division Date: October 13, 2009 To: PRHSPS Council Committee From: Stephen Ikerd, Parks Facilities Manager Subject: Playground purchase One of the Parks Commission work plan task was to inspect playgrounds and assist staff with developing a priority list for replacements or upgrades. Five Park structures were identified for consideration this year. Staff recommends moving forward with four playground replacements in 2009 as one needs more evaluation. Staff worked with two companies that the City has cooperative procurement authority with. This procurement authority allows the City to work with each pre- approved company to customize the playground system to fit into our existing footprints and lock in approved WA State and U.S Communities discount rates. This method of selection works best for this type equipment because each manufacturer has variables in its features that are difficult to bid apples to apples. Staff selected two companies that have been responsive in the past, have good quality equipment, and included popular user features. NW Playgrounds developed a new system for Alderdale Park and Sitelines Park and Playground Products developed systems for Steel Lake Annex, Sacajawea and Saghalie Parks. NW Playgrounds: Alderdale Park $42,000.00 equipment, installation tax 46,466.00 poured in placed rubberized fall protection material tax. 8,846.00 10% contingency $97,312.00 total agreement amount Sitelines Park and Playground Products: $11,200.00 equipment, installation tax for Steel Lake Annex Park 29,500.00 equipment, installation tax for Sacajawea Park 35,200.00 equipment, installation tax for Saghalie Park 42,590.00 poured in placed rubberized fall protection material tax for Saghalie only 11,849.00 10% contingency $130,339.00 total agreement amount Funding Sources: $151,343.00 2009 balance of CIP funds for Playground Replacement and Upgrades. 138,595.00 total of all 4 playground equipment systems including 10% contingency. $12,748.00 remaining balance CIP funds for Playground Replacement and Upgrades. $254,793.00 balance for area C mitigation improvement funds. (Alderdale and Saghalie) 89,056.00 poured in place rubberized fall protection material in place of woodchips. $165,737.00 remaining balance of mitigation funds in area C CC Cary Roe; P.E., Parks Public Works Director /Emergency Manager Federal Way, WA IHD-172-09B PLAYVVOrtLD The world needs play. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 ITEM 5 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT STEEL LAKE ANNEX, SACAJAWEA AND SAGHALIE PARKS POLICY QUESTION: Should a purchase agreement to provide playground equipment be awarded to Sitelines Park Playground Products, to replace the playground system at Steel Lake Annex, Sacajawea Saghalie Parks? COMMITTEE: PRHSPS MEETING DATE: Oct. 13, 2009 CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business Attachments: Memo, layout drawings. Ordinance Resolution STAFF REPORT BY: Stephen Ikerd, Parks Facilities Manger Public Hearing Other DEPT: PRCS Options: #1- Approve request to purchase the playground system with poured in place fall protection. Total agreement amount; $130,339.00 #2 Approve request to purchase the playground system without poured in place fall protection. Total agreement amount; $83,490.00 #3 Do not approve the purchase of the Playground system STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve option #1 and accept the quote from Sitelines Park and Playground Products and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute an agreement for the supply and installation of playground equipment for Steel Lake Annex, Sacajawea Saghalie Parks in the amount of $130,339.00. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: /3, t- /qi u i to Commit e 7 to Council DIRECTOR APPROVAL: to Committee To il COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: SEE ATTACHE ‘1, Committee Chair e Member Committee Member ROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move ap val of option #1 for the purchase of playground equipment from Sitelines Park and Playground Products and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute an agreement for the supply and installation of playground equipment for Steel Lake Annex, Sacajawea Saghalie Parks in the amount of $130,339.00" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION ik CITY OF Federal Way Parks and Facilities Division Date: October 13, 2009 To: PRHSPS Council Committee From: Stephen Ikerd, Parks Facilities Manager Subject: Playground purchase One of the Parks Commission work plan task was to inspect playgrounds and assist staff with developing a priority list for replacements or upgrades. Five Park structures were identified for consideration this year. Staff recommends moving forward with four playground replacements in 2009 as one needs more evaluation. Staff worked with two companies that the City has cooperative procurement authority with. This procurement authority allows the City to work with each pre- approved company to customize the playground system to fit into our existing footprints and lock in approved WA State and U.S Communities discount rates. This method of selection works best for this type equipment because each manufacturer has variables in its features that are difficult to bid apples to apples. Staff selected two companies that have been responsive in the past, have good quality equipment, and included popular user features. NW Playgrounds developed a new system for Alderdale Park and Sitelines Park and Playground Products developed systems for Steel Lake Annex, Sacajawea and Saghalie Parks. NW Playgrounds: Alderdale Park $42,000.00 equipment, installation tax 46,466.00 poured in placed rubberized fall protection material tax. 8,846.00 10% contingency $97,312.00 total agreement amount Sitelines Park and Playground Products: $11,200.00 equipment, installation tax for Steel Lake Annex Park 29,500.00 equipment, installation tax for Sacajawea Park 35,200.00 equipment, installation tax for Saghalie Park 42,590.00 poured in placed rubberized fall protection material tax for Saghalie only 11,849.00 10% contingency $130,339.00 total agreement amount Funding Sources: $151,343.00 2009 balance of CIP funds for Playground Replacement and Upgrades. 138,595.00 total of all 4 playground equipment systems including 10% contingency. $12,748.00 remaining balance CIP funds for Playground Replacement and Upgrades. $254,793.00 balance for area C mitigation improvement funds. (Alderdale and Saghalie) 89,056.00 poured in place rubberized fall protection material in place of woodchips. $165,737.00 remaining balance of mitigation funds in area C CC Cary Roe; P.E., Parks Public Works Director /Emergency Manager W:.; VASCNINIM ISALIONL MWMM Presented .[ay: Equipment By: f r Certi{'icution ay: IPEMA pu R K PLAYCpOUND PRODUCE Gary Max, CPSI www.sitdines.corn 1- 800 -541 -0869 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20 2009 ITEM 5. l SUBJECT: PURCHASE NEW MOWER FOR WEST HYLEBOS WETLANDS PARK POLICY QUESTION: Should Council approve staff to purchase a new mower with reserve funds for West Hylebos Wetlands Park COMMITTEE: PRHSPS CATEGORY: Consent Ordinance Public Hearing El City Council Business CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL MEETING DATE: 10/13/2009 Resolution Other STAFF REPORT BY: Stephen Ikerd, Parks Facilities Manager DEPT: PRCS SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: History: West Hylebos Park property was added to the City's inventory without funding allocated for equipment. To date caretakers have used a surplus mower from Celebration Park to complete the mowing at Hylebos. This mower has a motor problem and needs to be taken offline. Staff demoed mowers, and solicited bids from various manufacturers. Bid Result: (tax included) Airpro Grasshopper Model #220 w/ 48' Duramax Deck, 20 hp Kohler air cooled engine. $7320.08 H &H Supply- SCAG Freedom Z Model 8900 w/ 48" Deck w/ anti scalp rollers, 20 hp. $5677.74 Western Equipment Toro Z master -G3 w/ 48" Deck, 21 hp Kohler air cooled engine. $6477.13 During the demo and bidding process staff found H &H Supply and SCAG sales staff to be unresponsive and difficult to communicate with. It was also discovered that parts could take a week or longer to obtain as they are warehoused in California. We are recommending awarding Western Equipment the bid because they are second lowest, most responsive, we already have their mowers in our system and parts are readily available in Kent. The purchase will be funded from the fleet replacement reserve account as shown: $5,539 reserve balance from the offline mower mentioned above in History. 939 from excess reserve balance. Total required $6,478 this leaves an excess reserve balance of $32,211 OPTIONS: #1 Approve request to purchase the Toro mower. #2 -Do not approve purchase of the Toro mower. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council accept the bid from Westem Equipment and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for the Toro G3 mower in the amount of $6,477.13 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: /J /44fi IOj'Jacj Committee Council C! MITTEE RECO NDATION: Qi✓ Committee Chair ember Committee Member OPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move approval J. cept the bid from Western Equipment and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute a purchase agreement for the Toro G3 mower in the amount of $6,477.13 COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION Committee Council COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: SECOND AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPING SERVICES AT DUMAS BAY CENTRE STAFF REPORT BY: ROB ETTINGER, DUMAS BAY CENTRE COORDINATOR DEPT: PRCS CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business COMMITTEE: PRHSPS ITEM rYl POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council authorize a second amendment to the landscaping service contract from Trugreen Landcare, LLC? MEETING DATE: October 13, 2009 Ordinance Public Hearing Resolution Other Trugreen Landcare has been performing landscaping services for the Dumas Bay Centre since August 1, 2004. A first amendment was processed on November 30, 2006 extending the term until November 30, 2009. There was a miscalculation in the compensation fee schedule which resulted in a funding shortfall to complete this contract to term. This second amendment adjusts the funding allocation to complete the original terms for payment. The contract will maintain the expiration date of November 30, 2009. Attachments: None Options Considered: Option 1— Approve the contract amendment Option 2 Do not approve the contract amendment STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends increasing the funding to complete the contract terms. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:.. 0 1 /4 1 JW) Committee Chair Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: OPTION j ee Member DIRECTOR APPROVAL: L' l Committee Committee Member Council OPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move /*".roval to amend the a a-of the contract for an additional z i 0_0 COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION F Way Date: October 20, 2009 To: City Council From: Rob Ettinger, Dumas Bay Centre Coordinator Subject: Second Amendment for Landscaping Services at Dumas Bay Centre Trugreen Landcare has been performing landscaping services for the Dumas Bay Centre. since August 1, 2004. A first amendment was processed on November 30, 2006 extending the term until November 30, 2009. There was a miscalculation in the compensation fee schedule which resulted in a funding shortfall to complete this contract to term. This second amendment adjusts the funding allocation to complete the original terms for compensation. This amendment will increase the compensation from $79,862.12 to $84,862.12, a total increase of $5,000.00. The contract term will maintain the expiration date of November 30, 2009. C r Way ede a AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO MAINTENANCE /LABOR AGREEMENT FOR TRUGREEN LANDCARE, LLC. CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www CrtyoffederaMay corn This Amendment "Amendment No. 2 is made between the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation "City and Trugreen Landcare, LLC, a Washington Corporation "Contractor The City and Contractor (together "Parties for valuable consideration and by mutual consent of the parties, agree to amend the original Agreement for Dumas Bay Centre Landscaping Services "Agreement dated effective August 1, 2004, as amended by Amendment No(s).1, "as follows: 1. AMENDED TERM. The term of the Agreement, as referenced by Section 1 of the Agreement and any prior amendments thereto, shall be amended and shall continue until the completion of the Services, but in any event no later than [Insert specific date] "Amended Term (If no new date is included then the Term shall be as provided in the Agreement.) 2. AMENDED SERVICES. The Services or Work, as described in Exhibit "A" and as referenced by Section 2 of the Agreement, shall be amended to include, in addition to work and terms required under the original Agreement and any prior amendments thereto, those additional services described in Exhibit "A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference "Additional Services (If no Exhibit "A is attached no amendment of Services is contemplated.) 3- AMENDED COMPENSATION. The amount of compensation, as referenced by Section 4 of the Agreement, shall be amended to change the total compensation the City shall pay the Contractor and the rate or method of payment, as delineated in Exhibit "B -1 attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The Contractor agrees that any hourly or flat rate charged by it for its services contracted for herein shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) for a period of one (1) year from the effective date of this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in an attached Exhibit, the Contractor shall be solely responsible for the payment of any taxes imposed by any lawful jurisdiction as a result of the performance and payment of this Agreement. (If no amount is included then the total compensation shall be as provided in the Agreement and if no Exhibit "B -1" is attached no amendment of compensation is contemplated.) 4. ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS. The Agreement shall be amended as delineated in Exhibit Z attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. (If no Exhibit "Z is attached no additional amendment is contemplated.) 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS. All other terms and provisions of the Agreement, together with any prior amendments thereto, not modified by this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. Any and all acts done by either Party consistent with the authority of the Agreement, together with any prior amendments thereto, after the previous expiration date and prior to the effective date of this Amendment, is hereby ratified as having been performed under the Agreement, as modified by any prior amendments, as it existed prior to this Amendment. The provisions of Section 14 of the Agreement shall apply to and govern this Amendment. The parties whose names appear below swear under penalty of perjury that they are authorized to enter into this Amendment, which is binding on the parties of this contract. AMENDMENT 1 Amd Corp 3/31/09 IN WITNESS, the Parties execute this Agreement below, effective the last date written below. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ATTEST: By: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager City Clerk, Carol McNeilly, CMC DATE: Nh- Federal Way TRUGREEN LANDCARE, LLC By: Printed Name: Title: DATE: STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the of that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he /she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. GIVEN my hand and official seal this day of 200_. AMENDMENT ss. CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South P© Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 -9718 (253) 835 -7000 www atyoffedera way.com APPROVED AS TO FORM: Signature on file, form approved 3/31/2009 by: City Attorney, Patricia A Richardson Notary's signature Notary's printed name Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires 2 Amd Corp 3/31/09 CITY pf Federa Way 1. Total Compensation: In return for the Additional Services, the City shall pay the Contractor an additional amount not to exceed Five thousand and No /100 Dollars ($5,000.00). The total amount payable to Contractor pursuant to the original Agreement, all previous Amendments, and this Amendment shall be an amount not to exceed eighty Four thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two and 12/100 Dollars ($84,862.12). 