Council PKT 04-19-2011 RegularCITV OP
� Federal Way
AGENDA
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Councii Chambers - City Hall
April 19, 2011
7:00 p.m.
www. cityoffederalway. com
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PRESENTATIONS
a. Suburban Cities Association Presentation
b. Volunteer Recognition — Governor's Outstanding Service Award
c. Mayors Emerging Issues
4. CITIZEN COMMENT
PLEASE COMPLETE A PINK SLIP & PRESENT IT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAK/NG.
When recognized by the Mayor, come forward to the podium and state your name for the record.
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES. 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 fhree members and
brought before full Council for approval; all items are enacfed by one mofion. Individual items may be removed by
a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion.
a. Minutes: April 5, 2011 Special and Regular Meeting ... py 3
b. NTS Program Policy Review and 21S Ave. SW at SW 304 NTS Chronology... pg �2
c. 2012 Land & Water Conservation Fund Grant Application... pg 5s
d. Landscape Bid Award... pg 5s
e. Create and Post Coyote Information Signs... pg s�
f. Application for Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant... pg s3
g. Clearwire Site Lease — Lakota Park ... pg s5
The Council may add items and take action on items nof listed on the agenda.
6. COUNCIL BUSINESS
a. Parks and Recreation Commission Appointments ... pg ss
b. RFQ/RFP for former AMC Theatre Site Redevelopment ... pg �o
c. Farmers Market Lease ... pg s5
7. ORDINANCES
Second Reading:
a. CB #567 Amend FWRC Reaardina Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers
An ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to Pawnbrokers and Secondhand
Dealers; amending FWRC 12.15.010, 12.15.140, 12.15.230, 12.15.290, 12.15.300 and adding a
new section to 12.15.330. ... pg 103
8. COUNCIL REPORTS
9. MAYOR'S REPORT
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Potential Litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
11. ADJOURNMENT
The Council may add items and take action on items not listed on the agenda.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011 ITEM #: Sa
_ ........................:.........................._........................._..................................................................._._................................................................................_.............._ .... .. ..... .. .................._............._._........._................................._.........................................................
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUB.TECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council approve the draft minutes of the April 5, 2011 Special and
Regular Meetings?
COMMITTEE: N/fl
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
■
�
Ordinance
Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Carol McNeillV Citv Clerk
Attachments:
MEETING DATE: N/f1
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT Human Resources
Draft meeting minutes from the April 5, 2011 Special and Regular Meetings.
Options Considered:
1. Approve the minutes as presented.
2. Amend the minutes as necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving the minutes as presented.
CITY CLERK APPROVAL: N/f1 � DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Conunittee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/f1
N/fl N/A
Committee Council
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED".
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO AC'I'ION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
�► �Federal Way
MINUTES
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING / OPEN HOUSE
Council Chambers - City Hall
April 5, 2011
5:30 p.m.
www. cityoffederal wa y. com
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Priest called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Skip Priest, Deputy Mayor Duclos, Councilmember Jim
Ferrell, Councilmember Linda Kochmar, Councilmember Jeanne Burbidge and
Councilmember Roger Freeman.
Mayor Priest excused Councilmembers Dovey and Park.
Staff present: City Attorney Pat Richardson and City Clerk Carol McNeilly.
2. DRAFT RFQ/RFP FOR FORMER AMC THEATRE SITE REDEVELOPMENT
Community and Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty stated staff would be
presenting four items relating to the draft RFQ/RFP. Based on citizen input at recent
meetings, the first item to be discussed was should the property be developed or should it be
designated as a downtown park. The cost to develop a park is approximately $1 M per acre;
cost to develop a park on this site would be approximately $4M. Annual maintenance for a
park this size would be approximately $50K per year. The Council discussed the option of
development of the site versus designating it as a park. Council consensus was to develop
the site and include an open space/park.
Mr. Doherty reviewed the parameters of the draft vision and Council discussed the option of
setting height limits or a building preference (low-rise, mid-rise or high-rise) in the RFQ,
designating the type of park to be developed and inclusion of any special features.
Mr. Doherty reviewed the Park Design Guidelines from the former purchase and sale
agreement for this site. Mr. Doherty reviewed the timeline for publishing the draft RFQ/RFP.
Public Comment:
Roqer Flvaare thanked the Council for holding the meeting. He suggested developing a
convention center on the site as well as designating a Main Street in the downtown area.
Clara McArthur complimented Mr. Doherty on his presentation. She would like to see a park
developed on the site possibly in a horseshoe shape with a gazebo, surrounded by coffee
shops and retail space.
City Council Minutes — April S, 2011 Special Meeting Page 1 of 2
Lori Devore, Chair of Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber is looking
forward to mixed-use development on this site. She supports having a minimum height
requirement and letting the market dictate how high a development should be.
Peq Altman asked if the City currently has design standards. She would like to see a park with
a water feature as well as green space. She does not want to see a tavern or club; she would
love to see art included.
Barbara Reid stated we are a city of square boxes; she would like the future of this city to be
attractive. She does not want to see height limits set for the city.
Denise Yun stated she likes the idea of an ice skating rink. She inquired as to the cost to
develop and maintain a skating rink.
James Yoder, Steadfast Companies, the Commons Mall submitted written comments to the
Clerk to read that supports the redevelopment of this site.
Shervl Nevers submitted written comments for the Clerk to read into the record.
Ms. Nevers would like to see a downtown park developed on this site.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Priest adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Attest:
Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk
Approved by Council:
City Council Minutes — April 5, 2011 Special Meeting Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
� Federal Way
MINTUES
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chambers - City Hall
April 5, 2011
7:00 p.m.
www, cityoffederalway. com
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Priest called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Skip Priest, Deputy Mayor Duclos, Councilmember Jim
Ferrell, Councilmember Linda Kochmar, Councilmember Jeanne Burbidge and
Councilmember Roger Freeman.
Mayor Priest excused Councilmembers Dovey and Park.
Staff present: City Attorney Pat Richardson and City Clerk Carol McNeilly
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Alan Gentry from Boy Scout Troop #329 led the pledge of allegiance.
3. PRESENTATIONS
a. CERT Proqram Graduates
Deputy Mayor Duclos stated the CERT program provides a means of educating the public
about emergency preparedness and trains citizens in life-saving skills needed directly
following a wide-spread disaster. CERT members are trained in team organization and the
Incident Command System, light search and rescue, triage, fire suppression and basic
life-saving skills. Since the City started the program in 2001, over 600 volunteers have
received training. Deputy Mayor Duclos asked the CERT graduates to stand for
recognition.
b. Volunteer Recoanition: Friends of the Hvlebos and EarthCorps, Thais Bock recoqnition
and Earth Dav Proclamations
Councilmember Jeanne Burbidge presented a proclamation to Djana Bock to recognize
the contributions of her mother, the late Ms. Thais Bock who was a pioneering local
conservationist. The Council recently named the Brooklake Spur and Brooklake Overlook
of the West Hylebos Wetlands Boardwalk after Thais Bock. Djana Bock thanked the
Council for the proclamation and for honoring her mother.
City Council Minutes — April 5, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 6
Councilmember Burbidge presented a proclamation to The Friends of the Hylebos and
EarthCorps recognizing their recent merger. Margery Godfrey from The Friends of the
Hylebos and Steve Dubiel of EarthCorps accepted the proclamation. Ms. Godfrey and
Mr. Dubiel reported on the efforts of their organizations and thanked the Council for the
recognition.
Councilmember Burbidge presented a proclamation to City Parks and Facilities
Supervisor Jason Gerwen in recognition of Earth Day on April 16, 2011. Mr. Gerwen
thanked the Council for the proclamation and reported on the activities planned for this
year's Earth Day event.
c. Mavors Emerqinq Issues
Mayor Priest stated there were no emerging issues.
4. CITIZEN COMMENT
PLEASE COMPLETE A PINK 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 LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES. The Mayor may interrupt comments
that exceed three minutes, relate negatively to other individuals, or are otherwise inappropriate.
Patricia Owen spoke regarding flooding issues on her property. She asked the City to look into
this issue.
Rov Parke spoke regarding a meeting with the Police Chief and spoke to eminent domain
issues and an investigation of perjury charges. He asked that the charges be forwarded for
review.
Clara McArthur spoke regarding a meeting at Dumas Bay Center and a cost estimate to repair
the facility. She stated all city meetings should be recorded and the tapes kept securely with
the City Attorney.
Alan Gentry, Boy Scout Troop #329 is looking for opportunities to help the City while earning
his Eagle Scout Badge.
Norma Blanchard spoke regarding term limits for City Councilmembers. She would like to see
new people serve on the Council.
Jeff Patrick submitted written comments for the Clerk to read into the record regarding
vehicles not stopping at the pedestrian crossing at 314 and 17` Ave.
Dan Sphunq submitted written comments for the Clerk to read into the record. Mr. Sphung
would like to see a Social Security and Employment Office in Federal Way.
Donald Barovic shared the Puyallup Tribe's salmon conservation efforts that are benefiting
Federal Way.
Sam Pace with the Seattle King County Association of Realtors spoke in support of item 8b.
City Council Minutes — Apri15, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 6
5. CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been previously reviewed in their enfirety by a Council Committee of three members and
brought before fu/l 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. Minutes: March 15, 2011 Special and Regular Meetings Approved
b. Monthly Financial Report Approved
c. Vouchers Approved
d. Mayer Right of Way Lease Agreement Extension Approved
e. d.�c� E�c i� 'nn DrniGn# /C� 'IG:'I eo oa�• �nnoi 1'1o�iirr� C�n+u� �or+nr4
`� vJ . �.... . � ., . ... . ....�, . ..., ,.. .....�...�.. .,-,^--- --r-• -
MOTION: Deputy Mayor Duclos moved approval of items 5a through 5e.
Councilmember Ferrell second.
Councilmember Kochmar pulled item 5e
VOTE: Items 5a through 5d were approved 5-0.
5e. S. 352" Street Extension Proiect (SR 161— SR 99): 100% Desiqn Status Report
MOTION: Deputy Mayor Duclos moved approval. Councilmember Ferrell second.
VOTE: Motion carried 4-0, Councilmember Kochmar recused.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
a. 2011 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Selection Process
Mayor Priest declared the public hearing open at 8:15 p.m.
• Staff Presentation:
Principal Planner Margaret Clark stated the FWRC requires the City to accept
applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis.
The City received finro requests this year. Site-specific request #1 was from Melvin
Hansen for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of 4.73 acres from
Single Family — Medium Density Residential to Single Family — High Density
Residential. Site-specific request #2 was from Joe Kunkel of the Healthcare
Collaborative Group on behalf of St. Francis Hospital for a comprehensive plan
amendment to remove a planned principal collector.
• Public Comment:
Mayor Priest called for public comment. Hearing none he called for Council
deliberation.
• Council Deliberation/Action:
MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved that thesite-specific request
#1 not be considered at this time due to the potential of spot zoning.
That site-specific request #2 go forward for further consideration based
on the following: 1. Determination as to whether the City will be able �
City Council Minutes — April 5, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 3 of 6
obtain an additional 30 feet from the federal government, the owner of the
Bulk Mail Center to the North. 2. The effect on the transportation networicif
this road is eliminated. 3. Whether the road can be feasibly designed to City
standards given the topographical and physical constraints, and 4. The
impact of construction of this road on the St. Francis Hospital Master Plan.
Councilmember Ferrell second. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to close the public hearing.
Deputy Mayor Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
a. 2011 Planninq Commission Work Plan Proqram
Principal Planner Margaret Clark stated there are 1.5 employees working on the long-
range planning items. She reviewed the items included in the draft 2011 work plan. Items
include completion of the Shoreline Master Plan update, completion of the 2011
Comprehensive Plan update, starting the 2014 Major Comprehensive Plan updates,
preparing Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and a subarea plan encompassing 21
Avenue SW & SW Campus Drive, as well as additional items.
MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved approval of the LUTC's
recommendation to approve the 2011 Planning Commission Work Program.
Councilmember Freeman second. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
b. Draft RFQ/RFP for former AMC Theatre Site Redevelopment
MOTION: Councilmember Ferrell moved to postpone the discussion on the Draft
RFQ/RFP for former AMC Theatre Site to the April 19 City Council meeting to
allow Councilmembers Park and Dovey to participate. Councilmember Kochmar
second. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
8. ORDINANCES
First Reading:
a. CB #567 Amend FWRC Reqardinq Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers
An ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers;
amending FWRC 12.15.010, 12.15.140, 12.15.230, 12.15.290, 12.15.300 and adding a new section to
12.15.330.
City Attorney Richardson stated staff began proposed amendments to Chapter 12.15 of
the FW RC regarding pawnbroker and secondhand dealers and precious metal
transactions. Since then, proposed State legislation created a separate category of a
secondhand precious metal dealer with specific reporting requirements, including
transactions in hosted home parties. The proposed legislation also establishes that a
second or any subsequent violation of tampering with the precious metal is a class C
felony.
City Council Minutes — Apri15, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 4 of 6
The proposed ordinance mirrors the State legislation for secondhand precious metal
deaters, creates consistency befinreen pawnbroker, secondhand dealers and secondhand
precious metal dealers, requires a temporary license and incorporated the State Law in
regards to the gross misdemeanor penatties. It also establishes reporting requirements.
City Clerk McNeilly read the ordinance title into the record.
MOTION: Councilmember Ferrell moved the proposed ordinance to the April 19,
2011 City Council meeting for second reading and enactment. Deputy Mayor
Duclos second. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0.
Second Reading:
b. CB #569 Amend FWRC Reqardinq Real Estate Siqns in the Riqht-of-Wayof Residential
Zoninq Districts
An ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to implemenfation of a pilot program that
permits real estate signs in the righf-of-way of residential zoning districts; adding a new section fo FWRC
19.140.095.
City Clerk McNeilly read the ordinance title into the record.
MOTION: Councilmember Kochmar moved to approve the code amendment
contained in the adoption ordinance. Deputy Mayor Duclos second. VOTE: Motion
carried 5-0. Ordinance 11-687
c. CB #570 Amend FWRC Title 9 Reqardinq Animal Services
An ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to animal services; amending FWRC
9.05.010, 9.18.100, 9.18.110, 9.25.030.
City Clerk McNeilly read the ordinance title into the record.
MOTION: Councilmember Burbidge moved approval of the proposed ordinance
amending Chapters 9.05. 9.12 and 9.25 of the FWRC regarding Animal Services.
Councilmember Freeman second. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Ordinance 11-688
9. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Burbidge reported the next PRHSPS meeting is Apnl 12, 2011. She also reported
on an upcoming Boys and Girls Club fundraising breakfast.
Councitmember Freeman reported on an upcoming seminar on marriage.
Deputy Mayor Duclos reported two Federal Way residents have been nominated for Jefferson
awards. April 12 will be the Multi-Service Center's annual volunteer lunch.
Councilmember Kochmar stated the next LUTC meeting is April 18 and reported on an upcoming
SCA meeting.
Councilmember Ferrell thanked State Legislators for their work on the Precious Metal Bill.
He also encouraged the public to participate in the planning process of the AMC Theatre site
redevelopment.
City Council Minutes — Apri15, 20/ I Regular Meeting Page 5 of 6
10. MAYORS REPORT
Mayor Priest thanked members of the audience for attending the meeting and thanked staff
for their hard work.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Priest adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Attest:
Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk
Approved by Council:
City Council Minutes — April 5, 2011 Regular Meeting Page 6 of 6
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011 ITEM #: �
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
A�ENDA BILL
SUBdECT: NTS Program Policy Review and 21 st & 304th NTS Chronology
POLICY QUESTION Should the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program criteria be revised in response to the ongoing
concern voiced about the intersection of 21 Avenue SW and SW 304` Street, and to reflect the treatment of extra-
jurisdictional balloting?
COMMITTEE Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
� ■
Ordinance
Resolution
MEETING DATE April 4 , 2011
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Rick Perez, Ci Traffic En ineer DEPT Public Works
�' ................................................�..............................................................................................................................................................................................._........__........................................__._._............_............._..._......_
Attachments: Memo to LUTC dated Apri14, 2011, with 8 attachments
Options Considered:
Regarding 21 Avenue SW and SW 304`�' Street:
1. Make no changes to the NTS Policy
2. Change the NTS Policy to reflect Council direction
Regarding the extra-jurisdictional balloting:
1. Revise the NTS Policy to memorialize existing practice to provide balloting results separately by jurisdiction
and jointly far Council consideration, per Attachment 8;
2. Revise the NTS Policy to reflect Council direction;
3. Make no changes to the NTS Policy
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Mayor recommends Option 1 on both issues, to make no changes to the NTS
Policy regarding the all-way stop proposal on 21 Avenue SW and SW 304�` Street, and to revise the NTS Policy to
provide balloting results separately and jointly when areas outside the City are balloted.
MAYOR APPROVAL: ��
Comm�ttee
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to
.for approval.
. f�� �... . . i �
Committee Chair
DIRECTOR APPROVAL: _ ��i���, �
Committee Council
1 on both issues to the April 19, 2011 Consent Agenda
� -�X.�tSF'lt�_
Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move appr� of Option 1 on both issues, to make no changes to the NTS Policy
regarding the all-way stop proposal on 21 S ` Avenue SW and SW 304` Street, and to revise the NTS Policy to provide
balloting results separately and jointly when areas outside the City are balloted. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 4, 2011
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management ��
' Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer ��
SUBJECT: NTS Program Policy Review and 21st & 304th NTS Chronology
BACKGROUND:
This memorandum provides the Council with the current status of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program
criteria, the history of its application to 21S` Avenue SW at SW 304` Street proposal for an all-way stop, and
addresses the Council request for options on how to handle balloting when the impacted area includes areas
outside the City limits.
Current Policv
Attachment 1 is the current Council-adopted policy. Major policy revisions over time include:
• Modifying the majority requirements from 2/3 of all ballots sent to simple majority of ballots returned;
• Not requiring ballots be sent by registered mail;
• Removing separate criteria for the installation of all-way stops and speed humps;
• Including in the balloting area those whose sole source of access would be impacted by the proposal;
• Changing from a single traffic condition of 85`�' percentile speed of 33 mph to a point system based on
speed, volume, and collision history;
• Allowing neighborhoods with severe conditions to bypass the balloting process;
• Adding points for areas with schools or parks;
• Allowing principal collector streets to be eligible for the program if the posted speed limit is 25 mph;
• Modifying the volume thresholds for increased points based on the roadway classification (the same
volume would get more points on local street than on a principal collector street);
• Having neighborhoods vote on the entire proposal instead of separate balloting areas for each new device
proposed;
• Requiring three years between successive attempts to petition for improvements.
It should be noted that the balloting process is strictly advisory to the Council to demonstrate the level of
consensus in the neighborhood, and does not constrain the Council to a particular solution or scope of
improvements. Council has occasionally modified proposals to account for impacts to roadway users beyond the
balloting area, or to provide consistency within a neighborhood even though the balloting results did not support a
consistent result.
Current Practice on Application of All-Wav Stop Control
Staff has approached the use of all-way stop control in a two-tiered review process. The first tier is mandated by
the City's adoption in FWRC 19.135.060 of the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
as amended by Washington State. Attachment 2 provides relevant language from the MUTCD. It should be noted
that case law in Washington State has more or less elevated the MUTCD's "should" conditions to "shall"
conditions, with documentation requirements to address case-by-case exceptions. Particularly frustrating to many
residents concerned about speeding on residential streets is the statement in the MUTCD that "YIELD or STOP
signs should not be used for speed control" (Section 2B.04, Paragraph OS). Attachment 3 is a meta-analysis of
studies conducted on the validity of the MUTCD's standards and guidance statements, demonstrating that the
common perception that stop signs are effective speed control devices is not supported by research.
K:\LUTC�2011\04-05-11 NTS Poiicy Review.doc
Despite this guidance, the second tier is to use the NTS policy, which used to have specific criteria on the use of
all-way stops for speed control. Over time, speed humps and tables have been able to address most of the
speeding concerns without the use of all-way stops, and in one instance in West Campus, three unwarranted all-
way stops were replaced with four speed humps, which has proven more effective at managing speeds.
Nonetheless, staff has historically supported the installation of all-way stops as part of a neighborhood consensus
solution under the auspices of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program, in limited circumstances.
Staff has also occasionally used engineering judgment, as allowed in the MUTCD, to install all-way stop control
outside of the NTS process to address site-specific concerns, usually to address intersection sight distance
restrictions.
Summarv of NTS Actions on 21 Avenue SW
The last update on this topic at LUTC was on January 4, 2010, contained in Attachment 4. Attachment 5 is
November 2, 2009 memo to LUTC outlining the previous history, with its associated attachments. Attachment 6
is a collection of the public comments received by staff generated by the last petition received in 2008.
Attachment 7 is a letter from the Principal of Adelaide Elementary School, supporting the request for an all-way
stop control. In summary, despite a number of attempts, a proposal for all-way stop control at the intersection of
21 Avenue SW and SW 304 Street does not meet either the MUTCD criteria or the NTS criteria and does not
appear to be supported by the majority of residents. The speeding issues have been resolved to the greatest extent
to be expected from traffic calming devices, and staff does not believe that an all-way stop would reduce
speeding, and may be counterproductive to the goal of improving safety at the intersection.
A new petition may be submitted on this topic in May 2011, and requires signatures from 10 households in the
vicinity.
Extra-iurisdictional Balloting
Council had requested that staff consider addressing how to treat ballots when a balloting area, as currently
defined in the NTS policy, extends beyond City limits. In the recent instance of the Enterprise ' 10 NTS Project
on 18 and 20`�' Avenues SW south of SW 356` Street, the balloting area extended into Tacoma. Staff had
presented the ballot results separately by jurisdiction and jointly so that the Council could weigh the balloting
results on a jurisdictional basis, and proposes to memorialize this practice in the NTS Policy, as shown in
Attachment 8.
K:\LUTC�2011\04-05-11 NTS Policy Review.doc
�
GTY OF
Federa! Way
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program
Existing residential neighborhoods in the City of Federal Way may be considered for the NTS
program in order to control traffic speeds, reduce cut-through traffic and improve documented
pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. Neighborhoods are defined by elementary school attendance
areas. The NTS program should not be confused with other City processes required of new
subdivisions or commercial developments. The NTS program consists of three phases (the three E's)
in the following order: 1) Education, 2) Enforcement, and then 3) Engineering:
I) Education:
The education phase is intended to increase neighborhood awareness of local speeding issues.
In many cases, a handful of speeders are known to the neighborhood and could use a
reminder to change their driving behavior. A neighborhood watch program may be launched
that could use the following tools:
� Include a general article in your homeowner association's (HOA) and/or local school
newsletters to remind residents about the importance of obeying speed limits, and to warn
residents to be on the watch for speeding traffic. In many cases, the driver is
unintentionally speeding and a friendly reminder would be effective.
• Contact the Police Department at (253) 835-6775 to request placement of a speed trailer
(speed reader board) in your neighborhood. Depending on the location and driver
population, this device may change driver behavior for an indefinite time period.
Volunteers willing to help the Police Department are always appreciated; please call
(253) 835-6730 if interested in volunteering in this program.
Form. a speed watch group to document incidents of speeding. Be sure to include any
vehicle information: colors, makes, models, license numbers, and the dates and times
they pass through a specific location. This information, when compiled for several
weeks, should then be submitted to a selected speed watch program manager. Several
reports of speeding for the same vehicle should then be reported to the Police Department
for enforcement so that officers may more effectively target locations at specific times for
emphases patrol.
II) Enforcement:
The second phase of the NTS program is special enforcement. It may take some drivers a
more drastic method (speeding tickets) to change their driving behavior. This usually works
for local residential speeds with minimum cut-through traffic. In some cases, the Engineering
phase is needed to address the speeding issue.
III) Engineering:
Citizens that have any questions regarding the NTS program may call the Public Works
Department at (253) 835-2700. The NTS program allows the installation of traff'ic calming
devices such as speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, traffic circles, chicanes,
signing, pavement marking, or other approved devices. These devices shall only be installed
when the following general conditions and criteria are met:
Attachment 1— Page 1 of 4
A- General Conditions:
1. Less restrictive means of controlling speed (Education and Enforcement) have been
attempted without success.
2. The proposed devices may be installed on residential streets functionally classified as
local or minor collector. Some devices that do not severely delay emergency vehicles,
such as speed tables or roundabouts, may be permitted on principal collectors as long as
the posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph.
3. No devices shall be installed within 600 feet of a traffic signal or 250 feet of a stop sign.
As measured along the major roadway movement.
4. For vertical deflection devices, no adverse street characteristics exist, such as steep
grades in excess of 8%. In all cases, sight distance standards must be met.
5. Storm drainage problems created by the installation of the proposed devices can be
adequately addressed.
6. Each neighborhood may apply for traffic calming devices costing a maximum of $15,000
per year. If the proposed devices cost more than this amount, the neighborhood may
form a Local Improvement District (LID) to fund the excess amount. Otherwise, the City
may phase and fund the excess amount in a future year (minimum of 12 months from
installation) and based on a first-come, first-serve basis.
7. The City will not fund the installation of traffic calming devices in cul-de-sacs that are
less than 600 feet long.
B- Installation Process and Criteria
1) To be considered for the installation of traffic calming devices, a City prepared or
approved petition must be submitted to the City. The petition must be signed by owners
or residents representing at least ten parcels within the affected area specifying the
problem's nature and exact project location and limits. Petitions for proQosals that were
not successfull im due to failure to meet the NTS criteria or failure to nass a
ballot proposal in previous attemvts will onlv be considered in the followin� instances:
a. The proposal was not implemented due to bud�etary constraints and the criteria
continue to be met; or
b. As determined bv the Public Works Director traffic conditions have chan�ed due
to roadway improvements or land use chan�es; or
c. At least 36 months has passed since the failure of a previous attempt.
2) A traffic study will then be conducted to see if the program technical criteria (severity
score) is met. Cunently, the City considers four criteria to qualify a street for traffic
calming devices:
a) Majority Speed: The 85` percentile speed averaged for both directions.
b) Volume: The Average Daily Traffic total of both directions.
c) Location: Half a point is given for streets fronting parks, schools, or designated
school crossings.
d) Collisions: A five-year reported collision history (frequency and severity) is
investigated for collisions that may be correctable by traff'ic calming devices.
Depending on roadway functional classification, each criterion is scored on a scale of 0.0
to 3.0 points as shown in Tables 1 through 3 below. The total severity score is added for
2/4
Attachment 1— Page 2 of 4
each category for a maximum 15.5 points. A three point minimum severity score is
needed to continue with the program regardless of how the points were collected:
Table 1
Local Residential Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'u Fatal
0.0 �0-25 0-500 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 501 - 600 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 601 - 700 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 701 - 800 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 801 - 900 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 901 - 1,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 1,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 2
Minor Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'ur Fatai
0.0 0- 25 0- 1,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 1,001 — 1,800 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 1,801 — 2,600 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 2,601 — 3,400 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 3,401 — 4,200 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 4,201 — 5,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 5,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 3
Principal Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Peccentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'u Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0- 5,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 5,001 - 7,000 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 7,001 - 9,000 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 9,001 - 11,000 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 11,001 - 13,000 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 13,001 - 15,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 15,001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
3) If a project does not meet the 3-point minimum severity score, the contact petitioner is
informed about the study results and is asked to inform those who signed the petition of
the results. In such a case, additional education and enforcement would be the proposed
solution.
K:\TRAFFIC�IVTS�2008 NTS Revisions�N`i'S Program rev OS-06-08.doc
3/4
Attachment 1— Page 3 of 4
4) If the project meets the above criteria, the City will hold a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various traffic calming devices and to
develop a consensus solution. In addition to residents, staff from the School District,
Police, and Fire Departments may also be invited. Public meetings are usually advertised
by posting signs on the subject roads.
5) Ballots are sent to all properties abutting the streets and are within 600 feet (measured
along street centerlines) of the proposed project location. Ballots are also sent to
properties where the proposed devices would be located along their sole access route as
determined by the Public Works Director. Only one ballot will be issued per housing unit
address. A simple majority (more than 50 %) of returned ballots is necessary to carry the
project forward to City Council for final approval. The ballots are only utilized to
measure neighborhood project support and are advisory to Council who may modify the
proposal.
6) The ballot results may be delivered to the neighborhood utilizing signs on the street or by
conducting a second neighborhood meeting.
7) If a project's severity score is at least 6 points, staff may develop a proposal with citizen
input and the balloting process may be bypassed.
8) If the ballot measure passes or if the total severity score is at least 6 points, the proposal
is presented to the City Council sub-committee, and if passed, is then presented to the full
Council for final approval.
9) If the ballot measure fails, a three-year waiting period is required to restart the process.
10) If approved by Council, the traffic calming devices would be installed as soon as budget,
weather, and the contractor's schedule permits.
C- Removal Process and Criteria
Traffic calming devices may be removed when all of the following criteria are met:
1) A City prepared or approved petition signed by owners or residents representing 10 or
more lots within the affected area must be submitted to the City. The affected area
includes properties abutting streets within 600 feet of the existing device location,
measured along street centerlines, and properties which the existing devices are located
along their sole access route as determined by the Public Works Director, and
2) Property owners and residents within the affected area shall be sent a City prepared or
approved ballot by first class mail. More than 50 % of the returned ballots must vote
affirmatively, concurring with the removal of devices. This ballot is advisory to City
Council, who may modify the proposal, and
3) An adequate review period (minimum of 12 months from installation) and subsequent
engineering analysis has been performed to determine the traffic characteristics along the
route and the impacts to the remaining street system.
Attachment 1— Page 4 of 4
K:\TRAFFIC\NTS\2008 NTS Revisions\NTS Program rev OS-06-08.doc 4/4
2009 Edition
Table 2B-1. Regulatory Sign and Plaqu� Sizes (Sheet 4 of 4)
Page 49
Conventional Road
Sign or Plaque Des g�nation Section Single Multi- Expressway Freeway Minimum Oversized
Lane Lane
SUNDAY (and times) R10-20aP 28.53 24 x 18 24 x 18 - -
(2 !ines) (plaque)
Crosswalk, Stop on Red R10-23 26.53 24 x 30 24 x 3Q - - � --
Push Button To Turn O� R10-25 2B.52 9 x 12 9 x 12 - - - -
Warning Lights
Left Turn Yield on Flashing Red R'10-27 2B.53 30 x 36 3� x 36 - - - -
Arrow After Stop
XX Vehicles Per Green R10-28 2B.56 24 x 30 24 x 30 - - - -
XX Vehicles Per Green R10-29 28.56 36 x 24 36 x 24 - - - -
Each Lane
Right Turn on Red Must R10-30 2B.54 30 x 36 30 x 36 - - - -
Yield to U-Tum
At Signal (plaqu2) R10-31 P 2B.53 24 x 9 24 x 9 - - - -
Push Button for 2 Seconds for R10-32P 2B.52 9 x 12 9 x 12 - -
Extra Crossing Time
Keep Qff Median R11-1 26.57 24 x 30 24 x 30 - - - -
Road Closed R11-2 2B.58 48 x 30 48 x 30 - - - -
Road Closed - Local Traffic Only R11-3a,3b,4 26.58 60 x 30 60 x 30 - - - -
Weight Limit R12-1,2 2B.59 24 x 30 24 x 30 36 x 48 - - 36 x 48
Weight Limit Ri2-3 2B.59 24 x 36 24 x 36 - - - -
�Neight Limit R12-4 28.59 36 x 24 36 x 24 - - - -
Weight Limit R12-5 26.59 24 x 36 24 x 36 36 x 48 48 x 6�J - -
Weigh Station R13-1 28.60 72 x 54 72 x 54 96 x 72 120 x 90 - -
Truck Route R14-1 2B.61 24 x 18 24 x 18 - - - -
Hazardous Material R14-2,3 2B.62 24 x 24 24 x 24 30 x 30 36 x 36 - 42 x 42
National Network R14-4,5 26.63 30 x 30 30 x 30 36 x 36 36 x 36 - 42 x 42
Fender Bender Move Vehicles R16-4 2B.65 36 x 24 36 x 24 48 x 36 60 x 48 - 48 x 36
Lights On When Using R16-5,6 2B.64 24 x 30 24 x 3� 36 x 48 48 x 60 - 36 x 48
Wipers or Raining
Turn On Headlights Next XX Miles R16-7 28.64 48 x 15 48 x 15 72 x 24 96 x 30 - 72 x 24
Turn On, Check Headliyhts R16-8,9 2B.64 30 x 15 30 x 15 48 x 24 60 x 30 - 48 x 24
Begin, End Daytime R16-1Q,11 2B.64 48 x 15 48 x 15 72 x 24 96 x 30 - 72 x 24
Headlight Section
' See Table 9B-1 for minimum size required for signs on bicycle facilities
Notes: 1. Larger signs may be used when appropriate
2. Dimensions in inches are shown as width x height
o� Where side roads intersect a multi-lane street or highway that has a speed limit o#' 45 mph or higher,
the minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches, even if the side road only has one
approach lane, shall be 36 x 36 inches.
os Where side roads intersect a multi-lane street ar highway that has a speeel limit of 40 MPH or lower, the
minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches shall be as shown in the Single Lane or
Nlulti-lane columns of Table 2B-1 basecl an the number of approach lanes on the side street approa�:h.
Guidance:
os The minimum siZes for regulatory signs facing traffic on exit and entrance rantps should be as sh�wn in the
column of Table 28-1 that corresponds to the mainline roadway classification (Expressway or Freewayj. If a
rninimum size is not provided in the Freeway column, the minimum size in the Expressway column should be
atsed. If a minirreum size is rrot provided in the Freeway or Expressway Column, the size in the Oversized column
should be used.
Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections
Support:
01 State or local laws written in accordance with the "Uniform Vehicle Code" (see Section lA.11) establish
the right-of-way rule at inters�ctions having no regulatory traffic control signs such that the driver of a vehicle
approaching an intersection must yield the ri�ht-of-way to any vehicle or pedestrian already in the intersection.
December 2009 Sect. 28.03 to 2B.04
Attachment 2- Page 1 of 4
Page 50 2009 Edition
When two vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time, the
right-of-way rule requires the driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
The right-of-way can be modified at through streets or highways by placing YIELD (R1-2) signs (see Sections 2B.08
and 2B.09) or STOP (R1-1) signs (see Sections 2B.05 through 2B.07) on one or more approaches.
Giaidance:
02 Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors should be
considered:
A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches;
B. Number and angle of approaches;
C. Approach speeds;
D. Sight distance available on each approach; and
E. Reported crash experience.
os YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions exist:
A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way
rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law;
B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or
C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
oa In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets
or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following
conditions exist:
A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches
averages more than Z,000 units per day;
B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield
in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way at the
intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three
or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year perfod.
os YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.
Support:
os Section 28.07 contains provisions regarding the application of multi-way STOP control at an intersection.
Guidance:
o� Once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway
to control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volurrce of
traffic should be controlled.
os A YIELD or STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unZess justified by an
engineering study.
Support:
os The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate roadway
upon which to install a YIELD or STOP sign where two roadways with relatively equal volumes and/or
characteristics intersect:
A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school
walking routes;
B. Controlling the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower
operating speeds; and
C. Controlling the d'uecCion that has the best sight distance from a controlled position to observe
conflicting traffic.
Standard:
io Because the potential for conflicting commands conld create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs
shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases:
A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times;
B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic
control signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low
potential for conflict exists; or
C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjaeent travel lanes by an island and the
channelized turn lane is not controiletl by a traffic cvntrol signal.
Sect. 2B.04 December 2009
Attachment 2— Page 2 of 4
2009 Edition Page 51
Except as provided in Section 2B.09, STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be installed on different
approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches conflict with or oppose each other.
Portable or part-time STOP or YIELD signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary
traffic control zone purposes.
A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is manually placed into view and manually removed
from view shall not be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach unless the maintaining
agency establishes that the signal indication that will first be displayed to that approach upon restoration of
power is a flashing red signal indication and that the portable STOP sign will be manually removed from
view prior to stop-and-go operation of the traffic control signal.
�z
13
Option:
14 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is electrically or mechanically operated such that it only
displays the STOP message during a power outage and ceases to display the STOP inessage upon restoration of
power may be used tluring a power outage to control a signalized approach.
Support:
�5 Section 9B.03 contains provisions regarding the assignment of priority at a shared-use path/
roadway intersection.
Section 2B.05 OP ign (R�l and AL.L. WAY P1aQue (Rl-3Pl
Standard:
oi When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection, a STOP
(Rl-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be used.
oz The STOP sign shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background.
os Secondary legends shall not be used on STOP sign faces.
oa At intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs (see 5ection 2B.07), an ALL
WAY supplemental plaque (Rl-3P) shall be mounted below each 5TOP sign. The ALL WAY plaque
(see Figure 2B-1) shall have a white legend and border on a red background.
oe The ALL WAY plaque shall only be used if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs.
os Supplemental plaques with legends such as 2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, or other numbers of ways shall not
be used with STOP signs.
Support:
o� The use of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4P) plaque (and other plaques with variations of
this word message) is described in Section 2C.59.
Guictance:
os Plaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROMLEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP
(W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) should be used at intersections where
STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a
one-way street.
Option:
os An EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (Rl-lOP) plaque (see Figure 2B-1) may be mounted below the STOP sign if an
engineering study determines that a special combination of geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it
possible for right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the intersection without stopping.
Support:
io The design and application of Stop Beacons are described in Section 4L.05.
Figure 28-1. STOP and YIELD Signs and Piaques
R1-1
ALL WAY
R1-2
TO EXCEPT
ONCOMING RIGHT
TRAFFIC TURN
R1-2aP Ri-10P
Sect. 2B.04 to 2B.05
December 2009 Attachment 2— Page 3 of 4
Page 52
Section 2B.06 STOP Sign A�,�lications
2009 Edition
Guidance:
oi At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less
restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09).
a2 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment
indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day;
B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic
on the through street or highway; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of
a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been
reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the
minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.
Support:
os The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 8B.05.
Section 2B.07 Multi-�y Stop��plications
Support:
oi Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting
other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi-way stop applications.
Guidance:
03 The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study.
oa The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be
installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic
control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop
installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both
approaches) averages at least 300 vehicdes per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor
street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8
hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the highest hour; but
3. ff the 85"' percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum
vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of
the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Opcion:
os Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the
intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating
characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of
the intersection.
Sect. 2B.06 to 2B.07 Attachment 2— Page 4 of 4 December 2009
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 1 of 11
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct!
W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.(M)
Abstract
This paper reviewed over 70 technical papers covering all-way stops (or multa-way stops) and their
success and failure as tra�c control devices in residentaal areas. This study is the most comprehensive
found on multi-way stop signs
The study looked at how multi-ivay stop signs have been used as traffic calming measures to control
speed. There have been 23 hypotheses studied using multi-way stop as speed control. The research
found an additional 9 hypotheses studied showing the effect multi way stops have on other tra�c
engineering problems.
The research found that, overwhelmingly, multi-way stop signs do NOT control speed except under very
limited conditions. The research shows that the concerns about unwarranted stop signs are well
founded.
Introduction
Many elected afficials, citizens and some traffic engineering professionals feel that multi-way stop signs
should be used as traffic calming devices. Many times unwarranted stop signs are installed to control
traffic. T'he Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)(16) describes warrants for installing
multi-way stop signs. However, it does not describe many of the problems caused by the installation of
unwarranted stop signs. These problems include concerns like liability issues, traffic noise, automobile
pollution, traffic enforcement and driver behavior.
This paper is a result of searching over 70 technical papers about multi-way stop signs. The study
cancentrated on their use as traffic calming devices and their relative effectiveness in controlling speeds
in residential neighborhoods. The references found 23 hypotheses on their relative effectiveness as
traffic calming devices. One study analyzed the economic cost of installing a multi-way stop at an
intersection. The reference search also found 9 hypotheses about traffic operations on residential streets.
The literature search found 85 papers on the subject of multi-way stops. There are probably many more
references available on this very popular subject. The seventy-one references are shown in Appendix A.
There was a problem finding the 14 papers found in literature searches. The 14 papers are listed in
Appendix B for information only. Most of the papers were from old sources and are probably out of
print.
Multi-Wav Stop Signs as Speed Control Devices
A summary of the articles found the following information about the effectiveness of multi-way stop
signs and other solutions to controlling speeds in residential neighborhoods.
Attachment 3— Page 1 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.ht�n 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 2 of 11
1. Multi-way stops do not control speeds. Twenty-two papers were cited for these findings. ( Reference 1,
2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 39, 45, 46, 51, 55, 62, 63, 64, 66 and 70).
2. Stop compliance is poor at unwarranted multi-way stop signs. Unwarranted stop signs means they do
not meet the warrants of the MUTCD. This is based on the drivers feeling that the signs have no traffic
control purpose. There is little reason to yield the right-of -way because there are usually no vehicles on
the minor street. Nineteen references found this to be their finding. ( Reference 7, 8, lo, 12, 13, 14,15,17, 19,
20, 39, 45, 46, Sl, SS, 61, 62, 63 and 64 ).
3. Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen
references found this to be their finding. (Reference 19 (1 study) 55 (5 studies), 60 (8 studies) and 64(5 studies)).
4. Unwarranted multi-way stops increased speed some distance from intersections. The studies
hypothesizing that motorists are making up the time they lost at the "unnecessary" stop sign. Fifteen
references found this to be their finding.( Reference 1 , 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20,39, 45,46, 51, 55, 70 and 71).
5. Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs based on vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel
times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions. Fifteen references found this to be their
flnding. (Reference 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 45, 55 ,61, 62, 63, 67 and 68).
6. Safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted multi-way stops, especially small children. It seems
that pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at the stop signs but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of
running the "unnecessary" stop sign. Thirteen references found this to be their finding. (References 7, 8, 10,
13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 45, 51, 55 and 63).
7. Citizens feel "safer" in communities "positively controlled" by stop signs. Positively controlled is
meant to infer that the streets are controlled by unwarranted stop signs. Homeowners on the residential
collector feel safer on a'calmed' street. Seven references found this to be their finding (Reference 6 ,14,1s,
20, 51, 58 and 66).
Hypothesis twelve (below) lists five references that dispute the results of these studies.
8. Speeding problems on residential streets are associated with" through" traffic. Frequently
homeowners feel the problem is created by 'outsiders'. Many times the problem is the person
complaining or their neighbor. Five references found this to be their finding. (References 2,15, 45, 51 and
55).
9. Unwarranted multi-way stops may present potential liability problems for undocumented exceptions
to accepted warrants. Local jurisdictions feel they may be incurring higher liability exposure by
'violating' the MUTCD. Many times the unwarranted stop signs are installed without a warrant study or
some documentation. Cited by six references (Reference 7, 9, 19, 46, 62 and 65).
�0. Stop signs increase noise in the vicinity of an intersection. The noise is created by the vehicle
braking noise at the intersection and the cars accelerating up to speed. The noise is created by the engine
exhaust, brake, tire and aerodynamic noises. Cited by five references. (Reference 14,17, 20, 45, 55).
11. Cost of installing multi-way stops are low but enforcement costs are prohibitive. many communities
do not have the resources to effectively enforce compliance with the stop signs. Five references found
this to be their finding. (Reference 1, 10, 45, 51, 55 ).
12. Stop signs do not significantly change safety of intersection. Stop signs are installed with the hope
they will make the intersection and neighborhood safer. Cited by five references (Reference SS 60, 61, 62,
Attachment 3- Page 2 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 3 of 11
63).
Hypothesis seven (above) lists seven references that dispute the results of these studies.
13. Unwarranted multi-way stops have been successfully removed with public support and result in
improved compliance at justified stop signs. Cited by three references. (Reference 8, 10, 12).
14. Unwarranted multi-way stops reduce accidents in cities with intersection sight distance problems and
at intersections with parked cars that restrict sight distance. The stop signs are unwarranted based on
volume and may not quite meet the accident threshold. Cited by three references. (Reference 6,18, 68).
15. Citizens feel stop signs should be installed at locations based on traffic engineering studies. Some
homeowners realize the importance of installing'needed' stop signs. Cited by two references. (References
56, 57 ).
16. Multi-way stops can reduce cut-through traffic volume if many intersections along the road are
controlled by stop signs. If enough stop signs are installed on a residential or collector street motorists
may go another way because of the inconvenience of having to start and stop at so many intersections.
This includes the many drivers that will not stop but slowly'cruise' through the stop signs. This driving
behavior has been nicknamed the'California cruise'. Cited by two references. (Reference 14, 61).
17. Placement of unwarranted stop signs in violation of Georgia State Law 32-6-50 (a) (b) (c). This
study was conducted using Georgia law. Georgia law requires local governments to install all traffic
controls devices in accordance with the MUTCD. This is probably similar to traffic signing laws in other
states. Cited by two references. (xeference 19, 62).
18. Special police enforcement of multi-way stop signs has limited effectiveness. This has been called
the 'hallo' effect. Drivers will obey the 'unreasonable' laws as long as a policemen is visible. Cited by
two references. (Reference 39, 46).
19. District judge orders removal of stop signs not installed in compliance with city ordinance. Judges
have ordered the removal of'unnecessary' stop signs. The problem begins when the traffic engineer
and/or elected officials are asked to consider their intersection a'special case'. This creates a precedent
and results in a proliferation of'special case' all-way stop signs. Cited by two references. (Reference 59,
62).
20. Some jurisdictions have created warrants for multi-way stops that are easier to meet than MLJTCD.
The jurisdiction feel that the MUTCD warrants are too difficult to meet in residential areas. The reduced
warrants are usually created to please elected officials. Cited by two references. (Reference 61 and 70).
21. Citizens perceive stop signs are effective as speed control devices because traffic "slows" at stop
sign. If everybody obeyed the traffic laws, stop signs would reduce speeds on residential streets. Cited
by one reference. (Reference 55).
22. Removal of multi-way stop signs does not change speeds but they are slightly lower without the stop
signs. This study findings support the drivers behavior referenced in item #4, speed increases when
unwarranted stop signs are installed. Speed decreases when the stop signs were removed! Cited by one
reference. (Reference 64).
23. Multi-way stops degrade air quality and increase CO, HC, and Nox. All the starting and stopping at
the intersection is bad for air quality. Cited by one reference. (Reference 68).
Attachment 3— Page 3 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 4 of 11
Speed Control Issues
24. There area many ways to "calm" traffic. Cited by twenty-two references. (Reference 1,14, 20, 32, 33, 34,
35, 36, 37, 38, 40,41,42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53 and 66).
They include:
(a) Traffic Chokers (� Sidewalks and Other Pedestrian Solutions
(b) Traffic Diverters (g) Neighborhood Street Design
(c) Speed Humps (h) On-Street Parking
(d) Roundabouts (i) One Way Streets
(e) Neighborhood Speed Watch (j) Street Narrowing
25. Other possible solutions to residential speed. Most speeding is by residents - Neighborhood Speed
Watch Programs may work. This program works by using the principle of'peer' pressure. Cited by seven
references (Reference 2, 30, 31, 36, 42, 48 and 53).
26. Reduced speed limits are not effective at slowing traffic. Motorists do not drive by the number on
the signs, they travel a safe speed based on the geometrics of the roadway. Cited by five references.
(Reference 1, 20, 39, 46 and 69).
27. Local streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds. The most effective way to slow
down traffic on residential streets is to design them for slow speeds. Cited by two references. (Reference
43, 52).
28. Speeding on residential streets is a seasonal problem. This is a myth. The problem of speeding is not
seasonal, it's just that homeowners only see the problem in 'pleasant' weather. That's the time they spend
in there front yard or walking the neighborhood. Cited by one reference. (Reference 2).
29. Speed variance and accident frequency are directly related. The safest speed for a road is the speed
that most of the drivers feel safest driving. This speed creates the lowest variance and the safest road.
Cited by one reference. (Reference 47).
30. The accident involvement rate is lowest at the 85th percentile speed. The 85th percentile speed is the
speed that most drivers feel comfortable driving. The lowest variance is usually from the 85th percentile
speed and the 10 mph less. Cited by one reference. (Reference 47).
31. Psycho-perc�ptive transverse pavement markings are not effective at reducing the 85th percentile
speed but do reduce the highest speed percentile by 5 MPH. Cited by one reference. (Reference 47).
32. The safest residential streets would be short (0.20 miies) non-continuous streets that are 26 to 30 feet
from curb to curb width. The short streets make it difficult of drivers to get up to speed. Cited by one
reference (Reference 52).
Attachment 3— Page 4 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct
Economics of Multi-Way Stop Signs
Page 5 of 11
Studies have found that installing unwarranted stop signs increases operating costs for the traveling
public. The operating costs involve vehicle operating costs, costs for increased delay and travel time,
cost to enforce signs, and costs for fines and increases in insurance premiums.
The total costs are as follows (Reference 55):
Operating Costs (1990)
($.04291/Stop)
Delay & Travel Costs (1990)
($.03401/Stop)
Enforcement Costs (1990)
Cost of Fines (19 per year)
Cost of 2 stop signs (1990)
$ 111,737/year
$ 88,556 /year
$ 837/year
$ 1,045/year
$ 280
Costs of increased insurance (1990) $7,606/year
Total (1990) $210,061/year/intersection
The cost to install two stops signs is $280. The cost to the traveling public is $210,061 (1990) per year in
operating costs. 'This cost is based on about 8,000 vehicles entering the intersection per day.
Another study (62) found that the average annual road user cost increased by $2,402.92 (1988 cost) per
intersection when converting from two to four way stop signs for low volume intersections.