2. Method of Compensation: In consideration of the Contractor performing the Services, the City agrees to pay the Contractor an amount calculated on the basis of the per task labor charge rate schedule for Contractor's personnel as shown in attachment "B" of the original contract. AMENDMENT EXHIBIT `B -1" ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 -9718 (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederahvay_ com 1 Amend Exh 3/31/09 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, Tukwila and The Port of Seattle, for the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way, Federal Way Police Department enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the listed agencies for the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team? COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Council Committee MEETING DATE: Oct. 13, 2009 CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business STAFF REPORT BY: Acting Chief of Police Andy Hwang DEPT: Police Department Attachments: 1. PRHS &PS Memo 2. Interlocal Cooperative Agreement Options Considered: 1. Accept Interlocal Agency Agreement 2. Reject Interlocal Agency Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: L/- (Ai l Al m j Lit 9 CTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PRPS recommends Option ACommittee Chair COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 Ordinance Resolution 4 6mmitt Memb ITEM In Public Hearing Other AL.... -9, s Committee Council Committee Member PRO SED COUNCIL MOTION: `I move a roval of the Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Auburn Federal Way, Kent, Renton, Tukwila and The Port of Seattle for the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team, and authorize Interim City Manager Brian Wilson to sign such Agreement" (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL BILL 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION DATE: October 13, 2009 TO: Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee VIA: Brian J. Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: Andy J. Hwang, Acting Chief of Police SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Auburn, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, Tukwila and The Port of Seattle, for the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Background CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT The Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team (VNET) was established to create and maintain a multi jurisdictional team to effectively investigate and enforce the laws relating to controlled substances. VNET has been in existence for some time and this Interlocal establishes an Agreement between the listed jurisdictions. Assigned personnel from each jurisdiction listed form an investigative team through VNET. The Police Officer may also be assigned to DEA through a separate Agreement, which the City of Federal Way, Federal Way Police Department as already approved and signed. The Federal Way Police Department establishes and maintains the Officers salary, benefits, and standard Department equipment. 1 June 17, 2009 INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUBURN, FEDERAL WAY, KENT, RENTON, TUKWILA, AND THE PORT OF SEATTLE, FOR THE VALLEY NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT TEAM 1. PARTIES The parties to this agreement are the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, Port of Seattle, and Federal Way. The Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team is assigned to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Task Force. II. AUTHORITY This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Chapters 10.93, 39.34, and 53.08 of the Revised Code of Washington. III. PURPOSE The parties desire to establish and maintain a multi jurisdictional team to effectively investigate and enforce the laws relating to controlled substances. IV. FORMATION There is hereby established a multi jurisdictional team to be hereafter known as the Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team ("VNET the members of which shall be the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, Port of Seattle and Federal Way. VNET has been in existence for some time and this Agreement establishes an Inter -local Agreement between the listed jurisdictions. The future admission or elimination of a jurisdiction as a member of VNET may be accomplished by an addendum to this agreement. V. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The municipalities within the Puget Sound area have experienced an increase in urbanization, and in population densities. The ability to address drug abuse and the crimes associated to controlled substances has stretched the resources of individual police department specialty units. Law enforcement efforts directed at dealing with narcotic issues have, for the most part, been conducted by law enforcement agencies working independently. A multi jurisdictional effort to handle specific and complicated narcotic investigations will result in more effective pooling of personnel, improved utilization of funds, reduced duplication of equipment, improved training, development of specialized expertise, Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 1 June 17, 2009 and increased utilization /application of a combined narcotic enforcement team. The results will be improved services for all of the participating entities, increased safety for officers and the community, and improved cost effectiveness. VI. TEAM OBJECTIVES The assigned personnel from each participating agency will form a combined investigation team "Team through VNET. Each Police Officer is assigned to the Team via this agreement, and to DEA through individual agreements with DEA. VNET shall also be available to outside law enforcement agencies as outlined under mutual aid and as approved by DEA. The objective of the VNET shall be to provide enhanced and more efficient use of personnel, equipment, budgeted funds, and training. The combined Team or individual detectives shall respond as able and as approved by the DEA Supervisor when requested by any of the participating agencies. VII. DURATION/TERMINATION The minimum term of this Agreement shall be one (1) year, effective upon its adoption. This Agreement shall automatically extend for consecutive one (1) year terms without action of the legislative bodies of the participating jurisdictions, unless and until terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. A jurisdiction may withdraw its participation in VNET by providing written notice of its withdrawal, and serving such notice upon each Executive Board member of the remaining jurisdictions. A notice of withdrawal shall become effective ninety (90) days after service of the notice on all participating members. The VNET may be terminated by a majority vote of the Executive Board. Any vote for termination shall occur only when the police chief of each participating jurisdiction is present at the meeting in which such vote is taken. In the event that VNET withdraws its participation in the DEA Task Force, this agreement will remain in effect as VNET operates independently as it has done in the past. VIII. GOVERNANCE The affairs of the VNET shall be governed by an Executive Board whose members are composed of the police chief, or his/her designee, from each participating jurisdiction. A presiding officer shall be elected by the Board to serve as Chair. Each member of the Board shall have Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 2 June 17, 2009 an equal vote and voice on all Board decisions. All Board decisions shall be made by a majority vote of the Board members, or their designees, appearing at the meeting in which the decision is made. A majority of Board members, or their designees, must be present at each meeting for any actions taken to be valid. The Board shall meet monthly, unless otherwise determined by the Board. The presiding officer, or any Board member, may call extra meetings as deemed appropriate. The Chair shall provide no less than forty -eight (48) hours notice of all meetings to all members of the Board; PROVIDED, however, that in emergency situations, the Chair may conduct a telephonic meeting or a poll of individual Board members to resolve any issues related to such emergency. IX. STAFF The following Staff shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. Staff may be removed for any reason by majority vote of the Board. Team Supervisor: A Team Supervisor with the rank of Sergeant or equivalent from his/her respective agency shall be appointed by the Board. The VNET Supervisor shall act as the first level supervisor for the team and shall report directly to the VNET Chair. Office Manager: The VNET Office Manager shall be provided by the City of Kent on a reimbursable basis and shall work under the direction of the Board. The Office Manager reports directly to the Team Supervisor and is responsible for unit accounting, reports, office support, and other duties as appropriate. Attorney: An attorney shall be a member of the Team. The King County Prosecutor's Office shall select and interview candidates and make a recommendation to the Executive Board. The Executive Board will make the selection after considering the recommendation. The attorney will be responsible for reviewing and filing cases, wire orders, search warrants, the prosecution of forfeiture cases, and other services as needed. VNET Detectives: Each agency shall contribute one (1) full -time commissioned officer to the Team. Employees of Contributing Jurisdictions: The personnel assigned to the Team shall be considered an employee of the contributing agency. That agency shall be solely and exclusively responsible for the compensation and benefits for that employee. All rights, duties, and obligations of the employer and the employee shall remain with that individual agency. Each agency shall be responsible for ensuring Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 3 June 17, 2009 compliance with all applicable laws with regard to employees and with provisions of any applicable collective bargaining agreements and civil service rules and regulations. In cases where the DEA procedures do not apply, each individual will follow the General Orders as specified by the home agency. X. EQUIPMENT, TRAINING, AND BUDGET Each participating jurisdiction shall acquire the equipment of its participating VNET Detectives. Each jurisdiction shall provide sufficient funds to update, replace, repair, and maintain the equipment and supplies utilized by its participating VNET Detectives. Each jurisdiction shall provide sufficient funds to provide for training of its participating VNET Detectives. The equipment, supplies, and training provided by each jurisdiction to its personnel participating in the VNET shall be equal to those provided by the other participating jurisdictions. The Board shall be responsible for purchasing VNET equipment. Property purchased using VNET funds or forfeited property shall remain the property of the VNET unless the Board transfers it to a participating jurisdiction. The Board will insure a record of the transaction is maintained. The Board must approve any joint capital expenditure for VNET equipment of $1,500.00 or more. Approval for capital expenditures of less than $1,500.00 may be authorized by the VNET Chair: XI. FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS VNET utilizes a Fiscal Agent for all account transactions and accounting. One of the participating jurisdictions will fulfill the responsibility of Fiscal Agent. The VNET operating budget relies primarily on three (3) funding sources: State and Federal Grants, the participating agencies, and the VNET assets forfeited at the state and federal levels. Federal Grant funds are administered by the state and follow the state budget cycle of July 1 through June 30 of the following year. VNET shall request monthly reimbursements of expenses until the awarded amount is exhausted. Once the Federal Grant has been exhausted, forfeited assets will be used to pay expenses for the remainder of the budget cycle. VNET shall prepare a budget each year that estimates the grant funds available, and each participating agency shall provide VNET with Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Intertocal Agreement 4 June 17, 2009 the annual cost to assign an officer or other approved personnel to the unit. An agency's annual contribution is then divided by twelve (12) and credited towards the monthly salary and benefits of the agency's participating personnel. All other expenses are paid for by VNET utilizing either Grant funds or forfeited assets. The Board shall agree upon a date each year by which time it will notify the participating agencies of each agencies' expected contribution. The DEA contribution to VNET includes providing office space, storage space, parking, and phone service at no cost. XII. DISTRIBUTION OF SEIZURE FUNDS The VNET Board provides oversight of seized and forfeited assets via the Fiscal Agent. Forfeited assets may be distributed to participating agencies when deemed appropriate by the Board. The Board will endeavor to maintain adequate financial resources to fund ongoing- operations of the VNET. XIII. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS UPON TERMINATION Upon termination of the VNET, each participating jurisdiction shall retain sole ownership of the equipment purchased and provided to its participating VNET members. Any assets acquired with joint funds of the VNET shall be equally divided among the participating jurisdictions at the asset's fair market value upon termination. The value of the assets of the VNET shall be determined by using commonly accepted methods of valuation. If two (2) or more participating jurisdictions desire an asset, the final decision shall be made by arbitration (described below). Any property not claimed shall be declared surplus by the Board and disposed of pursuant to state law for the disposition of surplus property. The proceeds from the sale or disposition of any VNET property, after payment of any and all costs of sale or debts of the agency, shall be equally distributed to those jurisdictions participating in the VNET at the time of dissolution. In the event that one (1) or more jurisdictions terminate their participation in the VNET, but the VNET continues to exist, the jurisdiction terminating participation shall be deemed to have waived any right or title to any property owned by the VNET or to share in the proceeds at the time of dissolution. Arbitration pursuant to this section shall occur as follows: a. The jurisdictions interested in an asset shall select one (1) person (Arbitrator) to determine which agency will receive the property. If the jurisdictions cannot agree to an Arbitrator, the chiefs of the jurisdictions participating in the VNET upon dissolution shall meet to determine who the Arbitrator will be. Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 5 June 17, 2009 The Arbitrator may be any person not employed by the jurisdictions that desire the property. b. During a meeting with the Arbitrator, each jurisdiction interested in the property shall be permitted to make an oral and /or written presentation to the Arbitrator in support of its position. c. At the conclusion of the presentation, the Arbitrator shall determine which jurisdiction is to receive the property. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and shall not be the subject of appeal or review. XIV. LIABILITY, HOLD HARMLESS, AND INDEMNIFICATION It is the intent of the participating jurisdictions to provide services of the VNET without the threat of being subject to liability to one another and to fully cooperate in the defense of any claims or lawsuits arising out of or connected with VNET actions that are brought against the jurisdictions. To this end, the participating jurisdictions agree to equally share responsibility and liability for the acts or omissions of their participating personnel when acting in furtherance of this Agreement. In the event that an action is brought against any of the participating jurisdictions, each jurisdiction shall be responsible for an equal share of any award for or settlement of claims of damages, fines, fees, or costs, regardless of which jurisdiction or employee the action is taken against or which jurisdiction or employee is ultimately responsible for the conduct. The jurisdictions shall share equally regardless of the number of jurisdictions named in the lawsuit or claim or the number of officers from each jurisdiction named in the lawsuit or claim. This section shall be subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in subsections A through G below. A. Jurisdiction Not Involved In VNET Response. In the event that a jurisdiction or its personnel were not involved in the VNET response to the incident that gives rise to a claim or lawsuit, and judgment on the claim or lawsuit does not, in any manner, implicate the acts of a particular jurisdiction or its personnel, suoh jurisdiction shall not be required to share responsibility for the payment of the judgment or award. B. Intentionally Wrongful Conduct Beyond the Scope of Employment. Nothing herein shall require, or be interpreted to require indemnification or sharing in the payment of any judgment against any VNET personnel for intentionally wrongful conduct that is outside of the scope of employment of any individual or for any judgment of punitive damages against any individual or jurisdiction. Payment of any award for punitive Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 6 June 17, 2009 damages shall be the sole responsibility of the person or jurisdiction that employs the person against whom such award is rendered. C. Collective Representation and Defense. The jurisdictions may retain joint legal counsel to collectively represent and defend the jurisdictions in any legal action. Those jurisdictions retaining joint counsel shall share equally the costs of such representation or defense. In the event a jurisdiction does not agree to joint representation, the jurisdiction shall be solely responsible for all attorneys fees accrued by its individual representation or defense. The jurisdictions and their respective defense counsel shall make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other participating jurisdictions by, including but not limited -ta,- providing all documentation requested, and making VNET members available for depositions, discovery, settlement conferences, strategy meetings, and trial. D. Removal From Lawsuit. In the event a jurisdiction or employee is successful in withdrawing or removing the jurisdiction or employee from a lawsuit by summary judgment, qualified immunity, or otherwise, the jurisdiction shall nonetheless be required to pay its equal share of any award for or settlement of the lawsuit; PROVIDED, however, that in the event a jurisdiction or employee is removed from the lawsuit and subsection (A) of this section is satisfied, the jurisdiction shall not be required to pay any share of the award or settlement. E. Settlement Process. It is the intent of this Agreement that the jurisdictions act in good faith on behalf of each other in conducting settlement negotiations on liability claims or lawsuits so that, whenever possible, all parties agree with the settlement or, in the altemative, agree to proceed to trial. In the event a claim or lawsuit requires the sharing of liability, no individual jurisdiction shall be authorized to enter into a settlement agreement with a claimant or plaintiff unless all jurisdictions agree with the terms of the settlement. Any settlement made by an individual jurisdiction without the agreement of the remaining jurisdictions, when required, shall not relieve the settling jurisdiction from paying an equal share of any final settlement or award. Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 7 June 17, 2009 F. Defense Waiver. This section shall not be interpreted to waive any defense arising out of RCW Title 51. G. Insurance. The failure of any insurance carrier or self- insured pooling organization to agree to or follow the terms of this section shall not relieve any individual jurisdiction from its obligations under this Agreement. XV. NOTICE OF CLAIMS, LAWSUITS, AND SETTLEMENTS In the event a claim is filed or lawsuit is brought against a participating jurisdiction or its employees for actions arising out of their conduct in support of VNET operations, the jurisdiction shall promptly notify the other jurisdictions that the claim or lawsuit has been initiated. Any documentation, including the claim or legal complaints, shall promptly be provided to each participating jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction Dr member who believes or kniws that another jurisdiction would be liable for a claim, settlement, or judgment that arises from a VNET action or operation, shall have the burden of notifying each participating jurisdiction of all claims, lawsuits, settlements, or demands made to that jurisdiction. In the event a participating jurisdiction has a right, pursuant to section XVI of this Agreement, to be defended and held harmless by another participating jurisdiction, the jurisdiction having the right to be defended and held harmless shall promptly tender the defense of such claim or lawsuit to the jurisdiction that must defend and hold the other harmless. XVI. PROCESSING OF CLAIMS. A. Designation of Lead Jurisdiction. There shall be a lead jurisdiction for processing a claim that is filed with and against cities for alleged damages and injuries that occur as a result of VNET activities. The lead jurisdiction shall be the jurisdiction within which the VNET response occurred; PROVIDED, that in the event the jurisdiction within which the VNET response occurred did not participate in the VNET response, the lead jurisdiction shall be the jurisdiction within which the incident that required the VNET response originated. In the event that a jurisdiction that was not involved in the VNET response receives the claim, that jurisdiction shall notify the other jurisdictions in accordance with Section XVII of this Agreement, and shall use its best efforts to determine who is the appropriate lead jurisdiction. B. Assistance of VNET Supervisor. The VNET Supervisor shall assist the lead jurisdiction in responding to a claim. The VNET Supervisor shall be Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 8 June 17, 2009 responsible for gathering all records relating to the VNET response. These records shall include, but are not limited to, incident reports, notes, transcripts, photos, evidence logs, recorded statements, documents from emergency dispatch centers, and warrants from all jurisdictions that participated in the VNET response. The VNET Supervisor shall also provide a list of personnel who participated in the response and their contact information. The VNET Supervisor shall deliver all copies of the records to the lead jurisdiction promptly upon request. C. Claims of $5,000 or Less. Lead Jurisdiction Responsibilities. The lead jurisdiction shall be responsible for working with the Supervisor to gather records relating to the VNET response. The lead jurisdiction shall provide records to its insurance provider and shall assist its insurance provider in assessing liability for acts associated with the claim. The lead jurisdiction shall notify the other jurisdictions of any determinations as to liability. In determining whether a claim should be paid, the lead jurisdiction and its insurance provider shall, at a minimum, consider the potential legal defenses to the claim and the costs of defending the claim. ii. Liability Determination Apportionment of Damages. The lead jurisdiction, with the assistance of its insurance provider and risk manager, shall determine whether the VNET is liable for damages set forth in a claim, and whether the payment of the claim would be in the best interest of the jurisdictions and /or the VNET. In the event the lead jurisdiction determines that payment of a claim is appropriate, such determination shall be final and binding upon other jurisdictions and payment shall be apportioned equally among all jurisdictions that participated in the VNET response. The insurance provider for the lead jurisdiction shall provide full payment to the claimant, and each jurisdiction that participated in the response shall reimburse the insurance provider for its equal share of such payment. Prior to the payment of any claim, and as a condition of such payment, the insurance provider providing payment shall obtain from the claimant a complete and total release of liability on behalf of all jurisdictions Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 9 June 17, 2009 participating in the VNET and each and every officer, agent, or volunteer of those participating jurisdictions. iii: Letter From Insurance Adjusters. In the event a lead jurisdiction, in conjunction with its insurance determines thatpayment of a claim is appropriate, the insurance provider shall provide each of the participating jurisdictions with a letter stating the determination and the bases for such determination. D. Claims over $5,000. In the event the lead jurisdiction determines that the VNET is not liable for damages set forth in a claim or that the payment of the claim would not be in the best interest of the jurisdictions and /or the VNET, the lead jurisdiction shall notify the other jurisdictions of the determination, and such determination shall be binding on the other jurisdictions; PROVIDED, that another jurisdiction that determines that payment is appropriate may pay such claim in full, and shall not seek reimbursement from the other participating jurisdictions. Lead Jurisdiction Responsibilities. The lead jurisdiction shall schedule a meeting with all jurisdictions participating in the VNET to discuss the claim and to determine the appropriate manner in which to respond and /or defend the claim. The Board and persons listed in Section XVII of this Agreement shall be notified of the meeting. XVII. PROCESSING OF LAWSUITS. A. Notification to Other Jurisdictions. In the event a jurisdiction is served with a lawsuit, that jurisdiction shall provide notice and documentation of the lawsuit to each of the other jurisdictions in accordance with Section XVII of this Agreement. B. Coordination of Initial Meeting. The jurisdiction that initially receives a lawsuit shall schedule a meeting with all of the jurisdictions participating in the VNET to discuss the lawsuit and to determine the appropriate manner within which to respond and /or defend the lawsuit. The Board Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 10 Auburn: Kent: Aubum City Attorney 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931 -3030 Kent City Attorney 220 4 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (253) 856 -5781 Auburn Police Chief 101 N. Division Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931 -3080 Kent Risk Manager 220 4 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (253) 856 -5285 Auburn Human Resources Director /Risk Manager 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931 -3040 Kent City Clerk 220 4 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (253) 856 -5728 June 17, 2009 and persons listed in Section XX of this Agreement shall be notified of the meeting. XVIII. NOTIFICATION OF CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS. Section XVII of this Agreement requires that the jurisdiction receiving a claim or lawsuit notify the other jurisdictions of the claim or lawsuit and provide documentation of that claim or lawsuit to the other jurisdictions. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver by any participating jurisdiction of the requirements set forth in Chapter 4.96 RCW, and the fact that a participating jurisdiction provides notice or copies of a claim to another jurisdiction shall not be deemed compliance with the requirement that a party who files suit against a jurisdiction first file a claim with the jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 4.96 RCW. Moreover, nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed acceptance of service of a lawsuit, and the fact that a participating jurisdiction provides notice or copies of a lawsuit to another jurisdiction shall not be deemed adequate service of such lawsuit in accordance with the State or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Revised Code of Washington. For the purposes of implementing Section XVII of this Agreement, the following persons from each jurisdiction shall receive any required notification or documentation: Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 11 Auburn City Clerk 25 West Main Street Auburn, WA 98001 (253) 931 -3039 Kent Police Chief 220 4 Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (253) 856 -5888 Federal Way Federal Way City Clerk P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Federal Way City Attomey P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Renton: Renton Risk Manager 1055 So. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Port of Seattle: CIAW: Port of Seattle Claims Manager P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Director of Claims Canfield Associates, Inc. 451 Diamond Drive Ephrata, WA 98823 Tukwila: WCIA: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98043 Claims Manager WCIA P.O. Box 1165 Renton, WA 98057 June 17, 2009 XIX. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW The VNET and all its members shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws that apply to the VNET. XX. ALTERATIONS This agreement may be modified, amended, or altered by agreement of all participating agencies and such alteration, Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement -12 June 17, 2009 amendment, or modification shall be effective when reduced to writing and executed in a manner provided for by this agreement. It is recognized that during the course of operations, it may become necessary to alter the terms of this Agreement to provide for efficient operation of the VNET and to meet the goals of the VNET. It is further recognized that the Board has the expertise necessary to provide for the efficient operation of the VNET. To that end, the jurisdictions agree that changes may be made to this Agreement, or addendums added to this Agreement, without prior approval of the legislative bodies of the jurisdictions on the condition that such changes or addendums shall be effective only by a unanimous vote of all members of the Board. XXI. RECORDS Each agency shall maintain records relating to work performed by its employees assigned to the VNET when operating outside DEA operations. The VNET office manager shall maintain records relating to the operation of the VNET to the extent required by law. All records shall be available for full inspection and copying by each participating jurisdiction. XXII. FILING Upon execution hereof, this Agreement shall be filed with the city clerks of the respective participating municipalities, and such other govemmental agencies as may be required by law. XXIII. SEVERABILITY If any part, paragraph, section, or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of any remaining section, part, or provision of this Agreement. XXIV. MUNICIPAL AUTHORIZATIONS This Agreement shall be executed on behalf of each participating jurisdiction by its duly authorized representative and pursuant to an appropriate resolution or ordinance of the governing body of each participating jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be deemed effective upon the last date of execution by the last so authorized representative. This Agreement may be executed by counterparts and be valid as if each authorized representative h ad signed the original document. Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 13 June 17, 2009 By signing below, the signor certifies that he or she has the authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of the jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction agrees to the terms of this Agreement. Mayor, City of Auburn City Clerk, City of Auburn Date City Manager, City of Federal Way Date City Attorney, City of Federal Way Date City Clerk, City of Federal Way Date Mayor, City of Renton City Clerk, City of Renton Date Mayor, City of Tukwila City Clerk, City of Tukwila Date Mayor, City of Kent City Clerk, City of Kent Date Chief Executive, Port of Seattle Date Port Counsel, Port of Seattle Date Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team Interlocal Agreement 15 Date City Attorney, City of Aubum Date Date City Attorney, City of Renton Date Date City Attorney, City of Tukwila Date Date City Attorney, City of Kent Date COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Interlocal Agency Agreement with Seattle PD, WASPC (JAG) Grant, Gang Analyst POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way, Federal Way Police Department enter into an Interlocal Agreement with the Seattle Police Department to accept a portion of Seattle's WASPC (JAG) Grant ($34,117) for .5FTE and Overtime Funding for a Gang Analyst. COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Council Committee MEETING DATE: Oct. 13, 2009 CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business STAFF REPORT BY: Commander Kyle Sumpter Attachments: 1. PRHS &PS Memo 2. Interlocal Agency Agreement with Seattle PD, WASPC (JAG) Grant, Gang Analyst Options Considered: 1. Accept Interlocal Agency Agreement 2. Reject Interlocal Agency Agreement STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 4 44,, ¶tZ /)k,) Q CTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PRPS recommends Option t AO o 111:1 I (rte Committee Chair OPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I movAoval of the Interlocal Agency Agreement, with the Seattle Police Department, to accept a portion ($34,117) of the WASPC (JAG) Grant for .5FTE and Overtime Funding for a Crime Analyst. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED /NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 Ordinance Resolution ttee Memb (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) El Public Hearing Other DEPT: Police Department COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION ITEM ,1 Committ Committee Memb wa Coun Background CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: October 13, 2009 TO: Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee VIA: Brian J. Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: Andy J. Hwang, Acting Chief of Police SUBJECT: Interlocal Agency Agreement with Seattle PD, WASPC (JAG) Grant, Gang Analyst The purpose of this agreement is to make the Federal Way Police Department eligible for a maximum grant amount of $34,117 for .5 FTE and overtime funding reimbursement through Seattle PD /WASPC for a Gang Analyst. The Funding source: Seattle PD is the recipient of an $870,584 CTED via WASPC from the JAG funds. The grant funding constitutes one -time funding Targeting Gang Crime. 1 Interagency Agreement 2009 IA -CTED 3 Executed By The Seattle Police Department (SPD), a department of the City of Seattle hereinafter referred to as "SPD Department Authorized Representative: Lt. Steve Wilske 610 5th Ave. P.O. Box 34986 Seattle, WA. 98124 -4986 and The Federal Way Police Department, an agency of the City of Federal Way, hereinafter referred to as "FWPD Agency Authorized Representative: Commander Kyle Sumpter 33325 8 Ave. S. P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA. 98063 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by having their representatives affix their signatures below. FEDERAL WAY POLICE DEPARTMENT SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT By: By: (Signature) John Diaz, Interim Chief of Police Andy J. Hwang, Acting Chief of Police Date: (Type or Print Name and Title) Authorized by: Grant Program: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, via State of Washington Community, Trade Economic Development (CTED) and the Washington Association of Sheriff's and Police Chiefs (WASPC) Interagency Agreement Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, the City submitted an application to the State of Washington Community, Trade Economic Development (CTED) via the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) on June 8, 2009 to request Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program funds; and WHEREAS, based on the City's successful application, CTED via WASPC has awarded $870,584 to the City of Seattle from these JAG funds; and WHEREAS, the ARRA grant funding constitutes one -time funding for Special Enforcement, Intervention and Prevention in Targeting Gang Crime; and WHEREAS, multiple jurisdictions including the Cities of Seattle, Kent, Tukwila, Port of Seattle, Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way and the King County Sheriff's Office (KCSO) have many prevention, intervention and suppression efforts coming together in 2009. These efforts provide a comprehensive and meaningful platform from which to respond to the rise in gang violence, while meeting the intended purpose of the stimulus money provided by the Federal Government. This unprecedented collaboration brings all of the stakeholders together to provide support, resources and accountability to those young people, and their families, struggling with the myriad of issues that often lead youth into gangs; and WHEREAS, the grant program funding will provide: A 0.5 FTE Gang Analyst; and Overtime funding necessary to conduct pro- active and follow -up investigations in identified hot spot areas. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: This Interagency Agreement contains seven Articles. ARTICLE I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Interagency Agreement shall be in effect from the date of execution until June 30, 2010, unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions herein. ARTICLE II. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES Under the direction of SPD's Gang Lieutenant, who will function as the Coordinator of the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce, SPD officers along with FWPD officers will implement a coordinated approach to reducing crime and related activities perpetrated by identified criminal gangs in hot spot emphasis areas. SPD will utilize Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program funds provided via WASPC /CTED to reimburse FWDP for a Gang Analyst and participating FWPD officers to work on a pre approved overtime basis, under the coordination of SPD's Gang Unit Lieutenant, to conduct pro- active and follow -up investigations in identified hot spot areas. In order to be reimbursable, SPD's Gang Lieutenant must approve overtime worked by FWPD police personnel in advance. ARTICLE III. OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FWPD agrees to participate in the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce and attend monthly planning meetings of the group, and as necessary. FWPD agrees to attend court proceedings relating to cases that arise from working on the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce at the employing jurisdiction's expense. FWPD agrees that informants are managed by the jurisdiction that the investigation arises out of. To ensure timely quarterly statistical reporting to WASPC /CTED, APD agrees to maintain accurate records pertaining to gang contacts, investigations and arrests that will be collected and forwarded not less than monthly to Lt. Steve Wilske, Seattle Police Department, P.O. Box 34986, Seattle, WA. 98124 -4986. (A Gang -Crime Data Reporting Form is included as Attachment 1 to this Agreement.) FWPD also agrees to report progress toward completion of the following Outcome Performance Measures on a monthly basis. Such reports should be forwarded by FWPD's Special Investigations Unit Lieutenant, or as appropriate, to SPD's Gang Lieutenant Lt. Steve Wilske, Seattle Police Department, P.O. Box 34986, Seattle, WA 98124 -4986 for his review. Progress reports shall be submitted by the 25 of each calendar month utilizing the forms provided by CTED/WASPC via SPD. FEDERAL WAY PD 1. Assist in evaluation/selection of gang education materials. 2. Presentation of materials to Multi Family housing community groups. 3. Liaison with Criminal Intelligence Officers regarding gang analysis. 4. Administration /tracking/reporting on use of grant funds Interagency Agreement Page 3 of 6 ARTICLE IV. LIABILITY FWPD agrees to indemnify and hold the City of Seattle, its employees, officers and agents and SPD harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogation or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death) or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature, of any person arising out of or incidental to the FWPD's participation in the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce. FWPD agrees that any and all work related injury or illness incurred by a FWPD employee while working on this Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce shall be covered by the employee's employing jurisdiction, the City of Federal Way. Each jurisdiction participating as a member of the Taskforce shall assume liability for any and all personal injury, property damage, third party damage, or other damage resulting from a vehicle collision that occurs while acting in furtherance of, participation in, or incidental to the Taskforce and its mission. Each jurisdiction participating as a member of the Taskforce shall be solely liable for any and all claims, lawsuits, losses, costs, expenses, judgments, or other damages arising out of that Interagency Agreement Page 4 of 6 jurisdiction's employees' actions or inactions while working on the Taskforce. Therefore, liability of one Taskforce jurisdiction that arises out of acting in furtherance of the Taskforce and its mission shall not automatically attach to any other participating jurisdiction based upon Taskforce membership alone. ARTICLE V. VENUE STIPULATION DISPUTE RESOLUTION This agreement shall be construed as having been made and delivered between the City of Seattle and the City of Federal Way and the laws of the State of Washington shall be applicable to its construction and enforcement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted in King County, Seattle, Washington. ARTICLE VI. REIMBURSEMENT Personnel Employee expenses (Non- overtime) Requests for reimbursements related to personnel /employee expenses and fringe benefits shall be submitted using the A -19 Form (Attachment 2), and shall be forwarded to SPD within the first week of the month that follows the month for which reimbursement is requested. Such requests shall include detailed back -up documentation and should be forwarded by FWPD's Special Investigations Unit Lieutenant, or as appropriate, to SPD's Gang Lieutenant Lt. Steve Wilske, Seattle Police Department, P.O. Box 34986, Seattle, WA 98124 -4986 for his review, approval and submission to the Department's Fiscal Section for payment processing. The maximum amount to be paid under this section of the agreement shall not exceed Thirty Four Thousand and One Hundred Seventeen Dollars ($34,117), which includes salary and benefit costs. Overtime expenses Each request for overtime reimbursement under this agreement shall be submitted using the overtime reporting line on the A -19 Form, and shall include the name, rank, overtime compensation rate, number of reimbursable hours claimed and dates for each officer for whom reimbursement is sought. Each reimbursement request must be accompanied by a certification signed by an appropriate supervisor within the FWPD that the request has been personally reviewed, that the information described in this paragraph is accurate, and the personnel for whom reimbursement is claimed were working on an overtime basis with the Special Gang Enforcement Taskforce. Overtime reimbursement for FWPD personnel assigned to the Special Enforcement Taskforce will be calculated at the usual rate for which the individual sworn officer's time would be compensated in the absence of this agreement, excluding FICA and retirement benefits. Requests for reimbursements related to overtime expenses shall be submitted using the A -19 Form, (Attachment 2), and shall be forwarded to SPD within the first week of the month that follows the month for which reimbursement is requested. Such requests should be forwarded by FWPD's Special Investigations Unit Lieutenant, or as appropriate, to SPD's Gang Lieutenant Lt. Steve Wilske, Seattle Police Department, P.O. Box 34986, Seattle, WA 98124 -4986 for his review, approval and submission to the Department's Fiscal Section for payment processing. The maximum amount to be paid under this section of the agreement shall not exceed five thousand (5,000.00) Dollars per request. This amount may be renewed when exhausted at the discretion of the SPD Gang Lieutenant. Interagency Agreement Page 5 of 6 ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS No modification or amendment of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to modify this Agreement, by mutual agreement. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: KC RSO Grant Funding Cost Reimbursement Agreement POLICY QUESTION: Should the City of Federal Way, Federal Way Police Department accept the grant funding, up to $92,700.46, from King County for the purpose of verifying addresses and residencies of sex and kidnapping offenders in Federal Way? COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Council Committee MEETING DATE: Oct. 13, 2009 CATEGORY: Consent Ordinance Public Hearing City Council Business Resolution Other STAFF REPORT BY: Acting Chief Andy Hwang Attachments: 1. PRHS &PS Memo 2. KC RSO Grant Funding Cost Reimbursement Agreement Options Considered: 1. Accept Grant 2. Reject Grant STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 4 ,6j/)a, DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Committee Council Committee COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: PRPS recommends Option Committee Cha COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 ttee Member (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) ITEM DEPT: Police Department COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION Committee Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: `I m hat we accept the Agreement between the Federal Way Police Department and King County Sheriff's Officer for Grant Funding for the purpose of verifying addresses and residencies of sex and kidnapping offenders and authorize Acting ChiefAndy Hwang to sign such Agreement." CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT DATE: October 13, 2009 TO: Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee VIA: Brian J. Wilson, Interim City Manager FROM: Andy Hwang, Acting Chief of Police SUBJECT: KC RSO Grant Funding Background The Federal Way Police Department (FWPD) is seeking grant funding from the King County Sheriffs Department in support of the Federal Way Police Department's Registered Sex Offender and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program. The grant is for reimbursement of overtime expenses incurred while verifying current addresses and residencies of sex and kidnapping offenders, up to a maximum amount of $92,700.46 FWPD will be partnering with King County Government in implementing multiple program elements to ensure that sex offenders are in compliance under the guidelines of current laws. A strong enforcement effort to apprehend and prosecute offenders will help improve the quality of life for our citizens. 1 Cost Reimbursement Agreement Executed By King County Sheriff's Office, a department of King County, hereinafter referred to as "KCSO," Department Authorized Representative: Susan L. Rahr, Sheriff King County Sheriff's Office W -150 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 and Federal Way Police Department, a department of King County, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor," Department Authorized Representative: Andy Hwang, Chief of Police 33325 8 Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 WHEREAS, KCSO and Contractor have mutually agreed to work together for the purpose of verifying the address and residency of registered sex and kidnapping offenders; and WHEREAS, the goal of registered sex and kidnapping offender address and residency verification is to improve public safety by establishing a greater presence and emphasis by Contractor in King County neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, as part of this coordinated effort, Contractor will increase immediate and direct contact with registered sex and kidnapping offenders in their jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, KCSO is the recipient of a Washington State Registered Sex and kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program grant through the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs for this purpose, and WHEREAS, KCSO will oversee efforts undertaken by program participants in King County; NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: KCSO will utilize Washington State Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program funding to reimburse for expenditures associated Cost Reimbursement Agreement with the Contractor for the verification of registered sex and kidnapping offender address and residency as set forth below. This Interagency Agreement contains eight (8) Articles: ARTICLE I. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Cost Reimbursement Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2009 and shall end on June 30, 2010 unless terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions hereof. ARTICLE II. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES This agreement is for the purpose of reimbursing the Contractor for participation in the Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program. The program's purpose is to verify the address and residency of all registered sex and kidnapping offenders under RCW 9A.44.130. The requirement of this program is for face -to -face verification of a registered sex and kidnapping offender's address at the place of residency. In the case of level I offenders, once every twelve months of level II offenders, once every six months. of level III offenders, once every three months. For the purposes of this program unclassified offenders and kidnapping offenders shall be considered at risk level I, unless in the opinion of the local jurisdiction a higher classification is in the interest of public safety. ARTICLE M. REPORTING Two reports are required in order to receive reimbursement for grant- related expenditures. Both forms are included as exhibits to this agreement. "Exhibit A" is an "Address Verification Form" that the sex or kidnapping offender completes and signs during a face -to -face contact. "Exhibit B" is an "Officer Contact Worksheet" completed in full by an officer /detective during each verification contact. Both exhibits representing each contact are due quarterly and must be complete and received before reimbursement can be made following the quarter reported. Original signed report forms are to be submitted by the 5th of the month following the end of the quarter. The first report is due October 5, 2009. Quarterly progress reports shall be delivered to Attn: Tina Keller, Project Manager King County Sheriff's Office 401 Fourth Avenue Kent, WA 98032 Phone: 206 205 -7948 FederalWayCRA2009 grant Page 2 of 5 September 15, 2009 Cost Reimbursement Agreement Email: tina.keller @kingcounty.gov ARTICLE IV. REIMBURSEMENT Requests for reimbursement will be made on a quarterly basis and shall be forwarded to KCSO as soon as practical after the first of the month that follows each quarter ending September 30 December 31 March 31 and June 30 Overtime reimbursements for personnel assigned to the Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program will be calculated at the usual rate for which the individual's' time would be compensated in the absence of this agreement. Each request for reimbursement will include the name, rank, overtime compensation rate, number of reimbursable hours claimed and the dates of those hours for each officer for whom reimbursement is sought. Each reimbursement request must be accompanied by a certification signed by an appropriate supervisor of the department that the request has been personally reviewed, that the information described in the request is accurate, and the personnel for whom reimbursement is claimed were working on an overtime basis for the Registered Sex and Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program. .Oyertime and all other expenditures under this Agreement are restricted to the following criteria: FederalWayCRA2009 grant 1. For the purpose of verifying the address and residency of registered sex and kidnapping offenders; and 2. For the goal of improving public safety by establishing a greater presence and emphasis in King County neighborhoods; and 3. For increasing immediate and direct contact with registered sex and kidnapping offenders in their jurisdiction Requests for reimbursement from KCSO for the above non overtime expenditures must be accompanied by a spreadsheet detailing the expenditures as well as a vendor's invoice and a packing slip. The packing slip must be signed by an authorized representative of the Contractor. All costs must be included in the request for reimbursement and be within the overall contract amount. Over expenditures for any reason, including additional cost of sales tax, shipping, or installation, will be the responsibility of the Contractor. Requests for reimbursement must be sent to Attn: Joe Lewis, Grant Administrator King County Sheriff's Office Page 3 of 5 September 15, 2009 Cost Reimbursement Agreement 516 Third Avenue, Room W -150 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206 205 -7900 Email: joe.lewis @kingcounty.gov The maximum amount to be paid under this cost reimbursement agreement shall not exceed Ninety Two Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars and Forty Six Cents ($92,700.46). Expenditures exceeding the maximum amount shall be the responsibility of Contractor. All requests for reimbursement must be received by KCSO by July 31, 2010 to be payable. ARTICLE V. WITNESS STATEMENTS "Exhibit C" is a "Sex/Kidnapping Offender Address and Residency Verification Program Witness Statement Form." This form is to be completed by any witnesses encountered during a contact when the offender is suspected of not living at the registered address and there is a resulting felony "Failure to Register as a Sex Offender" case to be referred /filed with the KCPAO. Unless, due to extenuating circumstances the witness is incapable of writing out there own statement, the contacting officer /detective will have the witness write and sign the statement in their own handwriting to contain, verbatim, the information on the witness form. ARTICLE VI. FILING NON DISCOVERABLE FACE SHEET "Exhibit D" is the "Filing Non Discoverable Face Sheet." This form shall be attached to each "Felony Failure to Register as a Sex Offender" case that is referred to the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office. ARTICLE VII. SUPPLEMENTING, NOT SUPPLANTING Funds may not be used to supplant (replace) existing local, state, or Bureau of Indian Affairs funds that would be spent for identical purposes in the absence of the grant. Overtime To meet this grant condition, you must ensure that: Overtime exceeds expenditures that the grantee is obligated or funded to pay in the current budget. Funds currently allocated to pay for overtime may not be reallocated to other purposes or reimbursed upon the award of a grant. Additionally, by the conditions of this grant, you are required to track all overtime funded through the grant ARTICLE VII. AMENDMENTS No modification or amendment of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless in writing and signed by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. The parties hereto expressly reserve the right to modify this Agreement, by mutual agreement. FederalWayCRA2009 grant Page 4 of 5 September 15, 2009 Cost Reimbursement Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by having their representatives affix their signatures below. Federal Way Police Department KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Andy Hwang, Chief of Police Susan L. Rahr, Sheriff Date Date FederalWayCRA2009 grant Page 5 of 5 September 15, 2009 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 20, 2009 ITEM SUBJECT: Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Protection," to change SEPA exempt level thresholds; and Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code" for Use Process 1I, III, IV, and V to add one decisional criteria to address traffic safety issues. POLICY QUESTION: Should the City approve amendments to FWRC Title 14 and Tide 19 to raise the SEPA exempt level thresholds to the maximum allowed by state law and add one traffic related criteria to Use Process II, Ili. IV and V? COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC) CATEGORY: Consent City Council Business STAFF REPORT BY: Senior Planner Joanne Long Woods, AICP DEPT: Community Development Services Background: The proposed amendments are part of the "Economic Stimulus Package" included in the 2009 Planning Commission Work Program. Three amendments are proposed to Title 14, "Environmental Policy" to raise the SEPA exempt level thresholds to the maximum allowed by state law. Four amendments are proposed to Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," for Use Process II, III, IV, and V to address potential impacts to traffic safety and transportation as a result of raising the SEPA exempt level thresholds for minor new construction projects. Attachments: 1) Planning Commission staffreport with exhibits for the September 16, 2009, public hearing; 2) Minutes of the September 16, 2009, Planning Commission Pubic Hearing 3) Draft Adoption Ordinance_ 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: or 3) Do not adopt the proposed amendments. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of code amendments as presented by staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council adopt Option #1, adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation as contained in the Draft Adoption Ordinance CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: 1 4 X,/ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option #1; adopt the Planning Commission's recd ndation as contained in the Draft Adoption Ordinance to the full Council on October 20, 2009, for first reading Linda Kochmar, Chair mi Duclos, Member Jim Ferrell, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S): 1sT READINGOF ORDINANCE (10/20/09): "I move to forward the ordinance to a sec d reading for enactment on the November 3, 2009, consent agenda." 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE (11/03/09): "I move approval of the LUTC 's recommendation to approve the code amendments, which are contained in the Adoption Ordinance." COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED 02/06/2006 File #09- 102608 -00 -UP CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Ordinance Resolution Committee Council DIRECTOR APPROVAL: MEETING DATE: October 5, 2009 Public Hearing Other (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) Committee Council COUNCIL BILL 1 reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE RESOLUTION Doc ID 51656 i Fed F as A!. STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Amendments to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exempt Level Thresholds in Federal 1-al Revised Code (FWRC) Title 14, "Environmental Policy" and Amendments to FWRC Title l9, "Zoning and Development Code" Use Process 11, Use Process [[1 Use Process IV, Use Process V Federal Was Files 09- 102608 -00 -UP 09- 102609 -00 -SE Public Hearing of September 16, 2009 1 BACKGROUND Amendments to the zoning code (Federal Way Reviser[ Code [FWRC I) Title 14_ Environtnental Policy" to raise sortie of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Exempt Level Thresholds, and Title 19, Zoning and Development Code" on the Use Process (t. Use Process 111, Use Process IV. and Use Process V decision criteria to obtain land use process approval in order to mitigate for onsite or offsite traffic safety impacts to the transportation system, for all modes of transport :i' n The Planning Commission is being asked to review the proposed changes to the zoning code, attached as Exhibits A -E, and forward a recommendation to the Land Use Transportation Cornmittee (LZIfC) and City Council. The following proposed zoning text amendments are addressed in this staff report: 1. Modify FWRC Chapter 14_15.030(i )(a) to change exempt let els for minor new construction for residential structures from 9 to 20 dwelling wilts: the maxinium allowed per WAC 197-11- I )(b) (Exhibit A). 2. Modify FWRC Chapter 14.15.030(0(c) to change exetnpt levels for minor new construction for office, commercial, recreational, service. or storage buildings from 4,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet gross floor area, and from 20 parking spaces to 40 parking spaces; the maximum allowed per WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b) (Exhibit A). 3. Modify FWRC Chapter 14.15.030(11(d) to change exempt levels for minor new construction of parking lots from 20 spaces to 40 spaces; the maximum allowed per \VAC 197-11-8000 Kb) (Exhibit A). 4. Modify FWRC Chapter 19.60.050(2) to add a new decisional criteria for Process 11 Site Plan Approval (Exhibit 13), Chapter 19.65.100(2)(a) Use Process [[1 Project Approval (Exhibit C), Chapter 19.70.150(3) Use Process IV Hearing Examiner (Exhibit D), and Chapter 19.75.130(3) Use Process V Quasi- Judicial Rezones (Exhibit E). These modifications will address potential traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation that may arise as a result of changes to the SEPA threshold exempt levels. [1. PROPOSED CODE kiA fENDtxOENTS Recommended Modifications to FWRC Chapter 14.15.030, "SEPA Categorical Exempt Levels Flexible Thresholds" The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was adopted to establish a set of rules that agencies could use to determine and mitigate potential impacts to the environment generated by development projects. Federal Way has adopted these rules as part of the revised code, under Title it Environmental Policy." FWRC Chapter 14.13.030 lists the exempt levels for minor new construction. The city has adopted exempt levels for residential, commercial, office, recreational, service, or storage buildings up to 4,000 square feet, and up to 20 parking spaces. Also, for parking lots, the current exempt level is 20 parking spaces. VAC 197 H b� lists the maximum exempt levels allowed for each category listed above and allows local jurisdictions to adopt exempt levels up to these maximum lever. The city now proposes to amend the SEPA exempt levels to the maximum allowed for the residential, commercial, office, recreational, service, and storage buildings to 12,000 square feet with 40 parking spaces and parking lots for up to 40 parking spaces. 2. Recommended Modifications to FWRC Chapter 19.60 "Process [1 Site Plan Approval," Chapter 19.65 "Process [11 Project Approval," Chapter 19.70 "Process 1V Hearing Examiner," and Chapter 19.75, "Process V Quasi Judicial Rezones" The proposed amendments to the above- referenced chapters will add some decisional criteria to project approvals to address potential traffic safety issues that may arise when smaller projects are not required to go through a SEPA review process as a result of raising the exemtpauir L. as noted in item 1, above. Potential traffic impacts for pedestrian safety, access to the site, signalization, off site improvements, and similar items that previously were mitigated iluou`tt the SEPA process are proposed to be addressed by new decisional criteria added to each of the code sections noted above. [1[. PROCEDURAL SUMMAR1 On July 25, 2009, the city issued an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on the proposed amendments, with a com{nent deadline of August 10, 2009, and an appeal deadline of August 24, 2009. No comments on the DNS were submitted to the city as of the date of transmittal of this staff report. Public notice of the September 16, 2009, public hearing was published and posted on August 29, 2009, in accordance with the city's procedural requirements. As of this date, no comments were received from the public on this proposal. [V. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Title 19_ Zoning and Development Code,' Chapter 19.80 establishes a process and criteria for zoning code text amendments. Consistent with Process VI review, the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: FWRC Code Amendments September 16, 2009, Planning Commission Public 1 fearing 09 10608 0(i UP Doc {D 51123 Page 2 of 5 To revtew and evaluate whether the proposed ►ntcudntettt is consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, 2. To determine whether the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, or welfare: 3. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and 4. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed zoning code text amendment. V. DECISIONAL, CRITERIA FWRC Chapter 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 this chapter. The city may amend the text of the FWRC only if it finds that: i. The proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. The proposed FWRC text amendments are consistent with the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) policies: LUG2 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public/private partnership. LUG4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. LUP6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the permit review process. TG2 Provide a safe, efficient, convenient, and financially sustainable transportation system with sufficient capacity to move people, goods, and services at an acceptable level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and preservation of new and existing facilities. ED PI 5 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. FLtRC Code Amendments ti9 -in f,ur- uo -t;P Doc 11) 51432 September 16, 2009, Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 3 of 5 The proposed amendments bear a substantiakrelationsitip to public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed FWRC text amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public health: safety. and welfare because they will allow a streamlined development review process for srttall projects meeting certain criteria. The proposed SEPA exempt levels are already identified by state codes to be minor' construction levels. Raising the exempt levels under SEPA will sitnplify the development review process for these minor construction projects with less cost and a shorter review time for the applicant. Any potential impacts that are identified for these smaller projects will be addressed through existing codes or mitigated through the land use process approval as conditions of approval for the project. 3_ The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the city. Approval of the proposed text atendments would benefit the city as a wltofe as they would provide the opportunity for a shorter and less costly review process for proposed development aud'or redevelopment of structures_ By increasing opportunities for additional development within the city, additional revenues would be generated, which would benefit all residents of the city by providing the city with revenue for vital services to the public. V I. STAFF RECON NIENDAT1ON Based'on the above staff analysis and decisional criteria, staff recommends that the following amendments to FWRC Title 14 Environntental Policy and Title 19, Zoning and Developmcr t Code be recommended for approval to the Land Use''Transportation Committee (LUTC) and City Council. Modification to FWRC Chapter 14.15.030_ Categorical Exempt Levels Flexible Thresholds... 2. Modifications to FWRC Chapter 19.60 Process 11 Site Plan Approval,' Chapter 19.65 Process HE Project Approval," Chapter 19.70 `Process IV Hearing Examiner," and Chapter 19.75, Process V Quasi- Judicial Rezones." V[L PLANNING COntn ISStON ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC Chapter 19.80.240, the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding the proposed zoning code text amendments: 1. Recommend to the City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as proposed; 2. Modify the proposed FWRC text amendments and recommend to the City Council adoption of the FWRC text amendments as modified; FWRC Code Amendments 09402608-0O-UP Doc ID 51422 September 16, 2.009, Planning Commission Public Hearing Page 4 of 5 EXFQBITS 3. Recommend to the City Council that the proposed FWRC text amendments not be adopted: or 4. Forward the proposed FWRC text amendments to the City Council without a recontmendation. Exhibit .4 Proposed Code Amendment: FWRC Title 14, Environmental Policy," Chapter 14.15.030(1) Exhibit B Proposed Code Amendment: FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.60.050(2 Exhibit C Proposed Code Amendment: FWRC Title 19, Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.65.100(2) Exhibit D Proposed Code .Amendment: FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.70.150t 3) Exhibit E Proposed Code Amendment: FWRC Title 19. Zoning and Development," Chapter 19.75.130(3)(b) PARC Code Amendment; 09- 103608 -00 -UP Doc 1D 51132 September 16, 2009, Planning Commission Public Hearing. Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A FWRC Chapter 14.15 Categorical Exemptions and Threshold Determinations (4.15.030 Categorical exemptions Flexible thresholds_ (1 The city establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction defined in WAC 197- 1 1 800(1)(6) based on local conditions: (a) For residential structures up to nine 20 dwelling units. (b) For agriculttu structures covering up to 10,000 square feet. (c) For office, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings up to 12,000 square feet `Toss floor area, and up to 20 40 parking spaces. (d) For parking lots up to 20 40 parking spaces. (e) For landfills and excavations up to 500 cubic yards. (2) Whenever the city establishes new exempt levels under this section, it shall send theta to the State Department of Ecology as required by WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(c). (Ord. No. 07 -554_ Y i {Ex1t. A(t)), 5- 15 -07; Ord. No. 04 -468, 3, 11- 16 -04; Ord. No. 90 -40, 3 1(20.90.10. 20.90 20), 2- 27 -90_ Code 2001 1S -73.1 K..2009 Code Amendments' SEPA Exempt Levels Planning. Commission Exhibit A.doc Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 districts; Exhibit B EXHIBIT B FWRC Chapter 19.60 Process 11— Site Plan Review 19.60.050 Site plan and community design guidelines approval criteria. (1) Applicability. The director may approve an application for site plan re‘, and community design guideline review if it is consistent with the following sets of decisional. criteria: (2) Site plan criteria. (a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title; (c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare; (d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; and (e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access; and (f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off -site, are adequately mitigated. (3) Community design guideline decisional criteria. (a) It is consistent with site design standards set forth in FWRC 19.1 15.050 for all zoning (b) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in FWRC 19.115.090; and (c) For development applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing development, it is consistent with those provisions of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Conununity Design Guidelines, identified by the director as being applicable. (Ord. No. 09 -394. 44, 1 -6 -09; Ord. No 07 -573. 17. 124 -07; Ord. No. 97 -291, 3. 4 -1 -97; Ord. No. 2(175.10(4)). 2- 27 -90. Code )001 22 -365.) 1::'_009 Code AmendmentsnSEP.a Exempt levels PlanningCommission`Exhifitt B.doc Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT C FWRC Chapter 19.65 Process 111 Project Approval 19.65.100 Director's decision. (1) General. (a) Coordination uitlt decisions under the State. Environmental Policy Act. If SEPA threshold determination is required to be issued, the threshold determination must follow the end of the public comment period on the project permit application. but precede the director's decision on the land use and design components of the process if[ project permit approval. lithe SEPA threshold determination is appealed, the directors land use and design components decision shall be issued sufficiently in advance of the open record hearing on the threshold determination appeal, to allow any appeal of the land use and/or design review decision to be consolidated and heard with the appeal of the threshold determination. (b) Timing. The director will endeavor to issue his or her decision on the land use and design components of the process [[1 project permit approval within 120 days of the issuance of the tenet of completeness. (i) The 120-day tune period does not apply if a project permit application under this chapter requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or this title; requires approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCA' 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A_200, or capital facility projects of the city; or if a project permit application under this chapter is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete. (ii) tithe decision solely relates to a review of community design guidelines of a process 1V application, the director shall issue a written decision within 10 working days after the deadline for submitting comments. (iii) The following periods shall not be included in the calculation of the 120 -day period: (A) Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. In these instances, the period excluded from the 120 -day calculation shall begin on the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information and run until the earlier of ttte date the city determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the information has been provided to the city. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under this subsection is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under this subsection shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made. (13) Anyperiod during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW. (C) Any period for administrative appeals of the SEPA threshold determination; provided, that the time period for consideration of such appeals shall not exceed 90 days for an open record appeal hearing. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend the 90 -day period. (D) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city. (iv) if the director is unable to issue his or final decision on the land use or design review components of a process 111 project permit application as provided in this subsection, the city shall provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the decision has not been issued within the 120 -day period, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision. Exhibit C Page 1 ot' 2 (2) Decisional criteria. The director shall use the criteria listed in this subsection and the provisions of this title describing the requested decision in deciding upoii the application. (a) The director may approve the application only if: (t) Et is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (ii) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title; (iii) Et is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare, (iv) The streets and utilities in the area of-the subject property arc adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; and (v) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration; and (vi) Traffic safety impacts for all nodes of. transportation. both on and off -site. are adequately mitigated. (b) if the application is subject to the requirements of Chapter 19.115 FWRC Community Design Guidelines, the director shall also use the following criteria in deciding upon an application: (i) ft is consistent with the site design standards set forth for alt zoning districts in FWRC 19.11 5.050; (ii) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in FWRC 19.115.090; and (iii) For development applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing development, it is consistent with those provisions of Chapter 19. t t 5 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines, identified by the director as being applicable. (3) Conditions and restrictions. The director shall include in the written decision any conditions and restrictions that he or she determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the application. Any conditions and restrictions that are included become part of the decision. (4) Contents_ The director shall include the following in the written decision_ (a) A statement granting, modifying and granting, or denying the application. (b) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (c) A statement of facts presented to the director that support the decision, including any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (d) A statement of the director's conclusions based on those facts (e) A statement of the criteria used by the director in making the decision. (t) The date of issuance of the decision. (g) A summary of the rights, as established in this chapter, of the applicant and others to appeal the decision of the director. (h) A statement of any threshold determination made under the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. (i) A statement that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation_ (5) Distribution of written decision. Within five working days after the written decision of the director is issued, it shall be distributed as follows: (a) A copy will be mailed to the applicant_ (b) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written comments or information to the director. (c) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it. (d) A copy will be mailed to the King County assessor. (Ord. No. 09 -594, 59, 1 -6 -09; Ord. No. 97 -291. 3, 4 -1 -97; Ord. No. 90 -43, 2(145.45), 2 27 90. Code 2001 22 -395.) K:'2009 Code Amendments'SEPA Exempt Levels PtanningComrnission Exhibit C do. Exhibit C Page 2 of_ EXHIBIT D FWRC Chapter 19.70 Process IV Hearing Examiner 19.70.1 50 Nearing examiner's decision. (1) General. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the hearing examiner shall issue a written decision- in an agency decision appeal, the examiner shall affirm, reverse. or modify the decision being appealed based on the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this section do not apply to agency decision appeals. (2) Timing. (a) Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner shall issue the decision within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing. (b) The hearing examiner will endeavor to issue his or her decision on the land use and design components of the process IV project permit approval within 120 days of the issuance of the letter of completeness issued pursuant to FWRC 19.15.045, except that the following periods shall not be included in the calculation of the 120-day period: (i) Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies. or provide additional required information. In these instances, the period excluded from the 1 20 -day calculation shall begin on the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information and run until the earlier of the date the city determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or 14 days atter the date the information has been provided to the city. if the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under this subsection is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under this subsection shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made. (ii) Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW. (iii) Any period for administrative appeals of the SEPA threshold determination; provided, that the time period for consideration of such appeals shaft not exceed 90 days for an open record appeal hearing. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend the 90 -day period. (iv) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city. The 120 -day time period does not apply if a project permit application under this chapter requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or this title; requires approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, or the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A_200; or if a project permit application under this chapter is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete under FWRC 19.15.045. if the hearing examiner is unable to issue his or her decision on the land use or design review components of a process IV project permit application as provided in this subsection, the city shall provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the decision has not been issued within the 120 -day period, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision. (3) Decision criteria_ The hearing examiner shall use the criteria listed in the provisions of this title describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application. En addition, the hearing examiner may approve the application only if_ (a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and all other applicable laws; (c) It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare; Exhibit D Page 1 of 2 (d) The streets and utilities in the area of the'subjact properte are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; atid (e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and coati niranou for access; and (t') Traffic satetc impacts for all modes of transportation, botch on and off-site. are adequately mitigated. (4) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the «t itteu decision any conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably necessary to etintinate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the application. ,Amy conditions and restrictions that are imposed become part of the decision. (5) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the follow mg in the examiner's ritten decision. (a) A statement granting, modifying and granting or denying the application. (b) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (c) A statement of facts presented to him or her that support the decision, including any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (d) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts. (e) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in snaking the decision. (t) The date of issuance of the decision and a summary of the rights, as established in this chapter, of the applicant and others to appeal the decision of the hearing examiner. (g) A statement of arty threshold determination made under the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.2 LC RC W. (h) A statement that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. (6) Distribution of written decision. Within five working days after the hearing examiner's written decision is issued, the director shall distribute the decision as follows: (a) A copy will be mailed to the applicant and the appellant. (b) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the examiner. (c) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it (d) A copy will be mailed to the King County assessor_ (Ord. No. 09 -394. 