Summary of Stop Si�ns as S�eed Control Devices
Researchers found that multi-way stop signs do not control speed. In analyzing the 23 hypotheses for
multi-way stop signs, five were favorable and 18 were unfavorable toward installing unwarranted all-
way stop signs. The Chicago study (6) was the only research paper that showed factual support for
"unwarranted" multi-way stop signs. They were found to be effective at reducing accidents at
intersections that have sight distance problems and on-street parking.
It is interesting to note that residential speeding problems and multi-way stop sign requests date back to
1930 (63). The profession �till has not "solved" this perception problem.
Summary of Economic Anal�
Benefits to control speeds by installing multi-way stop signs are perceived rather than actual and the
Attachment 3— Page 5 of 11
3/23/2011
http://troymi. gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 6 of 11
costs for the driving public are far greater than any benefits derived from the installation of the multi-
way stop signs.
W. Martin Bretherton Jr., P.E.
Chief Engineer, Traffic Studies Section
Gwinnett County Department of Transportation
75 Langley Drive
Lawrenceville, Georgia 30045
770-822-7412
brethema@co.gwinnett.ga.us
Aqpendix A
References used in Research of Multi-Way Stop Signs
1. Gerald L. Ullman, "Neighborhood Speed Control - U.S. Practices", ITE Compendium of Technical
Papers, 1996, pages 111- 115.
2. Richard F. Beaubein, "Controlling Speeds on Residential Streets", ITE Journal, April 1989, pages 37-
39.
3. "4 Way Stop Signs Cut Accident Rate 58% at Rural Intersections", ITE Journal, November 1984,
pages 23-24.
4. Michael Kyte & Joseph Marek, "Collecting Traffic Data at All-Way Stop Controlled
Intersections", ITE Journal, April 1989, pages 33-36.
5. Chan, Flynn & Stocker, "Volume Delay Relationship at Four Way Stop Controlled
Intersections: A Response Surface Model", ITE Journal, March 1989, pages 27-34.
6. La Plante and Kripidlowkdki, "Stop Sign Warrants: Time for Change", ITE Journal, October 1992,
pages 25-29.
7. Patricia B. Noyes, "Responding to Citizen Requests for Multi Way Stops", ITE Journal, January 1994,
pages 43-48.
8. Chadda and Carter, "Multi-Way Stop Signs - Have We Gone Too Far?", ITE Journal, May 1983,
pages 19-21.
9. Gary Moore,"Gwinnett County Legal Opinions on Un�varranted Multi-Way Stops",
Attachment 3— Page 6 of 11
3/23/2011
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 7 of 11
March 6,1990.
10. Chadda and Carter, " The Changing Role of Multi-Way Stop Control", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1983, pages 4-31 to 4-34.
11. Lovell and Haver, "The Safety Effect of Conversion to All-Way Stop Control", Trans�ortation
Research Record 1068, pages 103-107.
12. "Indiana Suggests Ways to Halt Stop Sign Misuse", Transafetv Reporter, February 1989, page 7.
1978.
14. "State of the Art: Residential Traffic Management", US DOT, FHWA/RD-80/092, December 1980,
pages 63-65, 22-23.
15. Dick Williams, "A New Direction for Traffic Dispute", Atlanta Journal, January 14, 1988, Section E,
page L
16. "Warrants for Multi-Way Stop Signs" (2B-6), Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, US
DOT , FHWA, pages 2B-3 to 2B-4.
17. "Stop and Yield Sign Control", Traffic Control Devices Handbook, US DOT, FHWA, 1983, pages
2-14 to 2-16.
18. La Pante & Kropidlowdki, "Stop Sign Warrants ", Presented at ITE Conference, San Diego, CA,
September 18, 1989.
19. Walt Rekuc, "Traffic Engineering Study of Muiti-Way Stop Signs", City of Roswell,
February 15, 1988.
20. Homburger, etal, Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, ITE, Washington, DC, 1989.
21. �eed Zone �uidelines, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993.
22. A Policv on Geometric Desi�n of Hi�hways and Streets, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 1994.
23. A.J. Ballard, "Efforts to Control Speeds on Residential Collector Streets", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1990, pages 445-448.
24. C.E. Walter, "Suburban Residential Traffic Calming", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1994,
pages 445-448.
25. K.L. Gonzalez, " Neighborhood Traffic Control: Bellevue's Approach", ITE Journal, Vol. 43, No.S,
May 1993, pages 43-45.
26. Brian Kanely & B.E. Ferris, "Traffic Diverter's for Residential Traffic Control - The Gainesville
Experience", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, pages 72-76.
Attaehment 3— Page 7 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/muItiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 8 of 11
27. Marshall Elizer, "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1993, pages 11-15.
28. T. Mazella & D. Godfrey, "Building and Testing a Customer Responsive Neighborhood Traffic
Control Program", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1995, pages 75-79.
29. W.M. Bretherton and J.E. Womble, "Neighborhood Traffic Management Program", ITE
Com�endium of Technical Papers, 1992, pages 398-401.
30. J.E. Womble, "Neighborhood Speed Watch: Another Weapon in the Residential Speed
Control Arsenal", ITE Journal, Vol. 60, No. 2, February 1990, pages 1- 17.
31. Michael Wallwork, "Traffic Calming", The Genesis Group, unpublished.
32. Doug Lemov, "Calming Traffic", Governin�, August 1996, pages 25-27.
33. Michael Wallwork, "Traffic Calming", The Traffic Safety Toolbox, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993,
pages234-245.
34. Ransford S. McCourt, Neighborhood Traffic Management Survey, ITE District 6, Technical Chair,
unpublished, June 3, 1996.
35. Halbert, etal, "Implementation of Residential Traffic Control Program in the City of San Diego",
District 6 Meeting, July 1993.
36. Anton Dahlerbrush, "Speed Humps & Implementation and Impact on Residential Traffic Control",
City of Beverly Hills, California, District 6 Meeting, July 1993.
37. Firoz Vohra, "Modesto Speed Hump Experience", District 6, ITE Meeting, July 1993.
38. Patricia Noyes, "Evaluation of Traditional Speed Reduction in Residential Area",
District 6 ITE Meeting, July 1993.
39. Cynthia L. Hoyle, Traffic Calmin�, American Planning Association, Report No 456, July 1995.
40. Sam Yager, Use of Roundabouts, ITE Technical Council Committee, SB- 17,
Washington, DC, February 1992.
41. Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Desi�n, ITE, Washington, DC, 1993.
42. Residential Streets, 2nd Edition, ASCE, NAHB & ULI, 1990.
43. Traffic Calmin�, Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation, Australia, 1989.
44. Traffic Calming in Practice, Department of Transport, etal, London, November 1994.
Attachment 3- Page S of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/rnultiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 9 of 11
45. Todd Long, "The Use of Traffic Control Measures in the Prevention of Through Traffic Movement
on Residential Streets", unpublished, Masters Thesis, Georgia Tech, September 1990.
46. Patricia Noyes, "Evaluation of Traditional Speed Reduction Efforts in Residential Areas", ITE
Compendium of Technical Pa e�rs, District 6 Meeting, 1993, pages 61-66.
47. G.E. Frangos, "Howard County's Speed Control in Residential Areas Utilizing Psycho-perceptive
Traffic Controls", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, pages 87-92.
48. Halbert, etal, "Implementation of Residential Traffic Control Program in the City of San Diego", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, District 6, 1993, pages 23-60.
49. Radwan & Sinha, "Gap Acceptance and Delay at Stop Controlled Intersections on Multi-Lane
Divided Highways", ITE Journal, March 1980, page 38.
50. Borstel, "Traffic Circles : Seattle's Experience", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers,
1985, page 77.
51. D. Meier, The Policy Adopted in Arlington County, VA, for Solving Real and Perceived Speeding
Problems on Residential Streets", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, p g
a e 97,
52. Jeff Clark, "High Speeds and Volumes on Residential Streets: An Analysis of
PhysicalCharacteristics as Causes in Sacramento, California", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers,
1985, page 93.
53. Wiersig & Van Winkle, "Neighborhood Traffic Management in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area", ITE
Compendium of Technical Papers, 1985, page 82.
54. Improvin� Residential Street Environments, FHWA RD-81-031, 1981.
55. Carl R. Dawson, Jr., "Effectiveness of Stop Signs When Installed to Control Speeds Along
Residential Streets", Proceedings from Southern District ITE Meeting, Richmond, Virginia, April 17,
1993.
56. Arthur R. Theil, "Let Baton Rouge's Traffic Engineers Decide Whether Signs Are Needed", State
Times, LA, August 30, 1983. �
57. Gary James, "Merits Being Totally Ignored in This Instance", Mornin� Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA,
July 30,1983.
58. James Thomason, "Traffic Signs Allow Crossing", Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, July 30,
1983.
59. "City-Parish Must Move Stop Signs", Morning Advocate, Baton Rouge, LA, 1983.
60. Svnthesis of Safetv Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadwav Elements, Vol. 2, FHWA
Washington, D. C., 19982..
61. B.H. Cottrell, Jr.,"Using All-Way Stop Control for Residential Traffic Management",
Attachment 3— Page 9 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/rr�iiuttiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 10 of 11
Report No. FHWA VTRC 96-R17, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Charlottesville, Virginia,
January, 1996.
62. Eck & Diega, "Field Evaluation at Multi-Way Versus Four-Way Stop Sign Control at Low Volume
Intersections in Residential Areas", Transportation Research Record 1160, Washington, DC, 1988,
pages 7-13.
63. Hanson, "Are There Too Many Four-Way Stops?", Traffic Engineering, November 1957, pages 20-
22, 42.
64. Beaubien, "Stop Signs for Speed Control", ITE Journal, November 1976, pages 26-28.
65. Antwerp and Miller, "Control of Traffic in Residential Neighborhoods : SomeConsiderations for
Implementation", Transportation 10, 1981, pages 35-49.
66. Lipinski, "Neighborhood Traffic Controls", Transportation Engineerin� Journal, May 1979, pages
213-221.
67. Richardson,"A Delay Model for Multi-Way Stop Sign Intersections", TransportationResearch
Record 1112, Washington, DC, 1987, pages 107-114.
68. Briglin, "An Evaluation of Four-Way Stop Sign Control", ITE Journal, August 1982,
pages 16-19.
69. Ullman and Dudek, "Effects of Reduced Speed Limits in Rapidly Developing Urban Fringe Areas",
Transportation Research Record 1114, 1989, pages 45-53.
70. Robert Rees, "Al1-Way STOP Signs Installation Criteria", Westernite, Jan-Feb 1999, Vo153, No. 1,
pg 1-4.
71. Wes Siporski, "Stop Sign Compliance", posting on Traffic Engineering Council List Serve, Jan 15,
1999.
Appendix B
Additional References for Multi-Way Stop Signs
Not included in Analysis - Reports not available
1. Improvin� Traffic Signal Operations, ITE Report IR-081, August 1995.
2. Kunde, " Unwarranted Stop Signs in Cities", ITE Technical Notes, July 1982, page 12.
3. "In search of Effective Speed Control", ITE Technical Notes, December 1980, pages 12-16.
4. "Stop Signs Do Not Control Speed", ITE Technical Notes, July 1978, pages 6-7.
Attachment 3— Page 10 of 11
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm 3/23/2011
Multi-way Stops - The Research Shows the MUTCD is Correct Page 11 of 11
5. "An Evaluation of Unwarranted Stop Signs", ITE San Francisco Bay Area, February 1979.
6. "Cost of Unnecessary Stops", Auto Club of Missouri, Midwest Motorists, 1974.
7. Nitzel, Schatter & Mink, "Residential Traffic Control Policies and Measures", ITE
Compendium af Technical Pa ers, 1988.
8. Weike and Keim, "Residential Traffic Controls", ITE Compendium of Technical Papers, Washington
DC, August 1976.
9. Landom and Buller, "The Effects on Road Noise in Residential Areas", Watford, United Kingdom,
October 1977.
10. Wells and Joyner, "Neighborhood Automobile Restraints", Transportation Research Record 813,
1981.
11. Byrd and Stafford, "Analysis of Delay and User Costs of Unwarranted Four Way Stop Sign
Controlled Intersections", TRR 956, Washington, DC, 1984, pages 30-32.
12. Marconi, "Speed Control Measures in Residential Areas", Traffic Engineering, Vol. 47, No. 3,
March 1977, pages 28-3�0.
13. Mounce, "Driver's Compliance with Stop Sign Control at Low Volume Intersections", TRR 808,
TRB, Washington, DC, 1981, pages 30-37.
14. Orlob, "Traffic Diversion for Better Neighborhoods", Traffic Engineering, ITE, Vol. 45, No. 7, July
1975, pages 22-25.
Count:
C:\WPERF60�MARTIN�MULTI WAY. WPD
Attachment 3— Page 11 of 11
3/23/2011
http://troymi.gov/trafficengineering/multiway.htm
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 2010
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, City Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: New Speed Data for Adelaide NTS Petition
BACKGROUND:
At the November 2, 2009 Committee meeting, the Committee requested staff conduct a new speed study
on 21�` Avenue SW to determine the extent of changes in traffic conditions from previous studies.
The new studies indicate that speeds have crept upward on the northerly segment on 21 Avenue SW
(near SW 304 Street), but remained the same near SW 307`�' Street. Using the adopted Neighborhood
Traffic Safety (NTS) Program criteria, the intersection of 21S` Avenue SW at SW 304` Street would score
1.5 points for speed, 0 points for volume, 0.5 point for having a school crossing, and 0 points for collision
history. As such, the request for the all-way stop at 21S` Avenue SW at SW 304` Street still does not meet
NTS criteria. Furthermore, under current policy, the petition cannot be reconsidered unti12011.
One non-injury collision has been reported at this intersection since 2004. Another collision occurred in
2009 west of the intersection where the driver reportedly ran the stop sign on SW 304�' Street. It is not
likely that either of these collisions would have been prevented by the installation of an all-way stop.
Attachment 4— Page 1 of 1
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 2, 2009
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Brian Wilson, Interim City Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Adelaide NTS History
BACKGROUND:
At the October 20, 2009 Council meeting, The City Council requested staff review the history of
neighborhood traffic safety issues on 21S` Avenue SW near Adelaide in response to citizen concerns.
Attachment 1 is the staff report resulting from a request to modify the Council-adopted policy on the
Neighborhood Traffic Safety criteria to restrict the balloting area. This request was the result of the
failure in balloting for the first proposal for traffic calming on 21 Avenue SW, which consisted of a
combination of speed humps and all-way stops. Council upheld the policy on the balloting area on
July 16, 2009.
However, an outcome from that discussion was the direction to consider collision history and severity,
and a point at which the balloting process could be bypassed due to a compelling need to address
documented safety issues. This proposal is shown in Attachment 2, and was adopted by Council on
October 1, 2002. Contrary to the hopes of some area residents, the scores on 21S` Avenue SW were not
adequate at that time to bypass the balloting procedure.
A second petition for traffic calming was received in 2003. The proposal was the installation of a series
of mini-roundabouts, which also failed balloting. This is described in Attachment 3.
After a third petition was received in 2005, Council directed staff to develop a consensus solution, which
resulted in a proposal to install a combination of speed humps and speed tables, as shown in
Attachment 4. This was approved in balloting, however, the Council modified the proposal to construct
only speed tables on September 6, 2005. The speed tables were constructed in late 2005.
Attachment 5 is a staff report from 2008 resulting from a fourth petition to install an all-way stop at SW
304` Street at 21 Avenue SW. Public response was unprecedented in the Neighborhood Traffic Safety
Program, essentially decrying the continual use of public resources on the same issue, even though the
problem of speeding had been significantly improved. Two subsequent speed studies confirmed that the
2005 installation of speed tables had reduced the incidence of speeding such that 21�` Avenue SW no
longer qualified for the program, and the Program policy was revised by the Council on May 20, 2008 to
limit petitions to be considered on the same topic to once every 3 years.
No collisions have been reported in the corridor since 2004.
Attachments:
1. LUTC memo dated June 24, 2002
2. LUTC memo dated September 16, 2002
3. LUTC memo dated July 18, 2005
4. Agenda bill dated September 6, 2005
5. LUTC memo dated May 5, 2008
Attachment 5— Page 1 of 12
qTY OF C�
_=�� � ��
�� �
DATE: June 24, 2002
TO: Eric Faison, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
FROM; Richard Perez, Traffic Engineer
VIA: David H. Moseley, City Manager
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program Criteria
BACKGROUND
Citizens submitting a petition for traffic calming devices on 21 Avenue SW between SW 304�' Street and SW
312` Street has questioned the validity of the staff interpretation of the balloting area defined in the Council
adopted policy for the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program.
The NTS policy in question was modified on Apri121, 199$ to add areas where the sole source of access would
be impacted by an NTS proposal. Prior to that revision, the balloting area only included those residing on or
owning properties within 600 feet of a proposed traffic calming device. The change was made as a result of a
neighborhood where a speed hump was proposed on each side of the only cross-street of a cul-de-sac street that
was longer than 600 feet. Hence, those on the end of the cul-de-sac were not within the balloting area, but had no
choice of alternate routes to avoid the humps. In addition, staff has received cornments that many residents are
adversely impacted by traffic calming devices and should be allowed to vote on any NTS issue.
In the current case, an all-way-stop was proposed at the intersection of 21 Avenue SW and SW 304�' Street and
a speed hump was proposed on Z 1 Avenue S W between SW 305` Street and SW 307`�' Street. Staff included in
the balloting all areas accessed from the north and west legs ofthe intersection of 21 Avenue SW and SW 304`�
Street. Residents of these areas would have to traverse through the intersection that was being converted from a
two-way stop to an all-way stop, or the speed hump on 21 Avenue SW if drivers avoided the all-way stop by
using SW 305�' Street and 23` Avenue SW. 'The measure failed.
At a follow-up public meeting to discuss the ballot results and any next steps, objections were raised by many
citizens about the balloting area. They reasoned that the residents whose sole access was the west leg of the
intersection already had to stop at stop signs because SW 304`� Street is already stop-controlled. It is their
position that these residents would have encountered no increase in delay due to conversion of the intersection
from two-way stop control to all-way stop control. Therefore, they reasoned that these residents should not have
been included in the balloting area. Subsequently, staff has determined that the ballot measure would have
passed if the policy were interpreted in this manner. Another permutation would have also excluded sole access
voters on the north leg of the intersection, which would have resulted in a tie on the ballot measure.
ALTERNATIVES
In 1998 and 1999, The Twin LakesBrigadoon Traffic Calming Task Force also considered the issue of balloting
area, which resulted in several revisions to the NTS policy. However, no consensus was reached on revising the
balloting area, therefore, no recommendation to change it was made. Concepts that were considered at that time
included the following:
Attachment 5— Page 2 of 12
1. Reverting to the previous 600-foot policy without sole access considerations;
2. Allowing everyone within 600 feet of any proposed device to vote on the entire "package" of
improvements. Currently, each proposed device has its own balloting area. Those on one end of a
project do not necessarily vote on devices on the other end of the project.
3. Allowing everyone impacted by the proposal to vote on each device. Defining those impacted can be
challenging. A limited focus may result in the existing "sole source of access" policy, whereas a broader
view may include all areas bounded by arterials. For the latter, the balloting area in this case would
include all areas west of 1 Avenue S and north of SW Dash Point Road.
4. Maintaining the existing policy, further defining sole source of access to explicitly include those
locations where intersection control on any leg of the intersection is revised. For example, in this case, a
proposed all-way stop could significantly impact the safe operation of the intersection (either adversely
or beneficially) and those impacted by a potential change in the safety of the intersection could argue
that they should be allowed to vote on it;
5. Maintaining the existing policy, further defining sole source of access to explicitly exclude those
locations where the intersection control on a given leg of the intersection is not changed.
USE OF SPEED TABLES
Another topic for potential revision to the NTS policy is the use of speed tables as a substitute for speed humps
on principal collectors. City Council has previously approved the use of speed tables in lieu of speed humps on
principal collectors in 25 mph speed zones. Current policy prohibits the use of traffic calming devices on
arterials and principal collectors.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Land Use/Transportation Committee forward the following recommendations to the City
Council for the July 16, 2002 Consent Agenda:
Alternative 4 for defining the balloting areas for NTS projects; and
2. Allowing the use of speed tables on principal collectors with posted speed limits of 25 mph.
APPROV�AAL QF CQIYIMI'�TEE REPURT:
F,�� FA.��n_ Chair Dean McColsan, Member Michael Park, lklember
cc: Project File
Day File
k:Uutc�2002WTS policy revisions.doc
Attachment 5— Page 3 of 12
` CITY OF
'�.. Federal Vl/ay
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
VIA:
September 16, 2002
Eric Faison, Chair
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Richard A. Perez, City Traffic Engineer
David H. Moseley, City Manager
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Safety Policy Revisions
BACKGROUND
At its July l, 2002, meeting, the Land Use and Transportation Committee directed staff to develop
revisions to the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program policy that would consider collision severity
in qualifying a given street for the NTS program, and set a threshold upon which qualifying projects
could bypass the balloting process.
Currently, the policy considers three criteria for qualification of a street for traffic calming
improvements: speed, volume, and collision history. Each of these is scored on a scale of 0 to 3
points in 0.5 point increments, for a possible point total of 9.0 points, where 3.0 points are needed to
qualify for the program. These criteria are shown in Table 1 below:
Points Accidents/Year Average Daily Traffic 85th Percentile Speed
(5-year history) (two-way total) (mph in either direction)
0.5 0.3-0.5 500-1100 26-29
1.0 0.5-0.7 1101-1700 29.1-32
1.5 0.7-0.9 1701-2300 32.1-35
2.0 0.9-1.1 2301-2900 35.1-38
2.5 1.1-1.3 2901-3500 38.1-41 -
3.0 More than 13 More than 3500 More than 41
If a project meets these and other applicable technical criteria as explained in the attached policy,
neighborhood meetings are held to develop a consensus solution. Ballots are sent to all property
owners and residents within 600 feet of any proposed device or if their sole source of access would
Attachment 5— Page 4 of 12
be impacted by the installation of any traffic calming device. Each device is balloted separately,
and a simple majority of returned ballots is necessary to carry the project forward to the City
Council for final approval.
At issue was the case of 21 Avenue SW between SW 304 Street and SW 312�' Street, which
qualified for the program, but where balloting failed to achieve a 50% approval rate. If existing
traffic conditions were determined to be severe, the revised criteria, if applied, may allow the
proposal to move forward for construction.
ANALYSIS
Staff first considered the issue of collision severity measures. The measures considered include:
• Number of injury or fatality collisions per year;
• Number of injury or fatality collisions per vehicle-mile;
• Societal cost of collisions per year;
• Societal cost per vehicle-mile
In order to be consistent with current collision measure, it is proposed that the simple measure of
number of collisions involving injuries be measured. It is also proposed that fatalities be twice the
weight of injury collisions.
When adding these criteria, consistency with past results should also be considered. By adding
points for collision severity, the existing threshold of 3.0 points may no longer be appropriate for
the program.
Staff reviewed all NTS applications since the beginning of the program where records were
complete enough to provide valid comparison, which numbered 40. The results suggest that
although most projects had no injury collisions within the previous 5 years, some had several, and
four would've qualified for the program if collision severity were included. However, if the
existing 3.0 point threshold were raised, three projects would not have qualified for the program.
After reviewing the individual projects in question, staff recommends leaving the project threshold
criteria for qualification at 3.0 points.
The threshold at which the balloting process may be bypassed can be determined by inspection of
the graph below, which displays in ascending order the ranked percentile of occurrences in the
40-project sample.
For example, a 6.0 point score correlates to the 90 percentile, which means that 10% of the values
are higher than 6.0. The threshold can be determined by any number of arbitrary means, including
selecting an arbitrary percentage (5%, 10%, or 20%), deviations from the mean (the mean is 3.5,
and the standard deviation is 2.16), multiple of the lower threshold value (such as double 3.0), or
looking for a gap in values (such as between 7 and 8.5). Another approach would be to consider the
parameters (speed, volume, collisions, and collision severity) and determine which values would be
intolerable and make those values arbitrary limits. Since higher values in any of the parameters are
undesirable, this is an emotional decision. Nonetheless, staff offers the value of 6.0 as a reasonable
value: It corresponds to the highest 10% of the sample, it is one standard deviation above the mean
value, it is double the existing threshold for qualifying for the program, and it graphically represents
something of a"break point" in the graph.
Attachment 5— Page 5 of 12
a�
�
c
a�
�
�
a�
a
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Points
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program policy be revised to incorporate
the following changes:
1. Collision severity be considered, with each injury collision in the previous 5 years counting
as 1 point, and each fatal collision in the previous 5 years as 2 points.
2. If a project reaches 6 or more points, the balloting process may be bypassed. In this case,
staff would develop a proposal with citizen input for the City Council's consideration and
approval.
�PPROVAL OF COMMITTEE REPORT:
Eric Faison, Chair Michael Park, Me mber Dean McColgan, Member
RP:dI
Attachment: Proposed NTS Poticy Amendment
k:Uutc\2002\nts policy rev '02.doc
-_ _ -
Attachment 5— Page 6 of 12
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 18, 2005
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: David H. Moseley, City Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Status of Traffic Calming Efforts on 21S` Avenue SW
POLICY QUESTION:
For information only.
BACKGROUND
At the June 21, 2005, meeting of the City Council, staff was requested to provide an update on the status of the
City's efforts to address speeding concerns on 21st Avenue SW north of SW Dash Point Road in response to
concerns expressed by residents.
The first petition for traffic calming devices on 21S` Avenue SW was received in late 2001. The street easily met
the technical criteria for qualifying for the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program. A neighborhood
meeting was held in early 2002 to develop a consensus for addressing the speeding problem. The proposal
developed by those assembled consisted of the installation of all-way stop control on 21 Avenue SW at both SW
304` Street and SW 307` Street, and two speed humps, one on 21 Avenue SW between SW 305�' Street and SW
306�' Place, and one on 21 Way SW between 19 Place SW and 21g` Avenue SW. Ballot results showed only the
speed hump on 21s` Way SW passing. Based on past experience on 4`�' Avenue S near S 304�' Street, staff
determined that one speed hump would not be effective in deterring speeding, so no proposal was forwarded to
the Committee.
The ballot results were contested due to an issue with the area being balloted. Due to the Council-adopted policy
of including areas wherein the sole source of access would be affected by a traffic calming proposal, a large area
was allowed to vote that would have had to either traverse a speed hump or an all-way stop intersection. The
concern was that these people were the part of the problem with speeding and therefore not motivated to vote for a
traffic calming solution, so relief was sought from allowing these votes to sway the results. T'his issue was
brought to the Committee and Council in July 2002, which reaffirmed the balloting area policy.
A second petition was received in 2003. Again, 21 Avenue SW easily met the technical criteria for qualifying
for the NTS Program. A neighborhood meeting was held in March 2004, wherein a majority of those assembled
developed a proposal to install mini-roundabouts at the intersections of SW 305`� Street and SW 307�" Street,
although a significant minority preferred the previous proposal of all-way stops and speed humps. Note that by
not proposing any changes at SW 304�' Street, the balloting area previously contested was reduced significantly.
Nonetheless, this ballot measure also failed.
A third petition has now been received. Staff has determined that 21 Avenue SW continues to meet the technical
criteria for qualifying for the NTS program. A neighborhood meeting has been tentatively scheduled for July 27`
Staff Recommendation:
Far information only.
Attachment 5— Page 7 of 12
k LL (t`LOOS9'-18-0� SI�AT�S C3r 2L AV6 SW CRAf'P!C CAL:�i[;VG.C�U�
Attachrnent 5— Page 8 of 12
MEETING DATE: September 6th, 2005
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
City Council
AGENDA BILL
ITEM#
SUBJECT: Traffic Calming Efforts on 21 Avenue SW
_.........._ ........................................................................................................................................................... ..._................_................. _..................................._..........
CATEGORY:
� CONSENT ❑ ORDINANCE
❑ RESOLUTION ❑ PUBLIC HEARING
❑ CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS ❑ OTHER
BUDGET IMPACT:
Amount Budgeted: $
Expenditure Amt.: $
Contingency Req'd: $
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint slides presented to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated August lst, 2005.
SUMMARYBACKGROUND: At the June 21, 2005, meeting of the City Council, staff was requested to provide an
update on the status of the City's efforts to address speeding concerns on 21st Avenue SW north of SW Dash Point Road
in response to concerns expressed by residents.
The first petition for traffic calming devices on 21S` Avenue SW was received in late 2001. The street easily met the
technical criteria for qualifying for the Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program. results showed only the speed hump
on 21s Way SW passing. Based on past experience on 4` Avenue S near S 304` Street, staff determined that one speed
hump would not be effective in deterring speeding, so no proposal was forwarded to the Committee.
The ballot results were contested due to an issue with the area being balloted. This issue was brought to the Committee
and Council in July 2002, which reaffirmed the balloting area policy.
A second petition was received in 2003. Again, 21S` Ave SW met the technical criteria but the ballot measure also failed.
A third petition has now been received. Staff has determined that 21 Avenue SW continues to meet the technical criteria
for qualifying for the NTS program. A neighborhood meeting took place July 26�'. The consensus solution was to install
raised crosswalks at SW 304` Street and SW 307` Street, and three mid-block speed tables. It was noted that this
proposal would exceed the $10,000 per neighborhood per year limit in the Council's adopted policy, and with other
pending NTS requests, could exceed the NTS program budget, but that the increase in budget would be unlikely to cause
the Public Works Department operating budget to be exceeded.
Staff recommended that the consensus solution be balloted within the neighborhood.
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its August lst, 2005 meeting, the Land Use and
Transportation Committee forwarded the following recommendations:
1. Due to more expediently address the ongoing safety issues and overcome the past lack of neighborhood
consensus, bypass the balloting process in the current policy;
2. In order to more aggressively combat speeding, revise the proposal to replace the mid-block speed tables with
speed humps; and
3. Authorize staff to exceed the $10,000 per neighborhood per year limit in the current policy.
__.___._ _____
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to authorize staff to implement the Land Use and Transportation Committee
recommendation to install two raised crosswalks and three speed humps on 21 Avenue SW."
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Attachment 5— Page 9 of 12
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED '
❑ DENIED
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED - OS/10/2001
COUNCIL BILL #
1 ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
Attachment 5— Page 10 of 12
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 5, 2008
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Assistant City Manager, Chief Operations Officer, Emergency Manager
FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM CRITERIA REVISIONS
BACKGROUND:
The Committee requested that staff address two issues: (1) the status of the current proposal for an all-
way stop at the intersection of 21 Avenue SW and SW 304`� Street; and (2) review the Neighborhood
Traffic Safety Program policy with respect to the frequency with which petitions may be re-submitted.
Status of Current Petition
A petition was received requesting an all-way stop at the intersection of 21 Avenue SW and SW 304`
Street. All-way stops are evaluated using two sets of criteria: the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), as adopted by Washington State and the City; and the Neighborhood Traffic
Safety Program (NTSP) criteria. The evaluati.on was delayed by continued interference with data
collection (tube counters), but we were able to complete a week's worth of data on all four legs of the
intersection to properly evaluate the proposal.
MUTCD criteria, which are based on traffic volumes, history of collisions that may be preventable by all-
way stop control, and adeyuate sight distance, are clearly not met for all-way stop installation.
NTSP criteria are a cumulative score based on traffic volumes, speed, collision history, and presence of
schools, parks, or designated school safe walking routes. Since 21 Avenue SW is a minor collector,
Table 2 is used for scoring. The 85` percentile speed of traffic approaching the intersection is 26.5 mph,
scoring 0.5 point. The average daily traffic is 1035, scoring 0.5 point. The south leg of the intersection
has a crosswalk for a designated school safe walking route, scoring 0.5 point. One injury collision was
reported in 2004 at the intersection, scoring 1.0 point. (It should be noted that the collision occurred prior
to the installation of speed tables and raised crosswalks on 21 Avenue SW, thus the one collision may
not be representative of current safety conditions.) The total score is 2.5 points. A minimum score of 3.0
points is required to qualify for the program; thus the proposal does not qualify for the NTS program.
Frequency of Petitions
The current policy allows for resubmittal of petitions 12 months after the implementation of any previous
traffic calming implementations in order to consider subsequent removal of same, in case the traffic
calming devices were not operating as intended. The policy does not explicitly address a time period
between unsuccessful attempts at obtaining a particular device. Staff has used the same 12-month time
period to consider new petitions for previous unsuccessful proposals.
K:\LUTC\2008\OS-OS-08 NTS Revisions.doc Attachment 5— Page 11 of 12
May 5, 2008
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program Revisions
Page 2
In the instant case, a citizen had submitted a petition for an all-way stop at a particular intersection in
2001 as part of a larger traffic calming proposal. The proposal was voted down by the neighborhood. A
second petition was received in 2003 for which the consensus solution was installation of a mini-
roundabout at the subject intersection, but this was also voted down by the neighborhood. A third petition
was received in 2005, for which the consensus solution was the installation of speed tables and raised
crosswalks, which was eventually approved and constructed. Subsequent studies show that this has
reduced speeding, but as expected and indicated to the , public; speeding has not been eliminated
completely. In 2008, another petition was received requesting an all-way stop. This has triggered a
volume of e-mails, phone calls, and public comment unprecedented in the NTS Program, requesting that
the City not use any more resources to continue analyzing the intersection, holding neighborhood
meetings, and attempting to reach consensus on what continues to be a divisive issue in the subject
neighborhood.
To address this issue, staff proposes policy language that increases the waiting period for subsequent
submittals for new installations from one to three years. Exceptions would include instances in which
implementation of a larger proposal is phased due to budgetary constraints, and if traffic conditions have
changed significantly due to roadway improvements or land use changes.
cc: Project File
Day File
Attachment 5— Page 12 of 12
Resident Comments
I live in View Cliff and drive 21 st many times per day. I also walk down to
the beach. I have seen significant slower speed since the bumps were put
in. I feel Nancy and the city has completed their mission. I am tired of this
woman spending our tax dollars because she has nothing to do but expel
negative energy. Just think what she could accomplish if the negative
energy was put into positive energy. Thank you for your time.
2. I hope that the wasteful pursuit of more stop signs at 21 st and 304th is put
to rest tonite. From the discussions my neighbors have been having it
sounds like the speed tables have alleviated this problem. Please do not
waste more time and money on this issue.
3. There have been families that have lost children to being hit by cars and
can't get the justification for additional stop signs, yet Federal Way is
pursuing the placement of additional signs on 21st Ave, where there is no
more problem after the installation of the speed bumps, at the charge of
Ms. Combs. Let's just issue her a ticket book and radar gun!
4. Dear Council Member: We are residents of the "View Cliff" neighborhood
and would like to share our opposition to the "Four Way Stop Sign
situation" at 21 st Ave SW & SW 304th. Thank you for the opportunity to
have our opinion known on this matter. Sincerely,
5. I am unable to attend the council meeting this evening due to a business
committment, but wanted to email in regards to an item on tonights
agenda. Request for 4 way stop signs insta(led on 21 st Ave SW by Nancy
Combs. My family moved into the neighborhood 2 years ago from
Vancouver WA. We enjoy our home, neighborhood, and t�ie community. I
thought it was unusually to have speed tables installed on 21st Ave when
we originally bought the house, but thought it was due to Adelaide
Elementary School children. In my 2 years speeding or vehicles traveling
at an excessive rate of speed has not been an issue along this stretch of
road at any time of day. It would be a waste of Federat Way funds to
remove the current speed tables (that are working) and install stop signs.
There are many other worthwhile projects to benefit our community that
the funds should be earmarked for. We hope that you make the eorrect
decision to maintain the current speed restrictions. Thank you.
6. Subject: Four Way Stop at 21 st Ave SW & SW 304th street as requested
by Nancy Combs: A Four Way stop at this corner is NOT required or
desired. We have lived within one mile of this corner for 43 years & travel
through that intersection each time we drive out of our subdivision. This is
a solution in search of a problem! PLEASE do not spend city funds making
Attachment 6— Page 1 of 3
a four way top at this intersection. There is very little traffic through this
corner. This is a really dumb idea with no merit. Please do not do this!
Sincerely,
7. I am a homeowner in the View Cliff neighborhood. I have lived in the
Adelaide area for 15+ years and use 304th street daily. There are no
speed traffic issues as Mrs. Combs continues to raise. I know her sons
and their stories of her indicate that she enjoys stiring up trouble. Please,
we do not need a 4 way stop, the speed bumps have done more than
enough. Thank you for your time.
8. This e-mail regards the proposed 4-way stop at 21 st Ave SW and 304th.
We've lived in the View Cliff neighborhovd on 25th Ave. SW. for 12 years.
During that time, we've noticed a continuing deterioration in the
relationship between Ms. Nancy Combs and just about everybody that
lives within a mile of her. Ms. Combs seems to think that no one should be
allowed to drive on the the street in front of her house. If you happen to
drive by when she is outside, you get a dirty look. At present there is no
speeding problem on 21 st SV►l, the huge speed bumps have seen to that.
A four-way-stop would do nothing to satisfy Ms. Combs who won't be
satisfied until there is no travel allowed on 21st. Where does it stop??
We've wasted thousands of dollars on speed bumps, now Ms. Combs is
proposing that we spend thousands more on a four-way-stop. What's
next??? She won't be satisfied until there is no traffic at all which will never
happen. This is a growing area which will continue to grow into the future.
The result will be more traffic, not less regardless of speed bumps and
stop signs. The best advise I can give Ms. Combs is not to live on a busy
street if you don't like traffic. If you don't like airplane noise, don't live
under the flight path from SeaTac, if you don't want your house full of
water, don't live in a flood-plane. There are many choices we need to
make in order to make our lives what we think they should be. The reality
is that things change as an area grows, perhaps Ms. Combs has lived
here too long and should seek-out a nice dead-end street for everybody's
peace of mind.
9. This is the first time I have ever commented to a goverment agency. But
the situation reguarding a 4 way stop at 304th & 21 ave. SW. is getting out
of control. This study is a complete waste of city funds. The council needs
to stop wasting their time pandering to the whims of one individual.
10. Dear Councilmembers, Unfortunately we will be unable to attend the
council meeting this evening but wanted to stress our frustration at the
continuing frivolus actions by one disgruntled citizen as it concerns stop
signs for the 304th street/21 st Ave. SW intersection. There is absolutely
no merit to her claims for these stop signs of which we already have 2 for
north and south 304th street and a speed table on 21 st right at the 304th
Attaehment 6— Page 2 of 3
corner the city recently installed. The traffic is minimal fromali the
residential areas around this intersection and the speed is controlled by
the speed tables along 21 st SW. To make this a 4-way stop, the city will
now have to pay for removal of the speed table and erecting 2 more stop
signs for nothing more than the whims of one person who envisions
something that isn't there! Why does the city put up with the constant
harrassment and harangue of this one individual with just about every
department within the city. Check with the City Manager's office and the
police dept. as wel! as the traffic folks. This individual has no doubt cost
the city an enormous amount of its valuable time and dotlars. This
proposal for a 4-way stop should be denied for want of any merit!
11. Re: Nancy Combs request for 4-way stop signs to be installed on 21st Ave
SW: Ms. Combs request is devoid of inerit. The installation of the speed
tables along 21 st have mitigated the speeding issue. There is insufficient
traffic to justify this wasteful expenditure of city funds. Her request is a
frivolous misuse of Council time and resources.
K:\TRAFFIC\NTS�Raid\NTS-ADELAIDE-21 AVE SW�NTS-OS-Adelaide-21swDash�neighborhood frustration- 4 way stop.doc
Attachment 6— Page 3 of 3
1 � � �. . .. ... .
. . � . . . .`'_ ' _.��..... ' ' �-
Adelaide
Elementary
School
March 11, 2011
City of Federal Way
33325 8` Avenue South
Federa! Way, WA 98003
To Whom It May Concern:
Please consider this letter of support for a community request to install stop signs in the Adelaide
Elementary neighborhood. A stop sign at the north/south corner of SW 304` Street and 21�` Avenue SW
would greatly enhance the safety of our students as they daily arrive and depart from school. Currently
a stop sign exists at the east/west intersection, but not the north/south.
We are hopeful than an additional stop sign will help with cars that continually speed through the
intersection, endangering our students as they walk to and from schoo! each day.
Please feel free to contact me if you are in need of additional information.
Sincerely,
�
Ann Gray
Principal
Attachment 7— Page 1 of 2
w __ _ ,�.,�„ ,.� « _ -�,.�,,�.� � �;., -
� , �
w r_. - �<����
�; -� �
�� �; � � -�.. < �.�
�
,. � _ .
r� � � �`�� � ' `�. ., ,��,�� . „*.���a�.r �
�
� � _ �. �
_� . ��- >
� �� � ,;; �,. . ,. —
� .=.:��s °�..
, ., _ _ . <
. .: .
., J � � 't" Y �. � �.
� � ' � ... .� '_, �
� �" , ' � .. . . � _ , f� . � , : � ' :
�� „ - � - ='��� .�,'���
, � . �
., .
, .
, ..,.
� �t::
r .. <_
� � .. � . � d . � ` .. � �;.s � - a .
y..
. ; �, ,,,,, ��,
_ ,..�.,, _ . � -, � � -z. "`. � �'
� � � .. � � _. . . � ° ���� ��-,
. . .-
rr .
_ �
._ _ .' . . . t .
�'" � a5 ' � . . � + � ¢ � . , . w '� �,",a, ..
ac :,� , - . , ° s'� �Yd����� `�;
. " ' + W .."�..`
,� . �`> .; . � � . . . . , . . .
'� , ;a:. _.. . ,
� . .... ... �___....�t=ilt� �-`
�
.....,. � a :'','M1�t..',...F" . . K �� '-.�.. ,
k ,�:; �," �°•��. *� �� �'+�. °�
_ �-� " � » :�
�- '�f� ' V � F C' k y"�� �
� a^'Tr ••y,w-• ,+�-. '..di�' vi�.; n ,� " , „µ�4 p , dw "
� ''°rM"�W f.� �,.� '"f=" 'x ' � `� S�� a � � ' t.'�
.i . . ��
�
`�e J .' � .. . �� ' ' � a. .. . : „ • +.�# ,. yF -
� J � �fx ,�.'Ti ''Y \x... -. t `� �
s� � a Ft_+ �
�r . .
`` .;1 � .y � � rv* i �+. � S .
� � �, +� �" 'k 4 Nr t'^ `�' _✓'. . -* • k - �: K �:
�� � � �, � . `�:.:� y�.''��-���=`:i
� q � { .: �'�� � �C� �.����
� ' , ( ,,G 'a .. " ' � . :... '�' `• y S�v ��
�^�.�+ .. ��: � * , � za.
."'= � �. r: ��•�,
. .._
� ..2*..�+��' °' . � a, isro� -.
. �+"` , µ . `� . ....� - .,��
_ "�" a ` a �... '�Y 4 � r '�w.. . . *� R
a� . :� x,�, r ..
. � ,� � :� '� a �. M "- .�i+ g �^ r+C - ..
�p ,±'' .' t& .t +� � rr'�.,. . .
� �� r ' - � t`
� p � � .� .� ��,n
, .,,.".':,� �'�. .. �� � � ' � -r.� ...'-4�i':�.�.3�.. ro�$��c1' �Po ' �
k �s.d^""':; .`.j� -
y '`,+�' -f � � ' •
� ;�
`d� a �c �. �`«. `
Y '" ���` �� .
#� ��.� r- _
. �...`'' 'f . . ..
. . , � _� £ '. " *
.. � ; �'y�„ �# '�� � � ��
� �
-�,� � . � � ,. �,
��"' '"_ ,.__�
Attachment 7— Page 2 of 2
�
CITY OF �� � �
Federal Way
Neighborhood Traffic Safety (NTS) Program
Existing residential neighborhoods in the City of Federal Way may be considered for the NTS
program in order to control traffic speeds, reduce cut-through traffic and improve documented
pedestrian and vehicular safety issues. Neighborhoods are defined by elementary school attendance
areas. The NTS program should not be confused with other City processes required of new
subdivisions or commercial developments. The NTS program consists of three phases (the three E's)
in the following arder: 1) Education, 2) Enforcement, and then 3) Engineering:
I) Education:
The education phase is intended to increase neighborhood awareness of local speeding issues.
In many cases, a handful of speeders are known to the neighborhood and could use a
reminder to change their driving behavior. A neighborhood watch program may be launched
that could use the following tools:
• Include a general article in your homeowner association's (HOA) and/or local school
newsletters to remind residents about the importance of obeying speed limits, and to warn
residents to be on the watch for speeding traffic. In many cases, the driver is
unintentionally speeding and a friendly reminder would be effective.
• Contact the Police Department at (253) 835-6775 to request placement of a speed trailer
(speed reader board) in your neighborhood. Depending on the location and driver
population, this device may change driver behavior for an indefinite time period.
Volunteers willing to help the Police Department are always appreciated; please call
(253) 835-6730 if interested in volunteering in this program.
Form a speed watch group to document incidents of speeding. Be sure to include any
vehicle information: colors, makes, models, license numbers, and the dates and times
they pass through a specific location. This information, when compiled for several
weeks, should then be submitted to a selected speed watch program manager. Several
reports of speeding for the same vehicle should then be reported to the Police Department
for enforcement so that officers may more effectively target locations at specific times for
emphases patrol.
II) Enforcement:
The second phase of the NTS program is special enforcement. It may take some drivers a
more drastic method (speeding tickets) to change their driving behavior. This usually works
for local residential speeds with minimum cut-through traffic. In some cases, the Engineering
phase is needed to address the speeding issue.
III) Engineering:
Citizens that have any questions regarding the NTS program may call the Public Works
Department at (253) $35-2700. The NTS program allows the installation of traffic calming
devices such as speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, traffic circles, chicanes,
signing, pavement marking, or other approved devices. These devices shall only be installed
when the following general conditions and criteria are met:
Attachment 8— Page 1 of 4
A- General Conditions:
Less restrictive means of controlling speed (Education and Enforcement) have been
attempted without success.
2. The proposed devices may be installed on residential streets functionally classified as
local or minor collector. Some devices that do not severely delay emergency vehicles,
such as speed tables or roundabouts, may be permitted on principal collectors as long as
the posted speed limit does not exceed 25 mph.
3. No devices shall be installed within 600 feet of a traffic signal or 250 feet of a stop sign.
As measured along the major roadway movement.
4. For vertical deflection devices, no adverse street characteristics exist, such as steep
grades in excess of 8%. In all cases, sight distance standards must be met.
5. Storm drainage problems created by the installation of the proposed devices can be
adequately addressed.
6. Each neighborhood may apply for traffic calming devices costing a maximum of $15,000
per year. If the proposed devices cost more than this amount, the neighborhood may
form a Local Improvement District (LID) to fund the excess amount. Otherwise, the City
may phase and fund the excess amount in a future year (minimum of 12 months from
installation) and based on a first-come, first-serve basis.
7. The City will not fund the installation of traffic calming devices in cul-de-sacs that are
less than 600 feet long.
B- Installation Process and Criteria
1) To be considered for the installation of traffic calming devices, a City prepared or
approved petition must be submitted to the City. The petition must be signed by owners
or residents representing at least ten parcels within the affected area specifying the
problem's nature and exact project location and limits. Petitions for proposals that were
not successfully implemented due to failure to meet the NTS criteria or failure to pass a
ballot proposal in previous attempts will only be considered in the following instances:
a. The proposal was not implemented due to budgetary constraints and the criteria
continue to be met; or
b. As determined by the Public Works Director, traffic conditions have changed due
to roadway improvements or land use changes; or
c. At least 36 months has passed since the failure of a previous attempt.
2) A traffic study will then be conducted to see if the program technical criteria (severity
score) is met. Currently, the City considers four criteria to qualify a street for traffic
calming devices:
a) Majority Speed: The 85` percentile speed averaged for both directions.
b) Volume: The Average Daily Traffic total of both directions.
c) Location: Half a point is given for streets fronting parks, schools, or designated
school crossings.
d) Collisions: A five-year reported collision history (frequency and severity) is
investigated for collisions that may be correctable by traffic calming devices.
Depending on roadway functional classification, each criterion is scored on a scale of 0.0
to 3.0 points as shown in Tables 1 through 3 below. The total severity score is added for
K:\TRAFFIC\NTS\NTS Program rev 04-OS-I l.doc 2�t}
Attachment 8— Page 2 of 4
each category for a maximum 15.5 points. A three point minimum severity score is
needed to continue with the program regardless of how the points were collected:
Table 1
Local Residential Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'u Fatal
0.0 0-25 0-500 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 501 - 600 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 601 - 700 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 701 - 800 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 801 - 900 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 901 - 1,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 1,001 + - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 2
Minor Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT SchoollPark Total In'u Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0- 1,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 1,001 —1,800 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 1,801 — 2,600 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 2,601 — 3,400 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 3,401 — 4,200 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 4,201 — 5,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 5,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
Table 3
Principal Collector Street NTS Criteria
Point 85th Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scale S eed Traffic ADT School/Park Total In'u Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0- 5,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 5,001 - 7,000 Yes 2 - -
1.0 28 - 29 7,001 - 9,000 - 3 1 -
1.5 30 - 31 9,001 - 11,000 - 4 - -
2.0 32 - 33 11,001 - 13,000 - 5 2 1
2.5 34 - 35 13,001 - 15,000 - 6 - -
3.0 36+ 15,001+ - 7+ 3+ 2+
3) If a project does not meet the 3-point minimum severity score, the contact petitioner is
informed about the study results and is asked to inform those who signed the petition of
the results. In such a case, additional education and enfarcement would be the proposed
solution.