91, 1-6 -09; Ord. No 97- 29t..§ Y, 4 -1 -97; Ord. No. 92 -1 3 3. 31 150.65 t- 21 -92; Ord. No. 90 43, 2(130.65), 2- 27 -90. Code 2001 22 -445. K :!2009 Code Amendments SEPA Exempt Level s Planning, Commission Exhibit 0.00(2 Exhibit D Page 2 of 19.75.130 Recommendation by the hearing examiner. (1) Generally. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the hearing examiner shall issue a written recommendation to the city council. (2) Timing: Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner must issue the recommendation within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing. (3) Decisional criteria. The hearing exanuner shall use the following criteria for quasi- judicial rezones: (a) The city may approve an application for a quasi judicial nonproject rezone only if it finds that: (i) The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and (ii) The proposed rezone is appropriate because either: (A) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, wider those changed conditions, a rezone is within the public interest; or (B) The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established; (iii) it is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (iv) [t is consistent with all applicable provisions of the title, including those adopi,;a reference from the comprehensive plan; and (v) Et is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. (b) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial project related rezone only it it finds that: EXHIBIT. E FWRC Chapter 19.75 Process V Quasi Judicial Rezones (i) The criteria in subsection (3)(a) of this section are met; and (ii) The proposed project complies with this title in alt respects; and (iii) 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; and (iv) The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities; and (v) Traffic safety irnpacts created by the proposal for all nodes of transportation, both on- and off -site, are adequately mitigated; and (a) (vi) The rezone has merit and value for the community as a whole. (4) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing exanuner shall include in the wtiritterr reconunendation any conditions and restrictions that the examiner deterrnines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the requested rezone. (5) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the written recommendation to city council: (a) A statement of facts presented to the hearing examiner that supports his or her recommendation, including any conditions and restrictions that are recommended. (b) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on arose facts. (c) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the recommendation. (d) The date of issuance of the recommendation. Exhibit E Page 1 c)12 (6) Distribution of written recommendation. The director shall distribute copies of the recommendation of the hearing examiner as follows: (a) After the hearing examiners written.recouunendation is issued. a copy will be sent to the applicant, to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the hearing examiner, and to each person who specifically requested it (b) Prior to the meeting where city council considers the application, a copy will be sent to each member of city council. The director shall include a draft resolution or ordinance that embodies the hearing examiner's recommendation with the copy of the recommendation sent to each city council member. (Ord. No. 09- 594.3 120. 1 -6 -09; Ord. No. 02424, 3 3, 9- 17 -02; Ord. No. 99-337, a`' 2, 3 -2 -99; Ord. No. 97 -291, 3, 4 -1 -97. Code 2001 22 K:'2009 Code Amendment SEPA Exempt Leneis'Plannrng Commission Exhibit E.doc Exhibit E Page 2 of 2 September 16, 2009 700p CITY OF FEDER:&L WAY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Merle Pfeifer, Hope Elder, Sarady Long, Wayne Carlson, Tom Iv Iedlturst, and Tint O'Neil. Commissioners absent: Lawson Bronson (excused). Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Joanne Long Woods, Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Assistant City Attorney Peter Beck-with, and Administrative Assistant Tina Piety Chair Pfeifer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.nt_ APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of July 22, 2009, were approved as written. AUDIENCE COi+[MENT None City Hall Council Chambers ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Mr. Conlen announced that one Conunissioner's terns expires this month (Lawson Bronson). The deadline tot Planning Conunissioner applications was last Friday and we have received one application; from Lawson Bronson. The next Planning Conuttission meeting will be October 7, 2009, when we will have a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PV)ISF) regulations. COmMISStON BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING Code Amendments to SEPA Exemption Use Processes Ms. Long -Woods delivered the staff presentation. The proposed code amendments will raise some of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) exempt level thresholds and mitigate for onsite or offsite traffic safety impacts to the transportation system, for all modes of transportation. The proposed amendments are part of the Economic Stimulus Package." intended to encourage development. The proposed SEPA exemption amendments will raise the number of dwelling units exempt from SEPA from 9 to 20. It will raise the exempt gross floor area for office, commercial, recreation, service, or storage buildings to 12,000 square feet from 4,000 square feet and raise the parking spaces to 40 from 20. In addition, the exempt number of parking spaces in parking lots will be raised from 20 to 40. When the proposed SEPA exemption amendments were given to the Traffic Division for review, they expressed concern that raising the exempt levels may impact traffic safety. Therefore, a new decisional criterion is proposed for Use Processes lf, I[l, IV, and V to require traffic safety impacts (such as pedestrian pathways, stop lights, etc be mitigated. The meeting was opened for public cotntnent- Ms. Piety read the following comment into the record. K± PiaruiuigComunc= kon._O()9 cetatg Surmnary 09-16 r.) 4oc Planmrl, l'onum ,;ton �1tn111c Page 2 September 16. 100 `ar U ueill Thank you so couch and 1 Mould like to submit to you fot reading into tonight's record that the Master Builder Assoc strongly supports raising SEPA thresholds and encourages the Planning Commission to pass the draft ordinance before you. Thank you and my apologies for not being able t0 attend Garrett J. Huftinan. South King Seattle Manager Master Builders _Association for King and Snohomish Cowities" There was no other public continent. Commissioner Long conunented that he believes the proposed amendments are a step forward and will make it less costly for smaller developers. He asked if the amendments will apply to multi- family development. Ms. Long -Woods replied that the amendments will apply to multi- family development. Mr_ Conies commented that the proposed amendments will not apply to subdivisions as they are regulated elsewhere in the code. For subdivisions, the SEPA exemption will remain at nine lots. Commissioner Carlson asked if the proposed traffic impact amendments are more of a housekeeping amendment and will they have any bearing on the proposed Traffic Impact Fee (TIE)? Mr. Beckwith replied they will not have a bearing on the proposed TIF because the proposed TEE is an overall, city-wide issue while these proposed amendments deal with site- specitic developments. Commissioner Medl to st commented that while reading the proposed amendments he noted places where different words (endeavor to, shall, and must) are used for the same issue- Mr. Beckwith commented that this issue is outside the purview of the proposed amendments, but staff will make note of these in order to review for a possible tuttu e antendcnent. Commissioner Long commented that in Exhibit A, he noted that the square feet for agricultural sttu••..0 1. f 5.030[ 11[bl) is not proposed to be changed. Why is this not included? Ms. Long -Woods commented that the city rarely receives an application for an agricultural structure and therefore, staff decided the sf ltc1. footage did not need to be changed Commissioner Carlson moved (and it was seconded) to reconunend adoption of the proposed amendments as presented by staff The motion carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL, BUSINESS None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 7 30 p.nt. K '•Plan tg Comm s Lou r'4rr.', fr_tm _wnu::u•, ::v- ORDNANCE NO. 09- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING FEDERAL` WAY REVISED CODE TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.15.030, RELATING TO STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) EXEMPT LEVEL THRESHOLDS, AND AMENDING TITLE 19, CHAPTER 19.60.050 FOR USE PROCESS II, CHAPTER 19.65.100 FOR USE PROCESS III, CHAPTER 19.70.150 FOR USE PROCESS IV, AND CHAPTER 19.75.130 FOR USE PROCESS V (AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. 09 -594, 07- 573, 07 -554, 04 -468, 02 -424, 00 -375, 99 -337, 97 -291, 92 -133, 90-43, AND 90 -40). 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 Use Process VI review, Chapter 19.80 FWRC, pursuant to Chapter 19.35 FWRC; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are part of the 'Economic Stimulus Package" included in the 2009 Planning Commission Work Program; and WHEREAS, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was adopted to establish a set of rules that agencies could use to determine and mitigate potential impacts to the environment generated by development projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way has adopted these rules as part of the FWRC Title 14, "Environmental Policy; and WHEREAS, FWRC Chapter 14.15.030 lists the exempt level thresholds for minor new construction; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted exempt level thresholds for residential, commercial, office, recreational, service, or storage buildings up to 4,000 square feet, and up to 20 parking spaces, and up to 20 parking spaces for parking lots; and Ordinance No. 09- Page 1 of 10 File #09- 102608 -00 -LAP Doc ID 51657 WHEREAS, the City is proposing to raise the exempt level thresholds to the maximum allowed under WAC 197.11.800 for residential, commercial, office, recreational, service, or storage buildings to 12,000 square feet, and up to 40 parking spaces, and up to 40 parking spaces for parking lots; and WHEREAS, the City is proposing to amend FWRC Title 19, "Zoning and Development Code," Chapter 19.60.050(2) for Use Process 11- Site Plan Approval, Chapter 19.65.100(2) for Use Process III Project Approval, Chapter 19.170.150(3) for Use Process IV Hearing Examiner, and Chapter 19.75.130(3) for Use Process V Quasi- Judicial Rezones by adding an additional decisional criteria to address traffic safety impacts to the overall transportation system; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2009, the city issued an Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) with a comment deadline of August 10, 2009, and an appeal deadline of August 24, 2009, and no comments or appeals were submitted to the City; and WHEREAS, the draft staff report was electronically forwarded on July 25, 2009, to stakeholders and interested citizens for review and comment, which resulted in one comment letter submitted by Sam Pace with the Seattle/King County Realtors; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission properly conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the code amendments on September 16, 2009, 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 October 5, 2009, and recommended adoption of the amendments as presented. 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. Ordinance No.09- Page 2 of 10 File 09- 102608 -00 -UP Doc ID 51657 1. The code amendments are in the best interest of the residents of the City and will benefit the city as a whole by providing a shorter and more economic review time for development permitting processes for minor new construction projects. 2. The code amendments comply with Chapter 36.70A RCW, Growth Management Act. 3. The code amendments are consistent with the intent and purpose of FWRC Title 14 and Title l9, and will implement and are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP). 4. The code amendments bear a substantial relationship to, and will protect and not adversely affect, the public health, safety, and welfare. 5. The code amendments have followed the proper procedure required under the FWRC. Section 2. Conclusions. Pursuant to 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: 1. The proposed FWRC amendments are consistent with, and substantially inclement, the following Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP) goals and policies: LUG2 Develop an efficient and timely development review process based on a public/ private partnership. LUG4 Maximize efficiency of the development review process. LUP6 Conduct regular reviews of development regulations to determine how to improve upon the permit review process. TG2 Provide a safe, efficient, convenient, and financially sustainable transportation system with sufficient capacity to move people, goods, and services at an acceptable level of service. The City shall develop and adopt policies for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and preservation of new and existing facilities. EDP 15 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. EDP 18 The City will periodically monitor local and regional trends to be able to adjust plans, policies, and programs. 2. The proposed FWRC amendments bear a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and welfare because they clarify and refine various related codes in order to increase the efficiency of the development review process. Ordinance No 09- Page 3 of 10 File 1109 102608 -00 -UP Doc ID 51657 3. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the public and the residents of the City of Federal Way as they provide for certainty in the development review process, which results in continued development within the City, thus aiding the local economy. Section 3. Chapter 14.15 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended as follows: 14.15.030 Categorical exemptions Flexible thresholds. (1) The city establishes the following exempt levels for minor new construction defined in WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(b) based on local conditions: (a) For residential structures up to nine 20 dwelling units. (b) For agricultural structures covering up to 10,000 square feet. (c) For office, commercial, recreational, service or storage buildings up to 4000 12,000 square feet gross floor area, and up to 20 40 parking spaces. (d) For parking lots up to 20 40 parking spaces. (e) For landfills and excavations up to 500 cubic yards. (2) Whenever the city establishes new exempt levels under this section, it shall send them to the State Department of Ecology as required by WAC 197- 11- 800(1)(c). Section 4. Chapter 19.60 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended as follows: 19.60.050 Site plan and community design guidelines approval criteria. (1) Applicability. The director may approve an application for site plan review and community design guideline review if it is consistent with the following sets of decisional criteria: (2) Site plan criteria. (a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title; (c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare; (d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; and (e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access; and (f) Traffic safety impacts for all nodes of transportation, both on and off -site, are adequately mitigated. (3) Community design guideline decisional criteria. (a) It is consistent with site design standards set forth in FWRC 19.115.050 for all zoning districts; (b) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in FWRC 19.115.090; and (c) For development applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing development, it is consistent with those provisions of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines, identified by the director as being applicable. Section. 5. Chapter 19.65 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended as follows: 19.65.100 Director's decision. (1) General. (a) Coordination with decisions under the State Environmental Policy Act. If a SEPA threshold determination is required to be issued, the threshold determination must follow the end of the public comment period on the project permit application, but precede the director's decision on the land use and design components of the process [II project permit approval. If the SEPA threshold determination is appealed, the director's land use and design components decision shall be issued sufficiently in advance of the open record hearing on the threshold Ordinance No.09- Page 4 of 10 File #09-102608-00-UP Doc ID 51657 determination appeal, to allow any appeal of the land use and/or design review decision to be consolidated and heard with the appeal of the threshold determination. (b) Tuning. The director will endeavor to issue his or her decision on the land use and design components of the process [[I project pehmit approval within 120 days of the issuance of the letter of completeness. (i) The 120 -day time period does not apply if a project permit application under this chapter requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or this title; requires approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200, or capital facility projects of the city; or if a project permit application under this chapter is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete. (ii) If the decision solely relates to a review of community design guidelines of a process IV application, the director shall issue a written decision within 10 working days after the deadline for submitting comments. (iii) The following periods shall not be included in the calculation of the 120 -day period: (A) Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. In these instances, the period excluded from the 120 -day calculation shall begin on the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information and run until the earlier of the date the city determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the information has been provided to the city. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under this subsection is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under this subsection shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made. (B) Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW. (C) Any period for administrative appeals of the SEPA threshold determination; provided, that the time period for consideration of such appeals shall not exceed 90 days for an open record appeal hearing. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend the 90- day period. city. (D) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the (iv) If the director is unable to issue his or final decision on the land use or design review components of a process III project permit application as provided in this subsection, the city shall provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the decision has not been issued within the 120 -day period, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision. (2) Decisional criteria. The director shall use the criteria listed in this subsection and the provisions of this title describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application. (a) The director may approve the application only if: (i) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (ii) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title; (iii) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare; (iv) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; and (v) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration; and (vi) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off -site, are adequately mitigated Ordinance No.09- Page 5 of 10 File #09- 102608 -00 -UP Doc ID 51657 (b) If the application is subject to the requirements of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines, the director shall also use the following criteria in deciding upon an application: (i) It is consistent with the site design standards set forth for all zoning districts in FWRC 19.115.050; (ii) It is consistent with applicable supplemental guidelines set forth in FWRC 19.115.090; and (iii) For development applications for remodeling or expansion of an existing development, it is consistent with those provisions of Chapter 19.115 FWRC, Community Design Guidelines, identified by the director as being applicable. (3) Conditions and restrictions. The director shall include in the written decision any conditions and restrictions that he or she determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects-of granting the application. Any conditions and restrictions that are included become part of the decis ion. (4) Contents. The director shall include the following in the written decision: (a) A statement granting, modifying and granting, or denying the application. (b) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (c) A statement of facts presented to the director that support the decision, including any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (d) A statement of the director's conclusions based on those facts. (e) A statement of the criteria used by the director in making the decision. (t) The date of issuance of the decision. (g) A summary of the rights, as established in this chapter, of the applicant and others to appeal the decision of the director. (h) A statement of any threshold determination made under the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. (i) A statement that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. (5) Distribution of written decision. Within five working days after the written decision of the director is issued, it shall be distributed as follows: (a) A copy will be mailed to the applicant. (b) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written comments or information to the director. (c) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it. (d) A copy will be mailed to the King County assessor. Section 6. Chapter 19.70 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended as follows: 19.70.150 Hearing examiner's decision. (1) General. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the hearing examiner shall issue a written decision. In an agency decision appeal, the examiner shall affirm, reverse, or modify the decision being appealed based on the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this section do not apply to agency decision appeals. (2) Timing. (a) Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner shall issue the decision within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing. (b) The hearing examiner will endeavor to issue his or her decision on the land use and design components of the process IV project permit approval within 120 days of the issuance of the letter of completeness issued pursuant to FWRC 19.15.045, except that the following periods shall not be included in the calculation of the 120 -day period: Ordinance No.09- Page 6 of 10 File #09- 102608 -00 -UP Doc ID 51657 (i) Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the city to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. In these instances, the period excluded from the 120 -day calculation shall begin on the date the city notifies the applicant of the need for additional information and run until the earlier of the date the city determines whether the additional information satisfies the request for information or 14 days after the date the information has been provided to the city. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant under this subsection is insufficient, it shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures under this subsection shall apply as if a new request for studies had been made. (ii) Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW. (iii) Any period for administrative appeals of the SEPA threshold determination; provided, that the time period for consideration of such appeals shall not exceed 90 days for an open record appeal hearing. The parties to an appeal may agree to extend the 90 -day period. (iv) Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city. The 120 -day time period does not apply if a project permit application under this chapter requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or this title; requires approval of a new fully contained community as provided in RCW 36.70A.350, a master planned resort as provided in RCW 36.70A.360, or the siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or if a project permit application under this chapter is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shalt start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete under FWRC 19.15.045. If the hearing examiner is unable to issue his or her decision on the land use or design review components of a process IV project permit application as provided in this subsection, the city shall provide written notice of this fact to the applicant. The notice shall include a statement of reasons why the decision has not been issued within the 120 -day period, and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision. (3) Decision criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the criteria listed in the provisions of this title describing the requested decision in deciding upon the application. In addition, the hearing examiner may approve the application only if: (a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this title and all other applicable (c) It is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare; (d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal; and (e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration for access; and (f) Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off -site, are adequately mitigated. (4) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the written decision any conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the application. Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed become part of the decision. (5) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the examiner's written decis ion: laws; (a) A statement granting, modifying and granting or denying the application. (b) Any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (c) A statement of facts presented to him or her that support the decision, including any conditions and restrictions that are imposed. (d) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts. Ordinance No 09- Page 7 of 10 File u09- 102608-00 -UP Doc ID 51657 (e) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the decision. (f) The date of issuance of the decision and a summary of the rights, as established in this chapter, of the applicant and others to appeal the decision of the hearing examiner. (g) A statement of any threshold deterlliination made under the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. (h) A statement that affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. (6) Distribution of written decision. Within five working days after the hearing examiner's written decision is issued, the director shall distribute the decision as follows: (a) A copy will be mailed to the applicant and the appellant. (b) A copy will be mailed to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the hearing examiner. (c) A copy will be mailed to any person who has specifically requested it. (d) A copy will be mailed to the King County assessor. Section 7. Chapter 19.75 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended as follows: 19.75.130 Recommendation by the hearing examiner. (1) Generally. After considering all of the information and comments submitted on the matter, the hearing examiner shall issue a written recommendation to the city council. (2) Timing. Unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the hearing examiner must issue the recommendation within 10 working days after the close of the public hearing. (3) Decisional criteria. The hearing examiner shall use the following criteria for quasi- judicial rezones: (a) The city may approve an application for a quasi-judicial nonproject rezone only if it finds that: (i) The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the residents of the city; and (ii) The proposed rezone is appropriate because either: (A) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning and that, under those changed conditions, a rezone is within the public interest; or (B) The rezone will correct a zone classification or zone boundary that was inappropriate when established; (iii) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (iv) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the title, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan; and (v) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. (b) The city may approve an application for a quasi- judicial project- related rezone only if it finds that: (1) The criteria in subsection (3)(a) of this section are met; and (ii) The proposed project complies with this title in all respects; and (iii) 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; and (iv) The site plan is designed to minimize impacts upon the public services and utilities; and (v) Traffic safety impacts created by the proposal for all modes of transportation, both on- and off -site, are adequately mitigated; and (v) (vi) The rezone has merit and value for the community as a whole. (4) Conditions and restrictions. The hearing examiner shall include in the written recommendation any conditions and restrictions that the examiner determines are reasonably necessary to eliminate or minimize any undesirable effects of granting the requested rezone. Ordinance No.09- Page 8 of 10 File #09- 102608 -00 -UP Doc ID 51657 (5) Contents. The hearing examiner shall include the following in the written recommendation to city council: (a) A statement of facts presented to the hearing examiner that supports his or her recommendation, including any conditions andYestrictions that are recommended. (b) A statement of the hearing examiner's conclusions based on those facts. (c) A statement of the criteria used by the hearing examiner in making the recommendation. (d) The date of issuance of the recommendation. (6) Distribution of written recommendation. The director shall distribute copies of the recommendation of the hearing examiner as follows: (a) After the hearing examiner's written recommendation is issued, a copy will be sent to the applicant, to each person who submitted written or oral testimony to the hearing examiner, and to each person who specifically requested it. (b) Prior to the meeting where city council considers the application, a copy will be sent to each member of city council. The director shall include a draft resolution or ordinance that embodies the hearing examiner's recommendation with the copy of the recommendation sent to each city council member. 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 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 200_. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, JACK DOVEY Ordinance No. 09- Page 9 of l 0 File #09-102608-00- Doc ID 51657 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. 09- Page 10 of 10 File 1109- 102608400 -UP Doc ID 51657