K:\TRAFFIC\NTS\NTS Program rev 04-OS-1 l.doc 3/4
Attachment 8— Page 3 of 4
4) If the project meets the above criteria, the City will hold a neighborhood meeting to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various traffic calming devices and to
develop a consensus solution. In addition to residents, staff from the School District,
Police, and Fire Departments may also be invited. Public meetings are usually advertised
by posting signs on the subject roads.
5) Ballots are sent to all properties abutting the streets and are within 600 feet (measured
along street centerlines) of the proposed project location. Ballots are also sent to
properties where the proposed devices would be located along their sole access route as
determined by the Public Works Director. Only one ballot will be issued per housing unit
address. A simple majority (more than 50 %) of returned ballots is necessary to carry the
project forward to City Council for final approval. The ballots are only utilized to
measure neighborhood project support and are advisory to Council who may modify the
proposal.
6) If a ballot area extends bevond the city limits ballot results for ballots returned from
pro�erties within the Citv and from outside the City will be tabulated separatelv and
jointiv for evaluation by the Citv Council.
7) The ballot results may be delivered to the neighborhood utilizing signs on the street or by
conducting a second neighborhood meeting.
8) If a project's severity score is at least 6 points, staff may develop a proposal with citizen
input and the balloting process may be bypassed.
9) If the ballot measure passes or if the total severity score is at least 6 points, the proposal
is presented to the City Council sub-committee, and if passed, is then presented to the full
Council for final approval.
10) If the ballot measure fails, a three-year waiting period is required to restart the process.
11) If approved by Council, the traffic calming devices would be installed as soon as budget,
weather, and the contractor's schedule permits.
C- Removal Process and Criteria
Traffic calming devices may be removed when all of the following criteria are met:
1) A City prepared ar approved petition signed by owners or residents representing 10 or
more lots within the affected area must be submitted to the City. The affected area
includes properties abutting streets within 600 feet of the existing device location,
measured along street centerlines, and properties which the existing devices are located
along their sole access route as determined by the Public Works Director, and
2) Property owners and residents within the affected area shall be sent a City prepared or
approved ballot by first class mail. More than 50 % of the returned ballots must vote
affirmatively, concurring with the removal of devices. This ballot is advisory to City
Council, who may modify the proposal, and
3) An adequate review period (minimum of 12 months from installation) and subsequent
engineering analysis has been performed to determine the traffic characteristics along the
route and the impacts to the remaining street system.
K:\TRAFF[C\NTS\NTS Program rev 04-OS-1 l.doc Attachment 8— Page 4 of 4 4/4
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUB.�CT: 2012 Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Application.
POLICY QUESTION Should Council authorize staff to apply for 2012 Land and Water Conservation Fund grant
funding in the amount of $438,972 for the Sacajawea Park Soccer Field renovation and drainage improvements?
COMMITTEE Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: Chiis (
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
Communication & Grant Coordinator
MEETING DATE April 12 , 2011
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT Mayor's Office
Attachment: Memorandum to the Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Committee dated April 12,
2011.
Options Considered:
Authorize staff to apply for 2012 Land and Water Conservation Fund grant funding in the amount of
$438,972 far the Sacajawea Park Soccer Field renovation and drainage improvements.
2. Do not authorize staffto apply for 2012 Land and Water Conservation Fund grant funding.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Mayor recommends authorizing staff to apply for 2012 Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant funding in the amount of $438,972 for the Sacajawea Park Soccer Field renovation and
d r a inage improvement
MAYOR APPROVAL: ` ,���� �� �i� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: __L�_
Commi ee Council Committee ouncil
,-------_�--- — _ ..
`� 2 PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move to authorize staff to apply for 2012 Land and Water
Conservation Fund grant funding in the amount of $438,972 for the Sacajawea Park Soccer Field
renovation and drainage improvements. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION # _
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends authorizing staff to apply for 2012 Land and
Water Conservation Fund grant funding in the amount of $438,9'72 for the Sacajawea Park Soccer Field
renovation and drainage improvements. __z
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 12, 2011
TO: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management�
' Chris Carrel, Communication & Grant Coordinator
SUBJECT: 2012 Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Application
BACKGROUND:
Land and Water Conservation Fund ("LWCF") funds are available for 2012 to preserve and develop
outdoor recreation resources in Washington State. LWCF requires a 50 percent non-federal match
and commonly funds community park development and renovation. The City has identified
replacement of the synthetic turf field, and improvement of drainage facilities at Sacajawea Park as a
2012 project and estimates the project cost at $877,944. The field's synthetic turf has exceeded its
functional life and the field regularly floods due to poor drainage. The City has obligated sufficient
funds to provide the required 50 percent match non-federal match.
Staff is requesting authorization to apply for grant funding in the amount of $438,972 through the
Land and Water Conservation Fund in order to support completion of the field renovation and
improvement of drainage facilities. The total amount required for matching is $438,972.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Apri119, 2011
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPE BID AWARDS
POLICY QUESTION Should the Ciry accept Landscape Services bids and authorize the Mayor to enter into
2 year maintenance agreements with the successful bidders?
COMMITTEE: PRHSPS
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: April 12, 2011
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT: PRCS
STAFFREPORT BY:........_Stephen Ikerd..._Parks._&.._Facilities...Manager ................................................................................................__._..................................._...__........._............._.......................................................
. _�
Attachments: April 12`�', 2011 PRHSPS Committee Memo
Options Considered:
1. Authorize bid awards for 2 year Landscape Maintenance Agreements in the amount of $19,702.60 to
Osaka Gardens and $86,047.46 to NW Landscape Services and authorize the Mayor to execute said
agreements.
2. Do not accept bids for Landscape Maintenance Service and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Option 1; Authorize bid awards for 2 year Landscape Maintenance Agreements in
the amount of $19,702.60 to Osaka Gardens and $86,047.46 to NW Landscape Services and authorize the Mayor to
execute said agreements.
MAYOR APPROVAL: _��`�`�'� ���� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: _ ��
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move to forward the bid awards of 2 year Landscape Maintenance
Agreements in the amount of $19, 702. 60 to Osaka Gardens and $86, 047.46 to NW Landscape Services, and
authorize the Mayor to execute said agreements to the full Council April 19, 2011 consent agenda for approval.
� ��
Committee Chair
� � _.,::..,�. �
._
� � Commi tee Member
Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move approval to award 2 year Landscape Maintenance Agreements in the
amount of $19, 702. 60 to Osaka Gardens and $86, 047.46 to NW Landscape Services, and authorize the Mayor to
execute said agreements "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFlCE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
� CITY QF
Federal Way
Parks and Facilities Division
Date: April 12, 2011
To: PRHSPS Council Committee
From: Stephen Ikerd, Parks & Facilities Manager '
Via: Mayor Skip Priest
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works & Emergency Mgmt. �
Subject: Landscape Maintenance Service Bids
Background: Staff solicited basic landscape maintenance services bids for fourteen
(14) City sites, which include; City Hall, Dumas Bay Centre and twelve (12) Parks. Three
companies responded to a Request for Quotes (RFQ) advertisement. Bid results are as
follows:
� . . . � ..- •
�•- •- •1 .1 -•.1
� • • • • 1 • ' ' 1
:.-
• • 1 • •
� . ' • • • . 1 : : . 1 . '
• •- . . � . .• .•,
- • - ', . 1 1 . � ' '
, � � . • � � . .
••• 1 .1
• 1 . . ' . ' .
• • ' 1 ' .'
• . 1 .. . .
• ••• : 1 :'
. 1 '
',. 11 . • '
/ f1 1'sr:�,r ';t,`fl�"I'�' "`� 9 7�.r7'!�F";',`r"^i' f ^"If`i'�l/l,'"f..��+,rf ffy,r f':.l � 1 r..1.�:
f ."`j.f.� �'i'f�, �:`�i' /�", i";'"Ji;J ,� � .r^i � `' j ��i %,/ ,!1 ; �,%f r. ,,�� / : f ,' i ^f ` 1 ,j ,' F� 1,�,",:
• !�r?��� �'/�/1 �f�,'�`�1; /,� ,�+'�j,!����� , �: ;��"'� � �;� `` f'•' fi.Y�,%v��;�/ � � rr� �i>>,�,'`,� ,,�� �. �� �r� :�„i,�
��� ����y�,��`�,���',�,,,,;,��,�'� ����,� �„���������,�.�y���,����,i.�,,��,� .,�� ,.r, �, , �, ,
. . . . . . ' • � . . .
Dumas Bav Centre - Bid results using an as needed crew approach.
Omni Landscape -$295.00 -3 person crew @ 2 hrs &$42.50 per hr for extra services.
Osaka Gardens -$210.00 -3 person crew @ 2 hrs &$35.00 per hr for extra services.
NW Landscape -$183.96 -3 person crew @ 2 hrs &$30.66 per hr for extra services.
Note: Each Contractor was informed prior to bidding that funding had been reduced in
the Parks Department and we did not know how many of the sites would fit into the
allocated budget until bid results were received. They were also informed that the City
reserved the right to split the sites into more then one contract if there was a financial
advantage to the City. Dumas Bay Centre would also be bid differently then the other
sites with defined routine tasks. DBC was bid on an as needed weekly work order
system, based on a 3 person crew rate of 2 hrs minimum per visit.
References:
Osaka Gardens — Currently performs similar services for FW Parks & Public Works
Department.
NW Landscape Services — New to the City. References from other municipalities were
good.
Contract award recommendations:
Osaka Gardens; 3 sites =$19,702.60 total two year contract, which includes $1000
contingency.
NW Landscape; 10 sites =$69,307.10 total two year contract, which includes $1000
contingency.
NW Landscape; Dumas Bay Centre =$16,740.36 total two year contract, based on 91
weeks.
Total contract amounts:
Osaka Gardens; 3 sites =$19,702.60 total two year contract
NW Landscape; 11 sites =$86,047.46 total two year contract
Budget: The grand total amount of $105,750.06 for all 14 sites is within the 2011-2012
Council approved budgets. These basic landscape services will be funded through 3
different accounts: City Hall/Building, Park Operations & Dumas Bay Centre.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Apri119, 2011 ITEM #: '�J �.'i
_....... ..._ ......___ ........................................................._...._......................................... _..............................................................................................__.........................................................................__................................._........................_....................................._................ .....
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUB.TECT: Create and post coyote information signs.
POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council approve the posting of coyote information signs at City parks that
experience frequent coyote sightings?
COMMITTEE PRHS&PS
� �
Ordinance
MEETING DATE: April 12, 2011
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
S'rAFF REPOR'r BY: Chief Brian Wilson
❑ Public Hearing
Resolution ❑ Other
DEPT: Police
Summary: A community meeting was held for residents of the neighborhood at 15 Ave SW and SW 360 Street.
The meeting was to discuss the urban coyote situation, neighborhood actions that could be taken to mitigate
encounters, and seek input. The citizens suggested an informational sign to include some of the information discussed
at the meeting and educate park users. The attached sign was developed with input from our Parks Department. The
cost of the sign is approximately $18.00 per sign. The sign would be posted in multiple locations at the below listed
parks. These parks generate the most reports of coyote sightings to the Animal Services Unit.
Attachments: Proposed Coyote Sign
Options Considered:
1. Approve the proposed coyote information sign for posting at the green space/park on 15` Ave SW in the
36000 blk, Celebration Park, and Steele Lake Park, and other areas as identified by staff.
2. Do not approve the proposed coyote information sign for posting at the green space/park on 15`" Ave SW in
the 36000 blk, Celebration Park, and Steele Lake Park and provide direction to staff.
_.... _ _.. _ _....... . ......... .........
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the April 19, 2011 City Council
consent agenda for approvaL
� ,/ y/US��a �tl
MAYOR A�PPROVAL: �' • ,��i� � -�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: � G✓,If� � ��
� ommittee Council Comm ittee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move approval of Option 1 and forward the proposed coyote informational sign
and posting at the s�ecified parks, and other areas as identified by staff to the consent agenda for the City Council
Meeting on April 19` , 2011. �
M
-
- �_____-----
� , _. - ��
, _.. ,�,,� �, � ,,� _�-�p-�--".-..
�r-R-�` � � �
Committee hair �Committee Member
Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S� "I move approval of the proposed coyote informational sign and posting at the
specified parks, and other areas identified by staff. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFF/CE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1sT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
COYOTES LIVE HERE TOO
� If you or your children encounter a coyote don't run, be as
big and loud as possible.
11 Never feed coyotes and do not leave food outside for pets
or other animals.
• Keep your garbage can lids on tight to prevent the garbage
from becoming a food source.
Report full garbage cans in the park by calling
253.835.2700.
• Coyotes may be a threat to small pets so do not leave your
pet unattended or outside at night.
• Urban coyotes primarily eat small rodents and assist in
controlling rodent populations.
• You can see more information on urban coyotes at our
website www.cityoffederalway.com
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Apri119, 2011
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #: �_�
SUB.TECT: Application for Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant.
POLICY QUESTION Should the City of Federal Way, Federal Way Police Department apply for the 2011
Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant; and, if awarded, accept the Grant with matching city funds?
COMMITTEE Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Council Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: Assistant Chief
Attachments:
1. PRHS&PS Memo
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
H
MEE7'ING DATE: ApTil 12, 2011
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT: Police Department
Options Considered:
1. Approve the Federal Way Police Department application for the 2010 BVP Grant, and acceptance of the
Grant if awarded.
2. Deny Application
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1.
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ///� ,. ���1G��_ DIRECTOR APPROVAL: �. i.J� k�l �/ {Nja�!° � yL� �Il+'►�/�jyl�(Ill
Com tee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move approval of Option 1 and forwarding the application for the 2011
Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP), and acceptance the Grant if awarded to the City Council Meeting on April
19, 201 L � ♦ ��—�'"� �
Committee Chair C mo mittee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED CoUNC��, MoT�o1v: I move approval of the 2011 Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant
application, and authorize Police Chief Brian Wilson to sign such Agreement if awarded.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinnnces only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 12, 2011
TO: Parks, Recreation, Human Ser�a�ces and Public Safety Council Committee
VIA: Brian J. Wilson, Police Chie�` ��+���'�
FROM: Andy J. Hwang, Assistant P'ce Chief
SUBJECT: 2011 Ballistic Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant.
The total number of Ballistic vests that will need to be replaced by the Federal Way Police
Department in the year 2012 equals forty-five (45).
The BVP (Ballistic Vest Partnership) grant application period will open for a short period of time in
the month of Apri12011. If the 2011 BVP Grant is approved, it would provide $19,034 to the police
department to use toward the purchase of ballistic vests and require $19,034.00 to be matched by the
police department. In the past, the funds have been taken from the 2009 police department fuel
savings and 2010 salary savings. The matching funds for the 2011 BVP Grant should be taken from
the police uniform budget. I am seeki�g approval to apply for the 2011 BVP grant at this time.
The 2011 BVP grant application will remain open for a period of approximately one month. The
results of the grant award will become available in the 3 quarter of 2011, at which time we would
like to have already obtained council approval to match the funds and accept the Grant.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011
CITY COUNCIL
ITEM #:
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: CLEARWIRE SITE LEASE RENEWAL — LAKOTA PARK
POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE RENEWAL OF THE WIRELESS SITE LEASE AND
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT?
COMMITTEE PRHS&PS
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: PATRICIA RICHARDSON
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: 4/12/2011
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT: Law
Clearwire LLC entered into a Lease Agreement with the City on March 2, 2006 far installation and operation of certain
equipment on City owned land located in Lakota Park for use in connection with its wireless telephone
communications service. The lease was commenced on April 20, 2006 upon completion of the construction of the
wireless facilities. The lease will expire on April 19, 2011 and Clearwire has requested to renew the lease for an
additional five-year term pursuant to the terms of the lease. T'he rental rate will begin at $2,177.82 per month with a
4% increase each year plus a 12.84% leasehold tax for a total amount of $2,457.45 per month.
Options Considered: 1. Recommend approval of the lease renewal and authorize the Mayor to
execute the amendment.
2. Reiect the lease renewal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the lease renewal and authorize the Mayor to execute the
amendment.
MAYOR APPROVAL: �
Committee
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I move to forward the proposed amendment to the Clearwire Site lease to the
April 19, 2011 consent agenda for approval.
Committee Chair
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
���
��--��� , __,, �_��._.��zs�
Committee Member Co ittee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move approval of the First Amendment to the Clearwire Site Lease at Lakota
Park, beginning April 20, 2011 and terminating on April 19, 2016, and authorize the Mayor to sign said
amendment. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED
❑ DENIED
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/AIO ACTION
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED — 02/06/2006
COUNCIL BILL #
1 reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
FOR
CLEARWIRE LLC
(AG # 06-025)
This First Amendment ("Amendment") is dated effective this 20th day of April, 201 l,
and is entered into by and between the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal
corporation ("City"), and Clearwire LLC, a Nevada limited liability company ("Tenant").
A. The City and Tenant entered into a Lease Agreement dated March 2, 2006
commencing on April 20, 2006, whereby the City agreed to lease to Tenant a portion of the
space on and air-space above the City Property, located at Lakota Park ("Lease").
B. The Lease provided that Tenant may renew the Lease for three (3) additional
five (5) year terms under Section 2.
C. Under Section 26.b. of the Lease, any modification of or amendment to the
Lease must be in writing and executed by both parties.
D. The City and the Tenant agree and desire to amend the Lease to renew the term
of the Lease for an additional5 years from the effective date of this amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged the parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
Term
Pursuant to Section 4 of the Lease Agreement, the Lease shall be renewed for an
additional five (5) year term commencing on April 20, 2011, and expiring April 19, 2016,
unless renewed pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement.
2. Full Force and Effect.
All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not modified by this Amendment shall
remain in full force and effect.
- 1 -
DATED the effective date set forth above.
ATTEST:
Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
:
Skip Priest, Mayor
PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney
TENANT:
CLEARWIRE LLC
:
Name (printed):
Title:
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 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
2011.
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public in and for the State of
My commission expires
- 2 -
COITNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #
SusJECT: APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council appoint members to the Parks and Recreation
Commission?
COMMITTEE N/A
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent ❑ Ordinance
� City Council Business ❑ Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Carol McNeilly City Clerk
BACKGROUND:
MEETING DATE: N/f1
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT HR
The Parks and Recreation Commission is comprised of nine voting members who serve three-year
terms. Appointments to the Commission are made by the City Council.
Four voting positions on the Parks and Recreation Commission will expire on April 30, 2011. Two of
the four members in those positions are seeking re-appointment (Julio Diaz and Jack Sharlock). This
leaves two positions vacant. In addition, there is one vacant voting position due to a member
resignation; this position has a term expiring April 30, 2012. Three alternate members have applied for
the three voting positions (Martin Moore, Dwight Otto and Louise Wessel).
In accordance with Section 20.10 of the Council Rules of Procedure, the Council will not interview
applicants already serving in the position, and may approve reappointment of citizens wishing
additional terms subject to any limits established by ordinance or other laws without conducting public .
recruitment or interview.
OPTIONS CONSIDERED:
1. Appoint current alternate members to voting positions.
2. Direct staff to advertise the vacancies.
MAYORS RECOMMENDATION: Option 1
MAYORS APPROVAL N/A /¢����`_ D��c'roR ArrROVaL: N/A N/A
Committee Cou cil Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/f1
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION "I move to re-appoint Julio Diaz and Jack Sharlock to the Parks and
Recreation Commission with terms expiring April 30, 2014. I further move to appoint current
alternate members Louise Wessel to position number 1 to fill the unexpired term of April 30, 2012,
Martin Moore to position number 8 with a term expiring April 30, 2014 and Dwight Otto to position
number 9 with a term expiring Apri130, 2014.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY C1TY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DE�IIED 1 reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April I9, 2011
__ _ __ __ __ _.
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #: h
____ ___. _
SUBJECT: RFQ FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF FORMER AMC TNEATERS SITE
POLICY QUESTION Approval of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for redevelopment of the former AMC
Theaters Site.
COMMITTEE: N/A
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
� City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: PatriCk
Attachments: Draft RFQ
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE N/A
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT Community & Eco. Dev.
Background: On 3/1/I l Council held a special meeting to garner both public and City Council review and
comment on the draft "Project Vision and Principles" section of the proposed RFQ. On 3/15/11 City
Councilmembers offered additional comments and requested more information. On 4/5/11 an additional special
meeting was held, again to garner both public comment and offer an opportunity for further discussion about key
elements of the redevelopment vision for the site. Attached you will find a draft of the entire RFQ for review and
approval, including updates and revisions to reflect the latest comments and direction from City Council.
If approved as presented, or with additional modifications as directed by City Council, the RFQ may be
published and mailed out as soon as 4/25/11. If published on that date, RFQ responses will be accepted through
6/6/ ll
Options:
] . Approve RFQ as presented;
2. Approve RFQ with modificat►ons as directed_by Council
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
Committee
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Commit[ee
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COl �NCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # _
❑ DENIED lsT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READINC li�rdmances only) ORDINANCE # _
KE V ISED — 08/ I 2/2010 RESOLUTION #
�:.:ity af Federal Way, Washington
�����.����.�� ��r ��..����f���ti���
. ..
�ixec�-��� �evelopment
31600 20th Ave South
t., _ ��t �ri . -.E.,.
� � � Y -� - �,fiM� �A' `���W �....
�r� - . , ,�„ ° t,, � . � ; � - - t �i . '�+1i
6��� s, n!`' y ti
�-_.u. � —,..
�� ,1 �,y-�.,� Js} �.e" �_ . ,
�,... ..J���_ �t° ,�t�, f t" � tZ ��:_{yi,�
�Rf ��' � r�„ .t 1 '' �� _� �-,
[ • J, ! �� - �`y �"fl#i� �._'.t-�c� ,2 ��,�.~� .�.
F '"- �! � `<+`: .
�; � a �+ - � ,� i , k. +�
, ` t' t
�?� � �,. 1 �'� 111. ,' ,�e �� ^ _ ��
. �; '� � '� .�.+ f �; � 1 ��' � �
, ,.. � .
,�,e!' a�...� � '� � �...' i�;,�'R: 'E���� �,
��;� ��: �;' � �
—`. • ` , � � �� , '•� i ; :��� • d�e,,..
_� ��� :
_� _
"�, , ",.�..�......,,,,�„ ,,
�
� .J� .. � � . .. �. - � r}. � * . .. ++.""-�v
� _ '9 ��' -• !° rz-
.�� � ��, � F _ ;.
� April 25, 2011
����rnission Due:
3:00 pm
June 6, 2011
`�.�-
,. � �
iy ot Federai Way
;',':� 8�" Av� `:uuth
.�r� �iw,'�"!;' ^r�:
�� ��
�E� .!�'�
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
I nvitation .....................................................................................................................3
The Opportunity ..........................................................................................................6
Project Vision and Principles .....................................................................................8
Selection .....................................................................................................11
SubmittalRequirements ...........................................................................................12
TentativeSchedule ...................................................................................................15
Appendices.. .. . . .. . . . . ... ... .. .. .... .... . . . . . . .... . .. .. . .... . .. . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . ... . ... . . ... .. . . . . .... . .. .16-24
� Map of Federal Way City Center .........................................................17
• Map of Site ..................................................................................:.18
• Preview of RFP Requirements ...........................................................20
• Criteria for Public-Private Partnerships ...... .. ........ .. . ........ ..... ................21
• Park/Public Open Space Design Guidelines .....................................22-23
• Legal Notices .................................................................................24
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 2
Table of Contents
.. .. , � , �. , .. a;�"d� , . ,� .., e.,., t.s€,. _.,� ,.. _ . _ e , _
II'1V1���lC,11'1
The City of Federal Way, Washington (the City), is pleased to announce the offering for mixed-
use redevelopment of a key site located in its City Center. Specifically, the City is seeking
statements of qualifications and presentation of concepts from experienced developers (and
development teams) willing to entertain a public-private partnership in accordance with the
principles and procedures outlined here. [The development project is herein referred to as the
Project, and the property that will be developed is herein referred to as the Site.] This Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) process is intended to provide an opportunity for interested developers to
demonstrate their interest and capability to acquire (from the City) and develop a major mixed-
use project in City Center.
The City of Federal Way is an equal opportunity employer and encourages participation of small,
minority-, and women-owned businesses. Joint ventures are also encouraged where feasible.
The City is asking prospective development teams to submit sufficient infarmation regarding
their development expertise, as well as a preliminary redevelopment concept, in order to enable
the City to select a short list of finalists who will be invited to responci to a more cietailed Request
for Proposals (RFP).
KFQ responses are due by 3:00 pm, c>n June 6, 2011. We look forward to your submittal.
2�-�
`'1r �. �. ,.
� M1 N1K � 1 � �\)
�,11��
`�
� �. � "� . "� . . _ ' . . . . . �. ..� .
�� . i i�. , . ._ t
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Team
The City seeks qualifications from comprehensive development teams who can acquire the Site
and carry the Project through to occupancy. Therefore, development teams should include any
discipline that would be appropriate. Team members may include:
■ Development entity (lead team member);
■ Architects;
■ Civil engineers;
■ General contractor;
■ Marketing/sales support;
■ Financial partner; and
■ Any other partners deemed appropriate.
Partnership
The City seeks to identify a development firm ar development team who is willing and able to
enter a public-private partnership to fulfill the vision for the Project. Thus, the City seeks
developers who:
■ Understand the significance of the Site in advancing the City's Comprehensive Plan vision
for City Center which can be summarized as follows:
■ Creates an identifiable downtown that is the social economic focus of the City
■ Strengthens the City as a whole ... growing employment and housing
■ Promotes housing opportunities close to employment
■ Supports area transit investments
■ Reduced dependency on automobiles
■ Consumes less land with urban development
■ Maximizes benefit of public investment
■ Provide central gathering places(s)
■ Improves quality of urban design
In addition, successful developers should have:
■ Experience in developing, financing, marketing and selling, and/or managing projects of
similar size, scope and nature;
■ Demonstrated ability to develop projects which are an asset and a"carrect fit" with the
community;
■ Experience in project management and compliance with budgets and schedules;
■ Capacity, experience, and willingness to enter into a public-private partnership; and
■ Sufficient financing capacity to complete the Project.
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 4
Federal Way City Center is in the midst of a transforrnation from a traditional suburban forin to a
vibrant urban center. Bound by So. 312r�' Sh�eet on the north, Interstate 5 on the east, So. 324rn
Street on the south, and the Pacific Highway corridor on the west -- and comprising 414 acres --
the area features 2.7 million sc�uare feet of existing retail space (much of it large fornlat), mare
than 650 hotel rooms, 225,000 square feet of office and 890 multifamily residential units. The
community hosts world-class cultural institutions, engaging open spaces, and close proximity to
regional educational and health care institutions.
W'hile City Center has seen continuing investment in retail and commercial projects, it has not
seen the same influx of new urban mixed-use developments containing a denser mix of
commercial uses and urban housing as other urbanizing suburban communities in the Pacific
I�Torthwest. Urban housing, lifestyle-oriented retail/service development and mixed-use
development are a core component of every successful downtown as they add vitality to the
streets, diversity to the skyline, and buying power to the economy. Even more importantly,
however, is that such uses would satisfy a well documented demand for urban, lifestyle-orientec�
living that is currently lacking in the Federal Way , �
,�
market. For these reasons, the Project represents a �r, �-`��t t ,, �_� �
unique opportunity to capture part of the Seattle- ;��� �.�� ��:. �,=�.; ��
, J':...a �
Tacoma region s burgeoning market for urban y� �' �� ,� `r; 1�
housin and commercial uses in a mixed-use lifest le- �� �_�-''' �i�.=_��"����' �'- -� ��� �
g , y � , � �, � � , �.
oriented format. �}" � ; ;�►' :,� � ..�_., ��.` � ` ���
� �
The most recent market analysis for the greater
Federal Way City Center trade area suggested the
following:
• Population and household growth consistent
with the metro area as a whole at;
• Median household estimates in a five-mile
radius of City Center were also found to be
higher than the same area around its two
� � a,
> �i� � : E �� � � r _�G 1
�� "�f i � �� i � ��� � ty � �-�
�-.._ _ "�'�_� �,,�F q� ; � t.' �� . a�a"
� ��' � ;:
� -...,�„""--„--...
�-�-�� P
,,..,ke 4 .� �, �• , <
r �. � +S � �s -:�:i;,,
Citi� C�eiit�°r (�hori�in; ll�c �ite {iighli�htt�d i�i red)
major retail competitors - Tacoma Mall and Southcenter Mall;
Based on supply and demand conditions across all major land uses, market conditions
support new construction, greater diversification of development types and the potential
for a vital urban center.
The City has a number of tools available to assist landowners, developers and investors
undertaking this and other development and redevelopment projects in the City Center. These
are d�scribed fater in this Request.
�"� ,.�a
Property
Location
�� ��,:
�
City Center Mixed-Use Development Site (°The Site")
The Site is located in the City Center of Federal Way,
Washington at the southeast corner of S 316th St and 20�h Av
S; approximately 10 miles from SeaTac International Airport;
and between downtown Seattle, located approximately 23
miles to the north, and downtown Tacoma, located
j approximately 12 miles to the south. The Site is
within the narthern half of City Center, the
community's central business district, in an
T established retail area with numerous restaurants,
� retail stores, lodging establishments, cinemas, and
seivice businesses.
The Site is located adjacent to the City's Transit
Center, featuring a 1200-space parking garage, bus
platform far Sound 'Transit, METRO and Pierce
Transit buses, and direct access via HOV lanes to
I-5 via S 317��� St. This Transit Center serves as the
transit hub for the greater Federal Way area and is
slated to be a future light-rail hub.
Site Condition
Access
Site Area
Scenic Attributes
�1/ithin walking distance are the Commons at Federal Way
Mall, Steel Lake Park, Celebration Park and a full range of
retail goods and services, including supermarkets.
The site is vacant. The majority of the Site is occupied by a
paved, surface parking lot.
Via lnterstate 5, S 320t St and north on 20��� Avenue South.
HOV access to�from I-5 available via S 317�h Street.
180,469 square feet (approx. 4.1 acres).
King County Assessor's Parcel Number: 0921049021
Views from the City of the
Olympic Mountain Range
��nd Puget Sound at 6+ stories
are available, with
unprecedented views of Mt.
Rainier from ground level.
Parking On-site parking will need to "
be accommodated in the
development program, most
likely in the forn� of structured parking (above and/or
below ground).
����
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Zoning and Allowed Land Use Currently zoned as City Center Care which allows for a full
mix of uses in low-, mid- and/or high-rise structures.
Height limit: as-of-right maximum height limit: 200 feet.
Through a discretionary process, including design review
and impact analysis: flexible maximum height limit.
Traffic Volumes
Interstate 5(over 175,000 ADT), Pacific Highway
(approximately 28,000 ADT), and So. 320� Street (between
35,000 and 70,000 ADT).
Infrastructure City sewer and water, natural gas, electric and telephone are
all available to the Site. Fiberoptic cable and Wi-Fi are
, available in the City Center.
Intended Land Use Mix of uses which demonstrate the highest and best use of
the Site; incorporating mid- and high-rise structures with
low-rise components, including retail, service, residential
(both rental and ownership), office, entertainment and
institutional uses, supported by a significant public open
space feature(s).
Additional Opportunities
In addition to the subject site, several nearby parcels are also
potentially available for redevelopment and/or partnership:
1. Transit Center West. Immediately to the east across 20rh
Avenue S from the subject site is a 20,669-square-foot
vacant parcel owned by the City of Federal Way and
available for transit-oriented development.
King County Assessor's Parcel Number: 0921049057.
2. Civic Center Site. Immediately to the north across S
316th Street from the subject site is a 172,040-square-foot
site recently purchased by the City of Federal Way and
identified as the future location of a Civic Center to
feature a planned Perfarming Arts/Conference Center.
The site is of sufficient size to allow for private
codevelopment (hotel, retail, restaurant, housing, etc.).
King County Assessor's Parcel Number: 0921049166.
3. Former Target Store Site. Immediately to the east of the
"Civic Center Site' is a 326,050-square-foot site
containing a vacant former Target Store. This site is
owned by Park Target Investments, LLC. Principal is
Mr. Bryan Park who has indicated an interest in
redevelopment alone and/or especially in association
with the proposed Civic Center development on the
adjacent parcel.
King County Assessor's Parcel Number: 092104-9017
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 7
The City is seeking to select a development
team who shares the enthusiasm and vision
for a vibrant downtown Federal Way as a
place to live, work, shop, and play. The
Project envisions a dense mix of uses,
featuring urban housing, commercial uses
and significant open spaces. A central
approach for the renaissance of City Center
consists of encouraging strategic investment
in a compact environment that contains an
appropriate mix of land uses, gives greater
emphasis to multiple forms of access, and
creates a unique sense of place.
'IC.��'�
.� "'�� �
r
, __ ,��
, -� ,
0 � � =�:E. �.�
�� � �� .�
. ;�;,; -� ',�
i,� �` (,� � �
- � ��� � �� �'�� �,� � ,
, -� �-�_ � � _ �11';
1 � __-, � � ',i � _.
� � - _._ �� � ��� i� ,
; ''.- �i 3 �� =_ ' �AI;
��� ':-- r � a J� �`.
� � �; , ___,�=-_ ��a i L.
, -_ i��� �i � , -' -;:;�
� �, � �,' 1 �; ��;
`� �a � �. � � �'
�
� �!_ .� � �
' �. ,> _,-..�,� � -
l'he Federal Way City Center will be highly , :� ;
�
in�banized, mixed-use urban center with a � � '� ��' ° r s--5
t �
concentration of housing units, commercial _ �' - II `''� � I -
� ;' s - � �,' . �
uses, jobs and puUlic spaces supporting �; .�- [�
public transportation, pedestrian activity and � ��� �� �' � _ � � ` Y ' -
a unique sense of place. Predominant land ��!� � '�' �'��� I ���� ��
uses will be residential, commercial and civic � ����� °°��� �' _
',��
uses. The Pro'ect should serve as a catal st _ ----
1 Y �'' `'_ "` w ""`! `.L�:1
within this urban center, designed to bring an
active and vital mix of uses to the area in a pedestrian-friendly, transit-supportive format.
Different land uses will be found side by side or within the same structures. The mix of uses will
be located in a development with minimal setbacks, reduced parking requirements, and taller
structures, all in an effort to achieve lzigher densities necessary to support the unique "sense of
place. It will serve as a catalyst for public and private investment and economic activity,
effectively building off the strengths of the surrounding area and connecting to the adjacent
neighborhoods.
� Y
'::�If�:t� �.��?I"li�Otl�t1�:> � ��ifi� �„; i:�,qC)I1
The desired components of this catalyst Project include the following:
■ Highest and Uest use of the site
■ Mid- to high-rise buildings as well as low-rise components, achieving the sense of an
"organic" village of structures, not a single "project."
■ Mix of uses -- residential (both lease / own), office, retail, service, entertainment, or
institutional, etc.
■ A significant public open space in a"town square" format that is seamlessly integrated with
surrounding development for activation, programming, passive vigilance, etc., and including
both greenscape and hardscape components, as well as art work and/or artistic expression.
Please refer to Exhibit 6 for Park/Open Space Design Guidelines.
�' , �
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
■ Superior urban design, site planning and building design
■ Adherence to the Development Goals and Principles enunciated below.
Development Goals and Principtes
As a development catalyst in a significant location in the Federal Way City Center, the Project
should embody the best of Smart Growth principles and should be an urban design showcase.
The final development plan to be prepared by the selected developer should incorporate these
goals and principles as a fundamental part of the plan:
Goals:
■ Address underserved market niche
■ Support stabilization and diversification
■ Provide direction for targeting and leveraging public investment
■ Advance a market-tested stakeholder vision over the near- and long-term (as expressed
herein)
■ Advance a physically and economically sustainable plan
Principles:
■ Smart Growth Principles, as defined by the American Planning Association (APA),1998,
including:
■ Efficient use of land resources;
■ Full use of urban services;
■ Mix of uses;
■ Transportation options; and
■ Detailed, human-scale design.
■ "Greeri' or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) development principles
to the extent feasible (LEED rating not required)
• Provide maximum opportunities for viable mixed-use commercial development.
■ Contribute to the creation of a unique sense of place in the Federal Way City Center.
■ Provide a variety of urban housing opportunities.
■ Provide interesting and active fa�ades at the street level.
■ Respect and interact with surrounding property values and land uses.
I ncentives
The City recognizes the physical and financial challenges that can accompany infill
redevelopment, especially when compared with development of vacant "greenfield" sites.
Consequently, the City intends to consider measures that may help to level the investment and
regulatory playing fields. The City further recognizes that no single measure will address this
objective, but rather that a series of ineasures, designed to capitalize on market opportunities and
overcome barriers, may be appropriate.
The City has identified the following potential partnership incentives and is willing to discuss
their possible application to an appropriate redevelopment project:
City Center Mixed-Use Development page 9
■ Public funds may be made available to help finance public components, such as public opeil
space, infrastructure, and public parking. The City's Local Infrastructure Financing Tool
(LIFT) award by the State may be available to provide contributory funding for these
purposes.
■ Up to 12-year limited property tax exempHon may be available for residential development
and certain mixed-use deve(opment components;
■ Possibility of financing through the EB-5 Foreign Investment Visa Program as the Federal
Way City Center is a USCIS-designated "regional center" for the purposes of foreign
investment;
■ City Center environmental impact statement and resulting Planned Action Ordinance that
substantially lessens the SEPA environmental review Uurden for individual developers
within the City Center Planned Action Area (that includes the Site).
■ City Center zoning that allows for higher-density uses and from low-rise to high-rise
construction;
■ Building Code provisions that allow 5-story wood-frame-over-concrete construction;
■ Provision of a lead staff contact for the Project to facilitate and expedite permit approvals
among various City departments, consistent with the development goals identified in the
RFQ;
• Citizen outreach and assistance with public meetings;
■ Other incentives as negotiated.
IncenNves potentially available from the City are not intended to rep(ace other project financing
from private sources. Rather, they are intended to be flexible resources that can potentially
bridge funding gaps which may be created by the sometimes more difficult nature of such
preprogrammed, infill developments. �
Once City-identified criteria are satisfactorily addressed, staff will work with the developer or
development team to further analyze specific details about the project's financial pro forma and
other factors, as warranted. Any potential financial assistance to the project will be determined
based upon the nature and extent of the "gap" Uetween the total project costs, the amount of
public components, and the amount of private investment available to cover those costs,
assuming a market-average rate of return on the private investment. Based upon this
information, City staff will then recommend the extent of the City's potential financial
participation in the project. Moreover, the level of any potential City financial participation will
be dependent, in part, on the fiscal impact of the project to the community ancl expected private
investment leverage resulting from its participation. The ultimate goal will be to make the
project economically self-supporting as quickly as possible.
.. . ��... �
��
� �
� �6 ' .'
i
_ a� �.�
, �,� �,,}°�,°. � ����" �
p � � �.���� �,�� ,, `�_
a�� *,{ }�
� , � *,
a �' �,��m _ �� �'�� !J;� • �II
.}� � ,��
��
. ��
Please feel free to contact Federal Way's Community and
Economic Development Department via phone, in person or
through their website for detailed inforn�ation about
development regulations and the permitting process.
`1'he Community and Economic Development Department
website may be found at
http:� � www.cityoffeder�lway.coin� Page.aspx?page=308.
6�'�
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Selection Process
Process
An evaluation committee of stakeholders from the community and City staff will review the
developer submittals. Additionally, the City's Community and Economic Development Director
will contact references and brief committee members on those findings. Also, if needed, the
committee will ask for and review supplemental written responses.
The evaluation committee will evaluate each RFQ respondent's strength vis-a-vis the evaluation
criteria and will determine a composite ranking of the respondents. Based upon the composite
rankings, the Federal Way City Council will select approximately three (3) of the RFQ
respondents to be invited to respond to a more detailed Request for Proposal.
Evaluation Criteria
Submittals will be evaluated based on the following criteria, listed here in order of importance:
1. Qualifications of Firm and Relevant Experience/Projects: The City seeks a development team
with demonstrated experience in mid- to large-scale commercial, residential and/or mixed-
use projects, as well as with the financial capacity to develop such projects.
2. Relevant Public/Private Partnership Experience: Since the Project may include a public-
private partnership, any relevant prior experience in similar partnerships should be noted.
3. Development concept. Each development team should present an illustrative development
concept far the Site. If selected to respond to the RFP, the development team will have
latitude to develop said concept broadly in preparation of a schematic proposal that is
financially viable.
4. References: The City will contact references to evaluate past performance and working
relaiionships.
Development teams are cautioned not to undertake any activities ar actions to promote or
advertise their submittal, other than discussions with the City staff as described in this RFQ.
After the release of this RFQ, developers and their representatives are not permitted to make any
direct ar indirect contact with members of the Evaluation Committee, Federal Way City Council,
other Federal Way boards or commissions, or media on the subject of this RFQ, except in the
course of City evaluation committee-sponsored presentations. Violation of these rules is grounds
for disqualification of the development proposal and team.
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 11
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
City Discretion and Authority (Terms and Conditions)
a. The City may accept such responses as it deems to be in the public interest and
furtherance of the purposes of the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan, or it may
proceed with additional selection processes.
b. The City reserves the right to reject any and all RFQ respondents at any time, to waive
minor irregularities and to terminate any negotiations implied in this RFQ or initiated
subsequent to it.
c. The City reserves the right to request clarification of infarmaHon submitted, and to
request additional information from any respondent.
d. The City reserves the right to revise this RFQ and the RFQ evaluation process. Such
revisions will be announced in writing to all RFQ respondents.
e. City reserves the right to award a right to submit a RFP response to the next most
qualified development team if a development team selected from the RFQ process does
not submit an RFP response within the deadline stated by the City for RFP submittals.
f. The issuance of the RFQ and the receipt and evaluation of submissions do not obligate
the City to select a developer and/or enter into or complete the RFP process.
g. The City will not be responsible for costs incurred in responding to this RFQ.
h. The City may cancel this process or the subsequent RFP process at any time prior to the
selection of any respondent without liability.
i. RFP's or contracts resulting from acceptance of a SOQ by the City sliall be in a form
supplied or approved by the City, and shall reflect the specifications in this RFQ. The ,
City reserves the right to reject any proposed agreement or contract that does not
conform to the specifications contained in this RFQ, and which is not approved by the
City Attorney's office.
Submittal Requirements
Submittal Document
The following information, to be delivered in a sealed packet marked "City Center RFQ," must be
included in the submittal response:
1. A letter of introduction signed by the principal(s) of respondent firm(s).
2. Statement of Understanding: Discuss the significance of the Site and
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 12
Project, the team's willingness to negotiate a potential private-puUlic partnership with the
City; respondent's view of the responsibility of the potential public-private partnership; and,
an understanding of the role of a major commercial or mixed-use project for a healthy
downtown.
Project Concept: The respondent shall provide and illustrate a project concept(s) for the site.
In no way is this presentation of project concept binding on eventual proposal submittals. It
is it�tended to demonstrate the respondent's initial concepts and/or programmatic response
to the Site's development opportunities and the City's redevelopment vision.
3. 'Team information:
• Name, addresses, and phone numbers of firm(s) responding (include contact information
for each teanl member if the acquisition and development team includes other firms);
• Division of tasks among team members; location of
principal offices of the �developer and each member firm of
the consultant team;
• Description of farm of organization (carporation,
parMership, etc);
• Statement of years the firm has been in business under
current name and a list of other names under which the
firm has operated.
-�. Resumes of firm(s) principals and officers and consultant
principals to be involved.
`�' , 'r' f , ` ''ry4. , +`'�,'�
•A -JKa �� � �.,
Yi; w -" �� '� .
\
�!� i �7.. _� `�
5. Description of relevant experience of the development team. Descriptions or resunles should
address individual experience and qualifications.
6. Project Examples: List and briefly describe relevant, successfully conlpleted, commercial,
residential or mixed-use projects that demonstrate quality of design, attention to detail,
integration into existing community fabric, and public-private partnering, if applicable.
Please share your most recent, most relevant projects. Project examples may be from
individual experience of the team principals or from firm projects. At a minimum, include
examples of projects from the development and design teams.
7. References: For each firm, submit a rnininu�rn of three (3) references from public agencies,
private companies, or individuals with whom respondent has had relevant experience.
[nclude contact names, addresses and telephone numUers.
Submissions to this RFQ shall be in the order specified above.
Qualifications must be submitted by no later than 3:00 p.m. PDT on June 6, 2011 It is the sole
respotlsiUility solely of the respondent to see that its qualifications are received by the date and
time stated in this RFQ. Respondents are asked to submit twelve (12) copies. No oral submittals
will be considered. Materials in response to the RFQ may not be submitted via facsimile or e-
maiL Materials nn�st be received by the date and time specified in this RFQ.
�
<�
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Submit all materials to:
Name: Patrick Doherty
Title: Community and Economic Development Director
Agency: City of Federal Way, Washington
Address: 33325 8� Av South, Federal Way, WA 98003
Contact
Inquiries regarding all aspects of this RFQ should be directed to:
Patrick Doherty, Community and Economic Development Director
City of Federal Way, Washington
33325 8�h Av South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Phone: 253.835.2612
Fax: 253.835.2409
Email: patrick.dohertyQcityoffederalway.com
Pre-Submittal Meeting
A pre-submittal meeting may be called by the City, depending on the numbers of inquiries
and/or requests for information prior to the RFQ submittal deadline. If called, all parties known
to have inquired about the RFQ will be invited, and a notice will be placed on the City's website.
Questions
Questions regarding the Project or this RFQ process must be directed in writing (e-mail, fax, or
mail) to the above con tact. The City will respond to all questions in writing. All substantive
questions and corresponding answers will be posted on the City's website at
cityoffederalway.com/bids at the "City Center Redevelopment RFQ" link. The deadline for
submitting questions to the City shall be May 25, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., PDT.
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 14
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Tentative Sched u le
The selection process to be carried out as part of this Request for Qualifications (RFQ), includes
the following steps:
Publication in Federal Way Mirror, Daily Journal of
Commerce, Puget Sound Business Journal, and
Wall Street Journal, as well as
distribution of RFQ to developers: April 25-29, 2011
Last day to submit questions to the City in writing:
RFQ response Deadline:
Review period:
Notification to highest-ranked teams .
RFP Issued
RFP responses due
Review and Selection
May 25, 2011, 5:00 p.m. PDT
June 6, 2011, 3:00 p.m. PDT
June 7-21, 2071
June 22, 2011
Late June 2011
Mid-August 2071
September-October 2017
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 15
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Appendices
The following exhibits are appendices to this RFQ, containing background information
describing the Project and relevant documentation. They are available as a PDF via the city's
website at city offederalway.com/bids at the °City Center Redevelopment RFQ" link.
Exhibit 1 Map of Federal Way City Center
Exhibit 2 Map of Site
Exhibit 3 Site Aerial
Exhibit 4 Preview of RFP Requirements
Exhibit 5 Criteria for Public-Private ParMerships
Exhibit 6 Park/Public Open Space Design Guidelines
Exhibit 7 Formal Legal Notice/Advertisement
Title Report - Available upon request
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 16
'�
�T 5 31YTN ST 5 312TH ST � S J17TH 5T S 312TM 5T ~ 3
Y � 5 712Tl1 ST � 5 312TN 5T
� . � H Mart �� ' ,., . .w�m.n
� . ul Walmart i,q.R ,.'• p� �n �
s��arnsr Y �..,. ~�w. �
..�.a � ;M; F K; SteelLake
. - � r "°"` Pavlllions a Park
Centre � Hillside '
s,�„�s, . m«w. a °�.,,,: ����.W
, . wuna a scmw Plaza � ..
eei�a ws�rin
. ae�iroxrauo� � ! ,
pf
2 R � — Tap - ..
k ' Foods vx.K vxanr . .._ ... �.� _.,
.�isrwsi nsmn ror.rw., Tal9et > .. . ,
�. Joann, Etc . . am K° R �" Siore & 'w.�e'��..., , . .
� Harry 5. Truman
. . �- - s��cir�sr � 5)16TNST j S]16TNST � ��� .•. T, ��� Hlf�h SCh001 S
� �' Pvk Larro . � � � '�
u S�+�iXBi g� liem5�reet � E.saxive .'�` .. :
P�.:. AMC �.�..,
. . e.«Nd F�a�a wa . ..r - .
.., � . .�„��.. �^ Q ��on Theater *�y��.���, '4, ", u.,: �„� s,,,.�..
.�.�
H�;'�� Site ��i HovExa
^ Clue [Inema (S 31 i th ST;�
F .
Y mp� y y � g PalAO dnback Marlane'e y
N WOfltl S��k paeca
w�-- e.�w�e oe�ce } Center Pa �� o "°°°° Gateway Ninkos +� �
:m n�. Ma " = SeaTac �aZa World Center ti
��� FeGe�al Way r � Village Plaza w.�a„ ' Y. �
Szmn � s�nooi o++v��i c, �� LL .., ania co�ny.,a �
blra�l TfarlsDOnatlonCenler Q Gen.% Itnaes ReE .�. �k 9�Na�iion .
�mrrr � ' �� .nco a y�� e.,. � W ��` o.�m': c u a
�•� � ANCO � 'n �DOivltls • �n ua
S 320TH ST ; � S 320TH ST = S 320TH ST ;� S 320TH ST r+ f S 320TH ST f� �
<
«.,,.. ;r,'..,, a.,.. » .
:ts�v�e �•.•••��•, x... Q �m.n� y Y.a� IF'Gwn's TGI Porwa a
_ � � �FUVn �r�ua r�wa. v.�:oo ma > to ..,�
'. 4 RM.ae Y Suu<I owa pu�.ry M^°n Q 5y�re ev,� : Fshra�
w � vx cn�nn � Wry Ext "43
.. F. .cm PvtYCi�1' _ � Gneew� R Gnler
Sa(eway V
J 'eb '°- � � B Celebration "
� M Drupo Loh V UoWnu
�^� " Center Q eomer•s �,,,
. a Sears
...,, naae�
or•M Rots Joas
° ^ v� Cinemas 7arget
a�v.or� Pocw.n (SUmmer� �:¢
� ��Y�S � FeEaral Way/
iMP1 . "' S]2U�SIree1
H. _ - �� The Commons at Federal Way � '" �arM 6 RIOe
� � � �9�IVti.mpsp�e�r
"�,: . 5]Z�In ST � 5 J2RM ST 3.1=�iN Si y�
� m �� z1 �
ll �
.�, 9 `s - e' s��ks ,.
� �
AMC Theater Site & Legend ` CITYOF
\ Scale:
City Center Core N 0 250 500 Feet � Federal ay
F ederal Way C ity Center City Cente� Frame I � � This map is accompanied by no warranties.
�
�
�
O
H1
T
�
Q
�
�
�
�
✓ �
\
�
�D
�
r*
�
�
. j
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Devetopment
Exhibit 2:
Map of Site
(NOTE: Former cinema building now demolished)
_ � ' 20TH A NUE S. �t
--� � — �---- — . —
r N01'20'22'E 430.97'
t
. �� � .
� ��
, �
� �
,
„
„
„
�,
,
��
' i w
L _��
1�
I'" C
L� 1
� I
I
1
1
i �
1
I ►
ig
t � I
, �
,� � �
,�
��
„
„
„
„
„
,�
„
„
��
i�
i �
i � �
�
� 1 I
� �
� � 7
.;�J
� � �
� � �
e '
�
� i�
V J
� '' 1 � �� ��
�
� F
� J � 1 , � �.�. ���T I � �
�� �
�' i
,,
;�o ❑ 0 �
,
� � wc e wr►r�s
� - �___. _.� _.____. �
� I, � ��
! � tri
❑ �
� �7 O p ,
1 � J �
1 �
� � �
� � i E705L A9MIAlT
� � i
! �
1 �
. � � ❑,1
'� 0 D ❑
� ,
��
, � ti a�sr.
�� � aa�aEr�
�' ''�
' '� _
I � � 1 � - -��
� � � � LOT �`1 �PARCEL C)
oasr. �Kr
;�; � ° � o ❑ ' ❑ o a ❑ a
,,
,,
,, �
, , --� ---�---I.__-._._..;
_�__. -------�_.�_ ____.__
, , � --� --------..�
, , � +� ce . w �
��
� � ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ �.; ' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
� � ! aj �
f
�1
pOSf. A9PHIILi �v'
� EI .T'�i . ASPFY�LT S
`� srn�'oo•w �eats'
__.__
� — ----
� 2i ST AV�NUE S, a .
1 `�� ',
�
� R•3s.ao
i L�56.20
�9021'4T
i
I
�
1
�
�
�
{/�
�
W
� � �
� �
� �
�
�
�
�;
i
i
I
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 18
Aerial Photo of Site and Area
'�, � �„_-
� 6 � _
�� k �
� ��.
� ♦ - _ �L�. e. y � ..�.
r 1lrt� {. y;rti Z j 1� �" � � �,.
�� � �
� t � � � _ �..
t � � ' a� � ,�y' �,�, �� "�fC_
• � .
e �. .,� . ... ' +MK- "J'r� . � , . � i _, -
'� � ,
- , i 4 j• � _ t-' _i�.� _
i �J —
�' ' � � ����•� � �' • pu '�'�� `.�' M R
:3 � ' _ � � P tl� :.� R
7 � �' �
/�f � ` _ �
y ' ' � 4 . ,y. � ��
S �� ' _ � �� _.r�° . �. y .I��� .
. �. �
: ./!�
� �--� � •� • �,,, �
� ..
�� �.� � . , .. • °
..— .� 4 .
. ,� � ,
,.
. ,r� � �1"_` '' �E'.�IX�_ . .
'� .:� � �, �°° � �+ _ .
� ,�._• � :
�
� -elt� _ �+ �,�_ � � _= '� .,
.,, �
,
� �
" A r $ ;�-- �. . '� ' r ,.
. . ... .
�.�...,.....e.a�. _ ��� � �..�-�,
_
.... . , , q e '�r"E`. Y 1 ^" ` - '
. � .,
�� '
. , � � t � ��� _ .
' . . 1 t " ��� `.._.- .,:�, _ . .'.. . 2 � t � e K .� � .
. � .
� ,. � , �. ��� .
� � _
.
1 • •
� 7�i ��; _ 4�_ .t? _' .. � . , � � � .� �( �� .
,
{} �
� g Y "i4� �p�r '>.' - � .. - � � C�. . ��' �p.. .�` � . .
. . P ' �,.��r�� � � �.
.. ,!:
.
k� �� ��� �� . . � - • R � � �
�� .� y ( i
w
�
� � +a� V t e � .,+ . - � ^iC' L' . - .. � � �
+� :
.t .
•
�� -�- [ - 1 �
.. . .� .. � ' . _ _
� • ' _��
� , :: � - �,�il � . �,.� g � �, ,
i *,'�� �,,� ,. ,�, '�' ► . , ,. ^�." �
py . .
�'� � � _ :e^' �> 9G- i., g? � ,. �
.
y �, � � � '�
,7l �p,H'3'�) .: �i'C/ � . .` '' 7 ' ,� '� .a�.i . . �.�- �� ..� .. ' �yt"�'
- ► _� � � y°�' ;, i +Ra �^' '� � � ti� I M
;: �, : — . , � � , • � .
. , '� � �„,.,�' t. � " w" -���.: xM .„�, „�.� -- .�� •
� " ,� ` ��: � � ��; � . s '� ; b:�i' .+
�� �•�� ��� u: ��� �� �
,
M �.
�.
.�.: � � � �. � ' ` �- ��±� ! -,
. : �#* ;�, �$ P+. �. � . ��_ '^'^"�. � , Y
' ' , ', �' e - '
.�
. . .
: r . ,
.
` " 1�. � " -+ m• - a "" . �. . . � � } . J
�r; r - � �' � � � �� ...� � '', . . ,�„ � - � y � � 5 �, .
� �' '. �� �� i° '" �i �� - � tl�� � � F- � .... 'v �� �� . � 4�
� ��� ...�; r .. ; z ? '3. � �� � , .
e ¢ .� . � '� s. � �� � ,Li : ' "�,"^ N � i x �'�'�# �,
i .�� � p � ` �' �-.�-" ., �.: `• i � . � � �� � ,�n .a. � � � e • � �r ,,� .
� �,{-- �.. � �: :�? �,{
+. �:#��T�
� , . �
�� � , �,. ' +� ar i
Y�.l _ ... '� . . �
. _ ..` .�. r , �
,,�.. - - -
� �
� �r-�► �-r_:�--�� _".` _ _
,w�
� � ^� � � � •-'��
.,.. , ......... .
.. , - �^��{4{y
., .
�`�
�-�.
"".� �' � I +JI:" J ..� � ..;:(R . J ., � a.�� .�..�.�,.�-.;�.C�L9.".�W CA�. � .. �
. � _
� . " � ... e .,,�„.,.t .
� . ,35\ \. . ��...., ..y. .
� ' "'�����`," ria `� � � � a. � s� � � ° �! � 1 �
z` a •� �" f � q , ,�°sY �7 1 °`'�v e. _ ` 1�'�� `!�� "tit +'„'�' - ° r � °�' �»4r
� �: «.
� �� ♦�. !� �� ' . t 1; y . �,. � ��� ^; "; ,
.. � . . �: ♦ ?i.r_.3 -�' ^ �� j � _ � � (::}�.'(� _ _ r . .� .� � ;i
,,, ,�. � i �'"'' � � � a'
� �'t�'�* y� � ;��, � s s�,y' ' • . ; � .,.IM',�b.q. - _ �,t'� .. '' �, A
; •q+p� ,,'": 'i a >' 1� r� � s+ � � � Y !x ' , , �, �
a � M + '@'1y' � P p G� " �� v � �� �� - s �l�t'1 �'�^Y',��.<<�,F
tstiY"' ..k'?.%���' '!f�?�., ��. � .. , . . `.�.... '6�. ��i,7.�t..
+7
�i�
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Exhibit 4:
Preview of RFP Requirements
The following is a brief synopsis of the key substantive components expected to figure in the
subsequent RFP. The description of the process and statement of components are subject to
further terms and conditions.
Within fifteen (15) days of selection as an RFP finalist, the developer or development team must
submit to the City a written statement of intent to submit a complete RFP response, pursuant to
the following requirements:
Within forty-five (45) days (or whatever other timeline expressly set out by the City of Federal
Way) of selection as an RFP finalist, the developer or development team will be required to
submit:
■ Detailed financial and development cost information relating to the proposed development
concept, including preliminary pro forma financial analysis;
■ Preliminary development timeline, including any expected development phasing;
■ Proposed public participation in the project, if any, or other significant "deal points."
■ A project site plan, exterior elevations, dimension of site and building (s) and dimensions of
property liens, and project sections;
■ Discussion of proposed program for major building material, finishes and colors;
■ A landscaping plan and designation of public and semi-public areas; and
■ Vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns, including parking layouts.
Proposals from invited respondents will be reviewed by City Council, with City staff assistance.
It is anticipated that respondents will make a public presentation of their proposals and be
available for in-person interviews.
The selected developer or development team will negotiate with the City to reach mutually
agreeable terms for acquisition and development of the Site. It is envisioned that these terms will
first be outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and then finalized in a Purchase
and Sale Agreement with Development Covenants (Agreement).
After final selection, the selected developer or development organization will be required to
provide detailed financial statements and agree to a criminal background check. Control of
sensitive financial documents will be reviewed by an independent agent (i.e., CPA) under
attorney client privilege and will not be made public. Further, the selected developer must agree
to an "open book" process in which the City can review on-going financials and assure that there
is no inappropriate windfall profit arising from public property.
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 20
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Exhibit 5:
City Council-Adopted
Criteria for Public-Private Partnerships in City Center
Preference for public participation will be given to projects that rate highly with regard to the
following guidelines and/ or objectives:
The proposed development is comprised of (or contains) a mix of uses in a variety of
building sizes and heights, and/or offers a"village' or "lifestyle center' site and building
design, with such elements as street-oriented storefronts, outdoor eating and dining, and
outdoor public amenities, such as artwork, fountains, plazas and seating. Projects with the
greatest mix of uses (retail/service, residential, lodging and office) will be given priority.
Phasing may be allowed to accomplish the full mix of uses contemplated in a development
concept.
■ The proposed development is transit-oriented in design and concept, where feasible,
especially when in proximity to the Transit Center;
■ The proposed development is of superior site and building design, including use of high-
quality materials. Parking facilities (both surface lots and structures) are aesthetically
pleasing and integrated into the design of the overall project. Parking structures include
street-level uses and/or are preferably be wrapped by other uses, where possible, to reduce
their apparent bulk and mass.
■ The proposed development is located within the City Center and is of sufficient scale and
scope to have a substantial impact on the image and desirability of the City Center and
suggests a high probability of inducing additional, spin-off development;
■ The proponent can provide a solid track record with similar private development (previous
experience in public-private partnerships desirable);
■ The project is projected to provide additional jobs at a variety of levels. Projects with family-
wage and higher-paying jobs will rate more highly against this guideline.
■ The proponent provides an economic impact analysis. A detailed analysis and estimate of
the project's direct economic impact in increased property, utility, and sales taxes, as well as
an analysis and estimate of indirect economic impacts by multiplier effects throughout the
local economy;
■ When selected for partnership consideration, the proponent provides a financial "gap"
analysis, including development costs, projected revenue, disclosure of developer's desired
capitalization rate, internal rate of return (based on other portfolio projects), etc., in order to
determine the necessary level of public participation.
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 21
',';; i t _,
Park/Public Open Space Design Guidelines
E 1: Park Design: Create u lown syuare park that
include.s open space, hc�rd surfaces and green space,
und provide.s a civic and catltz�ral czsset for both the
r�e�i;hl���r�hoocf uncl the Fc�clercrl G�"ctv ('i�y� ('ertic�r.
��
.
Program: Ceeate an �� �� ` ,�,
urban park intended for • `_ - �� "
general open space
.'y. �
uses including Frisbee "w ' -
T T --y ��
throwin�„ do� walk�ng. � � �.
people watching, � , �
meeting neighbors, � �
strolling, kids playing, benches for sitting,
cafe sitting areas, observation of a water
feature and small concerts and other civic
activities.
• Yrovide a cultural
and civic venue, such
as an outdoor
performance stage
that allows
upp��� ��n�iti�� [or pliblic assembly, concerts
and other stage performances. Include publi��
art and/or artistic treatments.
In addition to hardscape areas, landscaping areas nlay include
planting beds, raised and mounded earth features, natural
rock formations, water features, trellised arbors, feature
landscape areas including drought-tolerant planting, open
lawn area for passive recreation and a variety of drought-
tolerant tree species
and sizes throughout.
.
�
.� --�
�� � �
. P,�, ; � �
�� �s ° ;
a�� �,� .
( � `.X �, y�, ��
The park should also �
e:.:
enhance and soften the ��
adjacent buildings, � �a������
entrances and retail uses.
In turn, those users will ��-� a
help keep the park active �"'���'�,. ��,
�
and safe with "eyes on ,� ���i"�' `�� °'� �
��}+�;, .l ((� �(( [n
d �R' i!i ; I[
the park" from outdoor cafe tables, the retail storefronts and from terraces and
living units above.
..--- ._'� 1 A'� il� ;,;� ��,; �� '�� • [n order to achieve its desired objective of a public
�" �� °° � - park, public access to the park must be
_ __ n� �!� � � ■ �I � � �:�� r .
....
���� '�:., �;�.�. �- � maximized. Access points must be as numerous
� ;`� -� � �'` �,�,� �� :,,� ., � � as possible, large, inviting, easily traversed from
. }� •-
�,t �� �'����r� F, the public right-of-way, and well signcd
� '�
� �
:1
�
�
�
��
RFQ: Federal Way City Center Mixed-Use Development
Exhibit 7:
Formal Legal Notice/Advertisement
� City Center Mixed-Use Development page 24
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011 ITEM #:��_
---...._...._._..._........_ ......................................_.........................................._...................................................................................._..._..........................................._......................................................................................................................._............................................__..........__..__....._..._............_............_.._....._.................
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: FEDERAL WAY FARMERS MARKET LEASE OF AMC THEATER SITE FOR THE 2011 MARKET
SEASON.
POLICY QUESTION: SHOULD CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO AND EXECUTE A
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL WAY FARMERS MARKET FOR THE AMC THEATER SITE TO HOLD A
MARKET ON SATURDAYS DURING THE 2011 MARKET SEASON?
COMMITTEE N/A
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
� City Council Business
� �
Ordinance
Resolution
MEETING DATE:
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Pat Richardson, City Attorney _ DEPT: Law
_ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... _....._.................................._................................................................_............................._.._............._....__......_...................._......._......_........__........._
Attachments:
Lease Agreement
Options Considered:
1)
2)
3)
Approve the lease agreement for the AMC Theater site with Federal Way Farmers Market
for the 2011 Market Season with a total compensation of $5,000;
Modify the lease agreement as directed by City Council; or
Deny the lease agreement with Federal Way Farmers Market for the 2011 Market Season.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1
MAYOR APPROVAL:
Committee
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION N/A
Council
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
__1�
Committee Council
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MO.TION "I move approval of the Lease Agreement for the 2011 Market Season, with a
total compensation of $5, 000. 00 (Five Thousand Dollars), and authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED IsT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED— 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
AMC THEATER VACANT LAND
LEASE AGREEMENT
This Lease Agreement ("Agreement") is dated effective this day of
, 2011. The parties ("Parties") to this Agreement are the City of Federal
Way, a Washington municipal corporation, ("City") and the FEDERAL WAY
FARMERS MARKET, a Washington nonprofit corporation ("Farmers Market").
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Premises.
The City, as fee owner of certain real property described in Exhibit "A", does
hereby agree to lease to the Farmers Market and the Farmers Market does hereby agree to
lease from the City, the Premises described in E�ibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, constituting a vacant lot in Federal Way, WA
98003, commonly known as the former AMC Theater site. The Farmers Market agrees
to use the Premises for the purpose of an open air Saturday Fanners Market open to the
public.
2. Term.
This Agreement shall be for the 2011 Farmers Market season, six (6) months,
commencing on April 30, 201 l, and ending October 29, 2011.
The Farmers Market has the option to request the use of the site for the 2012
season. The City has the sole discretion of whether to extend the use of the site and has
the sole discretion to retract said extension.
3. Termination.
Prior to the expiration of the Term, this Agreement may be terminated upon thirty
(30) days written notice by either party.
4. Rent.
During the Term of the Agreement, the Farmers Market shall pay to the City as
rent far the use of the Premises FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000.00), in two equal
installments. The first installment of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($2,500.00) shall be due on or before May 1, 2011. The second installment of TWO
THOUSAND FIVE HLTNDRED DOLLARS ($2,500.00) shall be due on or before
August 1, 2011.
5. Possession.
Beginning on April 30, 2011, the Fanners Market shall be entitled to possession
of the Premises on Saturdays from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Use of the Premises during this
time frame shall be exclusive to the Farmers Market and shall not be shared by others.
Farmers Market may submit a written requests for additional use of the site as a
Farmers Market open to the public. The City retains sole discretion whether to grant
additional use.
6. Citv's Resnonsibilities.
1. Preparation of the site;
2. Replace barriers for the two driveways on 20 with bollards,
chains and locks to prohibit access when Farmers Market is not
using the site;
3. Fence/secure the area that is not paved (i.e. location of demolished
theater) to prohibit access;
4. Secure the railings and steps if necessary at the south end of the
property;
5. Pay only for PSE electricity bills used by Farmers Market; and
6. Allow the Farmers Market to store containers at the site. The
security of any property left on the site is the sole responsibility of
the Farmers Market. .
7. Farmers Market Responsibilities.
1. Maintain premises in a condition and state of repair as good as the
same shall be on the date of the Farmers Market's possession of
the Premises pursuant to section 6 above;
Z. Provide its own cleaning and custodial services, including waste
disposal, at its expense;
3. Apply for temporary business license;
4. Comply with all conditions of temporary business license, which
may include conditions by the Department of Health;
5. Bear the entire hook-up costs to bring electricity to the site or the
costs for generators;
6. Provide and mark three (3) disabled parking stalls;
7. Pay for all utilities except electricity which may include but not
limited to water, garbage, and recycling;
8. Secure the driveways with the locks/chains provided by the City at
the close of activity each and every Saturday.
8. Taxes.
Farmers Market is responsible for all applicable t�es except that the City
and Farmers Market agree that the leasehold excise tax is included in the rental amount
set forth in Section 4.
9. Indemnitv/Insurance.
(a) The City shall not be liable for any injury to any person, or for any loss of
or damage to any property (including property of the Farmers Market), occurring in or
about the Premises from any cause whatsoever. The Farmers Market shall hold and save
the City harmless from any and all losses, damages, liabilities, or expenses (including
attorneys' fees and other expenses of litigation) resulting from any actual or alleged
injury to any person, and/or from any actual or alleged loss of or damage to any property,
occurring in or about the Premises from any cause whatsoever.
(b) The Farmers Market shall, at its own expense, maintain proper liability
insurance with a reputable insurance company or companies in the minimum amount of
One Million and No/100 Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per incident and in the minimum
amount of Two Million and No/100 Dollars ($2,000,000.00) annual aggregate to
indemnify both the City and the Farmers Market against any such claims, demands,
losses, damages, liabilities, or expenses. The City shall be named as additional insured
and shall be furnished with a copy of the certificate of insurance, which shall bear an
endorsement that the same shall not be canceled except upon 30 days prior written notice
to the City.
(c) The Farmers Market agrees that it will not do nor permit to be done in or
about the Premises any act or thing which will invalidate any insurance thereon.
10. Assignment or Sublease.
The Farmers Market agrees that it will not assign this Agreement, permit, or
suffer any assignment hereof by operation of law, or sublet the Premises or any portion
thereof, without the prior written consent of the City. This section does not apply to the
vendors that may rent space for the market.
11. Si�ns•
No signs shall be placed on the Premises without the prior written approval of the
City.
12. Insnection.
The City shall have the right to inspect the Premises at all reasonable times and
the right to enter the same whenever it is reasonably necessary for the exercise of any
right or privilege of the City under this Agreement.
13. Attornev Fees.
In the event either of the Parties defaults on the performance of any terms of this
Agreement or either Party places the enforcement of this Agreement in the hands of an
attorney, or files a lawsuit, each Party shall pay all its own attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses. The venue for any dispute related to this Agreement shall be King County,
Washington.
14. Notices.
All notices herein provided or permitted to be given by either the City or the
Farmers Market to the other may be given by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope
properly addressed to the other and depositing the same, registered with postage prepaid
thereon, in the United States Post Office, and service shall be deemed complete at the
time of such deposit. For the purpose of this section, the address of the Farmers Market
shall be P.O. Box 24795, Federal Way, Washington 98093, and the address of the City
shall be 33325 8�' Ave. S., Federal Way, WA 98003, subject to the right of either party to
designate by notice in writing to the other a new address to which said notice shall be
sent.
15. Signature Authoritv.
It is hereby acknowledged that the Farmers Market's signatory of this Agreement
has the authority to so sign and bind the Farmers Market in its entirety.
16. General Provisions.
This Agreement contains all of the Agreements between the City and the Farmers
Market with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement. No provision
of this Agreement, including this provision, may be amended or modified except by
written agreement signed by the Parties.
17. Headings.
The headings herein contained are inserted only as a matter of convenience and
for reference and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope of intent of this
Agreement or in any way affect the terms and provisions hereof.
18. Severabilitv.
If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid for any reason whatsoever, such
invalidity shall not affect any other provision which can be given effect without the
invalid provision, and to that end, provisions of this Agreement are declared to be
severable.
DATED the day and year set forth above.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
:
Skip Priest, Mayor.
33325 8` Ave S
Federal Way, WA 98003
ATTEST:
Carol McNeilly, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patricia A. Richardson
City Attorney
FEDERAL WAY FARMERS MARKET
:
(Signature)
Karla Kolibab
(I`iame)
Its:
President
(Title)
Farmers Market
P.O. Box 24795
Federal Way, WA 98093
(Phone)
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF Kin
On this day personally appeared before me _Karla Kolibab, to me known to be the
President of Farmers Market 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
2011.
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
My commission expires
EXHIBIT A
TO
LEASE AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Lot 1, King County Short Plat Number 182027, according to the short plat recorded under
recording number 8403140752, Records of King County
EXCEPT that portion condemned in King County Superior Court Cause Number 03-2-18100-
SKNT for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Regional Express Federal Way
Transit Center and related facilities,
AND EXCEPT that portion described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 1; Thence along the West line of said Lot North
Ol/20'/23" East 28.21 feet; thence parallel with the South line of said Lot South 88/16' 19" East,
413.57 Feet to the East line of said Lot; Thence along said East line South O1/29'/00" West,
28.21 feet to the South line of said Lot; thence along said South Line North 88/16' 19" West,
413.50 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Also known as Parcel A of City of Federal Way Boundary Line Adjustment No BLA 06-
106111-SU, Recorded under recording Number 20061229900009
K:\agreements\cd\2011\farmers market — amc theater site
COiTNCIL_MEETING DATE: ..... Ar p ri � -5 ;� fr1 . 1 ..........�� , .....��.... .....................#'........_�_�-'................
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: AMEND FEDERAL WAY REVISED CODE REGARDING PAWNBROKERS, SECONDHAND DEALERS
AND SECONDHAND PRECIOUS METAL DEALERS
POLICY QUESTION Should the City Council approve and adopt the proposed modifications to Chapter 12.15
of the Federal Way Revised Code regarding pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers, and creating a separate
category for secondhand precious metal dealers?
COMMITTEE: n/a
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
❑ City Council Business
� Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE:
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Pat Richardson, City Attorney _ DEPT: Law
_.......
_ ................._....._........................._........_.....................___........._....._..................................................................... _..................._.........._................_...................._...._..............__............_...................__..__..........................._...................................................................._._..
Attachments: Staff began in January with proposed amendments to Chapter 12.15 of the Federal Way
Revised Code ("FWRC") regarding pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers and precious metal
transactions. In the mean time, Representative Asay sponsored a bill in the State Legislature to modify
State law to address similar issues. The proposed State Legislation created a separate category of a
"secondhand precious metal dealer with specific reporting requirements, including transactions in hosted
home parties. The proposed State Legislation also establishes that a second or any subsequent violation of
tampering with the precious metal is a class C felony.
The proposed amendments to Chapter 12.15 of the Federal Way Revised Code mirrors the State
legislation for a secondhand precious metal dealer category, creates consistency between pawnbrokers,
secondhand dealers and secondhand precious metal dealers, requires temporary licenses, and incorporates
the State law in regards to the gross misdemeanor penalties.
Options Considered:
l. Move approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 12.15 of the FWRC regarding
pawnbrokers, secondhand dealers and secondhand dealers and forward to the April 19, 2011 City Council
meeting for second reading an enactment.
2. Modify the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 12.15 of the FWRC regarding pawnbrokers,
secondhand dealers, and secondhand precious metal dealers and forward to the April 19, 2011 City
Council meeting for second reading and enactment.
3. Re'ect the roposed ordinance.
_ ........................... _a. . ...... ..�.... _ _. ........_. .........._....... _.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION Option 1
MAYOR APPROVAL:
Committee
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
�
Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION N/A First Reading by Council was February 15, 2011.
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S):
1 READING OF ORDINANCE (DATE) I move to forward approval of the ordinance regarding pawnbrokers
secondhand dealers and secondhand precious metal dealers to the April 19, 2011, Ciry Council meeting for
second reading and enactment"
2" READING OF ORDINANCE (DATE): " I move approval of proposed ordinance for enactment.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED
❑ DENIED
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
REVISED — 08/12/2010
COUNCIL BILL #
l reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
l.V �
COMPARISON
RCW 19.60, ESH BILL 1716, FWRC 12.15
PROVISION RCW 19.60 ESH BILL 1716 FWRC 12.15
PROPOSED
AMENDMENT
Definitions Melted metals Same Same
Metal junk Same Same
Nonmetal junk Same Same
Pawnbroker — see Same Different — see
attached attached
Silent Silent Pawnshop
Secondhand dealer Same Different — see
see attached attached
Silent Secondhand ESH Bill
precious metals Adds exclusion for
dealer — used,
Second hand Adds exclusion of remanufactured, or
rn opertX metal coins, bullion, junk vehicles
dust, flakes or
nuggets.
Silent Secondhand ESH Bill
nrecious metal
transaction
Loan Period — Silent Silent
Temporarv
Silent Silent secondhand dealer
and secondhand
precious metal
dealer license
Information of Business book Secondhand Add database; add
transactions precious metal photo copy of both
dealer: Add 2 photo sides official ID;
ID right thumb print
Information of Silent Similar to EHS Bill
transactions for requirement far
secondhand regular transactions
precious metal
dealers
Law enforcement Under transaction — Under transaction — Separate section —
inspect business during ordinary during ordinary law enforcement
books business hours business hours inspect books; adds
requirement to enter
data in book within
24 hours
Retention period 30 days 30 days; except no Same as RCW
time limit if
received from pawn
shop, jeweler,
secondhand dealer
orsecondhand
precious metal
dealer. Need
declarations
Police list Silent List of persons List of convicts;
convicted of theft also for
for secondhand pawnbrokers and
precious metal secondhand dealers
dealer to use for
transactions
Business license Silent Requires local Required; adds
business license pawnbrokers and
secondhand
precious metal
dealers; adds
display
cons icuously
Hours of operation Silent Silent Adds secondhand
dealers and
secondhand
precious metal
dealers to hours of
o eration
Exemptions Licensed motor Same; adds scrap Silent; similar list
vehicles; vehicle processors, coin under definition of
haulers and dealers, bullion secondhand
wreckers; persons dealers, nugget property
giving allowance or dealers
trade-in on purchase
other same kind
property of greater
value; buying or
selling empty food
and drink containers
Hosted home parties Silent Requires specific EHB 1617
information and
co ies of recei ts
Penalties Gross misdemeanor Same, but adds Same
if: (1) remove, alter Class C felony if
or obliterate second or
identifying marks subsequent
on property or violations of
accept tampered removing, altering
property; (2) or obliterating
knowingly enter property.
false information
into business book;
(3) receive property
from minor or
anyone convicted of
burglary, theft, etc
with in 10 years; (4)
pawnbroker cashing
or selling checks,
drafts, etc; and (5)
knowingly violate
any other rovision.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, relating to
Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers; amending FWRC 12.15.010,
12.15.140. 12.15.230, 12.15.240, 12.15.290, 12.15.300; and adding new
sections to 12.15.245, 12.15.265 and 12.15.330. (Amending Ordinance
Nos. 09-600 and 90-57)
WHEREAS, the market price of precious metals has increased significantly and there has
been a proliferation of pawnbroker and secondhand dealer precious metal businesses type of
operations from individuals desiring to exploit the market conditions; and
WHEREAS, the presence of these businesses in neighborhoods is linked to increased home
burglaries, which threatens the health and safety of City of Federal Way residents; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in Engross Second House Bill 1716
recognized the proliferation of secondhand businesses engaging in precious metal transactions and
established a separate category of secondhand precious metal dealers with specific requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the
citizens to compliment the State law by establishing a secondhand precious metal dealer licensing
requirement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the
citizens to update and clarify the pawnbroker and secondhand dealer businesses.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FED�RAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Ordinance No. 11- Page 1 of 8
Rev 1/10
Section 1. FWRC 12.15.010 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.010 Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires
otherwise. Terms not defined here are defined according to FW RC 1.05.020.
`7denti�ed as stolen or pawned without authorization" means any property which has been
reported by the rightful owner to a law enforcement authority as missing or stolen.
"Melted meta/s"means metals derived from a metal iunk or qrecious metals that have been
reduced to a melted state from other than ore or inqots which are produced from ore that has not
previouslv been processed.
"Meta! iunk" means anv metal that has previously been milted, shaped, stamped, or forqed
and that is no lonqer useful in its oriqinal form, except precious metals.
"Nonmetal iunk" means anv nonmetal commonlv discarded item that is worn out, or has
outlasted its usefulness as intended in its oriqinal form except nonmetal iunk does not include an
item made in a former period which has enhanced value because of its aqe.
"Pawnbroker" means every person who takes or receives by way of pledge, pawn or
exchange goods, wares, or merchandise of any kind of personal property for the repayment of
security of any money loaned thereon, or to loan money on deposit of personal property, or who
makes public display of any sign indicating that he has money to loan on personal property on
deposit or pledge.
"Pawnshop" means every place at which a pawnbroker business is being conducted.
"Precious metals" means qold, silver, and platinum.
"Rightful owner,"unless otherwise proven, means the person having possession of the
property prior to the theft or removal without authorization.
"Secondhand dealer" means aeverv person who, as a business, engages in whole or in part in
the purchase, sale, barter, sale on consignment, or otherwise exchanges for value secondhand
goods includinq metal iunk melted metals whether or not the person maintains a fixed place of
business. Secondhand dealer also includes persons or entities conductinq business at locations
within the Citv includinq but not limited to flea markets swap meets, hotels, qas stations, tattoo
parlors and taverns, and conductinq business more than three times per year; ^� ,.,�^ �°°^° °
, , , , , , ,
, , , •
"Secondhand precious metals dea/er'Yneans everv person who, as a business, enqaqes in
whole or in part in the purchase sale barter sale on consiqnment, or otherwise exchanqes for
value secondhand propertv that is a precious metal, whether or not the person or entity
maintains a permanent or fixed place of business Secondhand precious metal dealer includes
persons or entities conductinq business at locations within the Citv includinq but not limited to
flea markets swap meets hotels qas stations tattoo parlors and taverns, and conductinq
business more than three times per year. The terms "precious metal" and secondhand for
purposes of transactions bv a secondhand precious metal dealer do not include: (a) qold silver,
or platinum coins or other precious metal coins that are leqal tender or precious metal coins
that have numismatic or precious metal value (b) qold sitver, platinum, or other precious metal
bullion or (c) qold silver platinum or other precious metal dust, flakes, or nuqqets.
"Secondhand goods" means anv item of personal propertv offered bv sale which is not new,
includinq metals in anv form except postaqe stamps coins that re leqal tender, bullion in the
form of fabricated hallmarked bars used books and clothinq of resale value of seventv-five
dollars or less, except furs. Secondhand qoods ,
does not include used, remanufactured, or junk motor vehicles or boats.
Orclinance No. 11- Page 2 of 8
Rev 1/10
"Temporarv secondhand dealer license" and "secondhand precious metals dealers license"
means a license that will be issued bv the City Clerk when the secondhand dealer or
secondhand precious metals dealer intends to conduct business for ninetv davs or less at one
location.
Section 2. FWRC 12.15.140 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.140 Required.
� It is unlawful for any person to engage in the business of pawnbroker secondhand
dealer, or secondhand precious metal dealer without first obtaining a license pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter. Everv license qranted under this title shall be posted in a conspicuous
place in the place of business of the licensee. _
(2) It is unlawful for anv person to enqaqe in secondhand dealinq for ninetv davs ar less at
one location without first obtaininq a Temporarv Secondhand Dealer License from the Citv Clerk.
Section 3. FWRC 12.15.150 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.150 Application.
All applications for issuance or renewal of a pawnbroker's e� secondhand dealer's or
secondhand precious metal dealer's license shall state the true name of the applicant, who shall
be not less than 18 years of age, the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons
having financial, proprietary or other interest in such pawnshop or secondhand shop, and a list
of any criminal convictions for such persons during the past 10 years.
Section 4. FWRC 12.15.230 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.230 �ese�s-Information Required to be entered into data base and into a business
book. �eq�-i�e�
(1) Data base. Everv pawnbroker secondhand dealer, and secondhand precious metal
dealer shall enter within twentv-four (24) hours anv and all requested information into the data
base prescribed bv the law enforcement aqencv
(2) Business book. Every pawnbroker and secondhand dealer shall maintain at his or her
place of business a book in which he or she shall at the time of such loan, purchase or sale,
enter, in the English language, written in ink, the following information:
(�a) The date of the transaction;
(�b) The name of the person conducting the transaction and making the entries required in
this chapter;
(3c) The printed name, ci„n� age, date of birth, height, weight, address, telephone
number, the general description of the dress, complexion, color of hair and facial appearance of
the person with whom the transaction is had, including the identification which the customer shall
present to verify his or her identity, and the account or other number of such identification;
(4d) The siqnature of the person with whom the transaction is made, a photo copv of both
sides of an official picture identification card and the riqht thumb print.
(e)The name, address and telephone number of the owner of the property bought or received
in pledge;
(�f) The address of the place from which the property bought or received in pledge was last
removed;
Ordinance No. I1- Page 3 of 8
Rev 1/10
(6g) A description of the property bought or received in pledge, which shall include the name
of the maker of such property or the manufacturer thereof and the serial number, if the article
has such marks on it, or any other inscriptive or identifying marks; provided, that when the article
received is furniture or the contents of any house or room actually inspected on the premises
where the sale is made, a general description of the property shall be sufficient;
(�h) The price paid or the amount loaned;
(�i) The number of any pawn ticket issued therefore; or
(9i) Comply with the provisions of RCW 19.60.020(1).
Section 5. FWRC 12.15.240 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.240 Records and articles to be available for inspection.
� All books and other records of any pawnbroker, e� secondhand dealer, or secondhand
precious metal dealer relating to the purchase, pledge, exchange or receipt of any goods, wares,
merchandise or other articles or things of value shall at all times be open for inspection by
members of the law enforcement authority for the city and shall be kept for three years. All
articles and things received, purchased or left in pledge with the pawnbroker or secondhand
dealer shall at all times be open to like inspection.
( 2) Upon request from law enforcement everv pawnbroker, secondhand dealer, and
secondhand precious metal dealer doinq business in the City shall furnish a full, true, and
correct transcript of the record of all transactions conducted on the precedinq dav. These
transactions shall be recorded into the database prescribed bv law enforcement within twenty-
four hours.
Section 6. Chapter 12.15 of the FWRC is hereby amended to add a new� section 12.15.245
to read as follows:
12.15.245 Police List
If the police chief has compiled and published a list of persons who have been convicted of
anv crime involvinq theft then the pawnbroker secondhand dealer, and secondhand precious
metal dealer shall utilize such a list for anv transaction involvinq propertv other than propertv
consistinq of a precious metal as required bv the police chief.
Section 7. FWRC 12.15.250 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.250 Seller or consignee to give true name and address.
Anyone who pledges, sells or consigns any property to or with a pawnbroker, e� secondhand
dealer, or secondhand precious metal shall sign the records required to be kept by such
pawnbroker or secondhand dealer with his or her true name and shall include his or her correct
address and telephone number.
Section 8. FWRC 12.15.260 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.260 Transcript to be furnished.
It is the duty of every pawnbroker ax�d secondhand dealer and secondhand precious metal
dealer to furnish on forms provided by the city to the law enforcement authority for the city at the
Ordinance No. 11- Page 4 of 8
Rev 1/10
close of every business week a full, true and correct transcript of the record of all transactions
occurring during the preceding week.
Section 9. Chapter 12.15 of the FWRC is hereby amended to add a new section 12.15.265 to
read as follows:
12.15.265 Secondhand precious metal dealer records for hosted home parties
(1) Hosted home party means a�athering of persons at a�rivate residence where a host or
hostess has invited friends or other �uests into his or her residence where individual person-
to-person sales of precious metals occur.
(2) A host or hostess must be the owner renter or lessee of the�rivate residence where the
hosted home partv takes place.
(3) A secondhand precious metal dealer who attends a hosted home part�d purchases or sells
precious metals from the invited �uests must issue a rece�t for each item sold or purchased
at the hosted home partv.
(4) The secondhand precious metal dealer must include on ever ry eceipt the following: (a) the
name residential address telephone number and driver's license number of the person
hosting the home part�b) the name residential address telephone number, and driver's
license number of the person selling the item• (c) the name residential address, telephone
number and driver's license number the person purchasing the item; (d) a complete
description of the item being sold includin� the brand name serial number model number
or name anv initials or engravin sg ize pattern and color of stone or stones• (e time and
date of the transaction• and (fl the amount and form of anv consideration paid for the item.
(5) The secondhand precious metal dealer must make four copies of each transaction receipt:
one for the seller one for the host or hostess one for the purchaser, and one for local law
enforcement The secondhand precious metal dealer and the host or hostess shall maintain
copies of all transaction recei�ts and records for three vears following the date of the precious
metal transaction.
Section 10. FWRC 12.15.270 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.270 Report of suspected stolen property.
It is the duty of any pawnbroker, e� secondhand dealer or secondhand precious metal dealer
having good cause to believe any property in his or her possession has been previously lost or
stolen, to report such fact to the law enforcement authority for the city immediately, together with
the name of the owner, if known, and the date and name of the person from whom the same
was received by such pawnbroker e� secondhand dealer or secondhand precious metal dealer.
Section 11. FWRC 12.15.290 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.290 Retention period.
No secondhand dealer or secondhand precious metal dealer shall sell or dispose of any
article received or purchased or permit them to be removed from his or her place of business
within �-5 30 days after the receipt of such goods has been reported to the law enforcement
Ordinance No. 11- Page 5 of 8
Rev 1/10
authority for the city as provided herein, except when the goods have been inspected by the law
enforcement authority for the city and they have authorized the secondhand dealer to dispose of
such goods within a lesser period of time; provided, that consigned property need only be held
for three days prior to sale.
Section 12. FWRC 12.15.300 is hereby amended to read as follows:
12.15.300 Hours of operation.
It is unlawful for any pawnbroker secondhand dealer or secondhand precious metal dealer to
conduct or carry on the business of the pawnbroker secondhand dealer, or secondhand
precious metal dealer, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, or to open or keep open, his or
her ��sk+e�-place of business for transaction of any business whatsoever therein, between
the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., except that from December 1 st to December 24th of each
year, when pawnbrokers may remain open until 10:00 p.m.
Section 13. FWRC 12.15.310 is hereby amended as follows:
12.15.310 Separate license for separate places of business.
Any person having more than one pawnshop or one ptace of business where secondhand
goods, includinq precious metals, are bought, sold, traded, bartered or exchanged shall be
required to procure a separate license for each and every such place of business.
Section 14. FWRC 12.15.320 is hereby amended as follows:
12.15.320 Change of location — Transfer.
Pawnbroker's a� secondhand dealers' and secondhand precious metal dealers' licenses
shall not be transferable from one person to another, but a licensee may have his or her license
transferred to a new location by the city clerk, and the change of address shall be noted on the
license, together with the date when the change was made.
Section 15. Chapter 12 of the Federal Way Revised Code is hereby amended to add a
new section 12.15.330 to read as follows:
12.15.330 Prohibited Acts — Penaltv Pawnbrokers and Secondhand Dealers.
RCW 19.60.066 is herebv adopted bv reference. It is a qross misdemeanor for:
,� Anv person to remove alter or obliterate anv manufacturer's make, model, or serial
number personal identification number or identifvinq marks enqraved or etched upon an
item of personal property that was purchased cosiqned, or received in pledqe. In addition
an item shall not be accepted for pledqe or a secondhand purchase where the
manufacturer's make model or serial number, personal identification number, or
identifying marks enqraved or etched upon an item of personal propertv has been
removed, altered, or obliterated;
� Anv person to knowinqly make cause or allow to be made anv false entry or
misstatement of any material matter in anv book, record, or writinq required to be kept
under this chapter;
� Anv pawnbroker or secondhand dealer to receive anv propertv from anv person under the
Ordinance No. I1- Page 6 of 8
Rev 1/10
acLe of eiqhteen vears anv person under the influence of intoxicatinq liquor or druqs, or
any person known to the pawnbroker or secondhand dealer as havinq been convicted of
burglarv robberv theft or possession of or receivinq stolen propertY within the past ten
Lrears whether the person is acting in his/her own behalf or as the aqent of another;
� Anv pawnbroker to enqaae in the business of cashinq or sellinq checks, drafts, monev
orders or other commercial paper servinq the same purpose unless the pawnbroker
complies with the provisions of chapter 31.45 RCW; or
� Any person to violate knowinqlv anv other provision of this chapter.
Section 16. Severabilitv. 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, 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 17. 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 18. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective
date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 19. 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.
Ordinance No. I1- Page 7 of 8
Rev 1/10
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of
2011.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, SKIP PRIEST
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COLTNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTNE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.:
K:\ord�2011 \code update — pawnbrokers precious metal dealer add
Ordinance No. 11- Page 8 of 8
Rev 1/10
ATTACHMENT TO TABLE
RCW 19.60.010. Definitions:
(4) Pawnbroker means every person engaged, in whole or in part, in the business of
loaning money on the security of pledges of personal property, or deposits or conditional
sales of personal property, or the purchase or sale of personal property.
(6) Secondhand dealer means every person engaged in whole or in part in the business of
purchasing, selling, trading, consignment selling, or otherwise transferring for value,
secondhand property including metal junk, melted metals, precious metals, whether or
not the person maintains a fixed place of business within the state. Secondhand dealer
also includes persons or entities conducting business at flea markets or swap meets, more
than three times per year.
(8) Transaction means a pledge, or the purchase of, or consignment of, or the trade of any
item of personal property by a pawnbroker or a secondhand dealer from a member of the
general public.
(9) "Loan period" means the period of time from the date the loan is made until the date
the loan is paid off, the loan is in default, or the loan is refinanced and new loan
documents are issued, including all grace or extension periods.
FWRC 12.15.010 Definitions:
"Pawnbroker" means every person who takes or receives by way of pledge, pawn or
exchange goods, wares, or merchandise of any kind of personal property for the
repayment of security of any money loaned thereon, or to loan money on deposit of
personal property, or who makes public display of any sign indicating that he has money
to loan on personal property on deposit or pledge.
"Pawnshop " means every place at which a pawnbroker business is being conducted.
Hosted Home Parties:
1. Private residence where invite friends for sales of precious metals.
2. Hostess/host own, rent or lease residence.
3. Secondhand precious metal dealer must issue 4 copies of receipt
a. Name, address, phone number, and driver license number of
1) Hostess/host
2) Salesperson
3) Buyer
b. Complete description of item including brand name, serial number,
model number or name, initials or engraving, size, pattern and color of
stone(s)
c. Time and date of transaction
d. Amount paid and form of payment
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 19, 2011 ITEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: MORATORIUM ON CANNABIS RELATED BUSINESSES
POLICY QUESTION: Whether Council should enact an emergency 6 -month moratorium on cannabis related
businesses that would prevent this type of business from being located or doing business within the City for the
duration of the moratorium?
COMMITTEE: N/A MEETING DATE:
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent ® Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Patricia Richardson, City Attorney DEPT:
Attachments: Ordinance imposing a 6 -month moratorium on Cannabis related businesses.
Background: The State Legislature is considering legislation that would authorize cannabis related
businesses to operate within the state. At the same time, a U.S Department of Justice letter to the State
Governor indicates that City employees could be criminally liable under federal law for complying with
the state legislation. The City needs to maintain the status quo while it reviews the legislation and
evaluates the conflict between state and federal law. It may be necessary to adopt applicable regulations
prior to cannabis related businesses operating in the City.
A public hearing on the moratorium will be held on May 17, 2011.
...............
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the emergency 6 -month moratorium p
MAYOR APPROVAL: 4.11 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: p /
Committee Co r i1 Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the proposed ordinance to First Reading on (fill in
date).
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION(S):
1 READING OF ORDINANCE AND ADOPTION (4/19/2011): I move adoption of the proposed emergency
moratorium that imposes a 6 -month moratorium on cannabis related businesses and declares that a public
emergency to preserve the status quo exists which requires the immediate effectiveness of this moratorium and
sets the public hearing for May 17, 2011.
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1ST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Federal Way, Washington, imposing
a six month moratorium on cannabis related businesses.
WHEREAS, RCW 69.51A ( "Medical Marijuana Act ") provides an affirmative defense to
qualifying patients and providers charged with a violation of state law relating to marijuana; and
WHEREAS, current state and federal law does not authorize cannabis related businesses
to operate legally within the City; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature is currently considering legislation with the intent to
legalize cannabis dispensaries; and
WHEREAS, certain versions of the legislation authorize the City to adopt requirements
for business licensing, health and safety, or business taxes, in addition to the City's zoning
authority; and
WHEREAS, certain versions of the legislation require that the City license cannabis
related businesses and /or coordinate the zoning of cannabis related businesses with other
jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, certain versions of the legislation authorize State agencies to regulate
cannabis related businesses but allow currently operating cannabis related businesses to remain
in operation while the State agencies adopt applicable administrative rules; and
WHEREAS, if any version of this legislation passes it will require the City to update its
business license and zoning codes; and
WHEREAS, Council anticipates that legislation regulating cannabis related businesses
will pass, and has therefore determined a six month moratorium be imposed on cannabis related
businesses in order for the City to amend its Code to become compliant with the legislation; and
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4
WHEREAS, the U.S Department of Justice in a letter dated April 14, 2011, to Governor
Gregoire has stated that City employees who conduct activities mandated by the anticipated
legislation will not be immune from criminal liability; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 and RCW 36.70A.390 authorize the City to adopt a
moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of this moratorium is exempt from the requirements of a
threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act; and
WHEREAS, this moratorium is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace,
health and safety, and the support of City government;
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 of fact:
(a) The forgoing whereas provisions are adopted as findings of fact.
(b) Current illegal cannabis related businesses within the City have been the subject
of criminal activity and citizen complaints.
(c) A moratorium is necessary to provide the City with sufficient time to study the
potential impacts of cannabis related businesses; develop appropriate zoning, health safety, and/
or licensing regulations; and insure that the regulations comply with the law.
(d) The City Clerk has received inquiries and business license applications from
cannabis related businesses wanting to locate within the City.
(e) A moratorium is necessary to preserve the status quo until the City adopts
appropriate zoning, health safety, and/ or licensing regulations.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4
Section 2. Moratorium Established. No cannabis related business license, registration
letter of intent or letter of acknowledgement shall be accepted or issued by the City Clerk nor
shall any cannabis related businesses be located within the City during the duration of this
moratorium.
Section 3. Duration of Moratorium. This moratorium shall be in effect for six months
from the effective date of this moratorium.
Section 4. Public Hearing. A public hearing for this moratorium will be held on May 17,
2011, at the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting.
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and
severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of
this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall
not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to any
other persons or circumstances.
Section 6. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this ordinance are authorized
to make necessary corrections to this ordinance including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener /clerical errors, references, ordinance numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 7. Effective Date. By unanimous consent, the Council finds that this moratorium
is for a public emergency and needed for the immediate support of City governments and is not
subject to initiative or referendum pursuant to FWRC 1.30. This ordinance shall take effect and
be in full force upon adoption.
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this 19 day of April, 2011.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, SKIP PRIEST
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. Page 4 of 4