Council PKT 02-19-2013 RegularCITY OF
Federal Way
AGENDA
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chambers - City Hall
February 19, 2013
7:00 p.m.
www.cityoffederalway.com
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. PRESENTATIONS
a. Certificates of Appointment: Human Services Commission
b. Proclamation: Kiwanis Children's Cancer Awareness Month ...page 3
c. Proclamation: Rotary Day — February 23`d ...page 4
d. Proclamation: One Day Federal Way "Mission VolunTeen" ...page 5
e. Federal Way Recycler of the Year Award
f. Mayor's Emerging Issues
4. CITIZEN COMMENT
PLEASE COMPLETE A PINK SLIP AND TURN IT IN 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 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 three members
and brought before full Council for approval. All items are enacted by one motion. Individual items may be
removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion.
a. Minutes: February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting and February 11, 2013 Special
Meeting ... page 6
b. Adelaide Neighborhood Traffic Study 2012 — 8th Ave. SW (SW Dash Point Road to SW
296th Street) ... page 18
c. S. 320th Street at 20th Ave. S. Intersection Improvements —100% Design Report and
Authorization to Bid ... page 21
d. 21 st Ave. SW at SW 336th Street Intersection Improvements — 100% Design Report
and Authorization to Bid ... page 23
e. Memo of Understanding with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force ... page
25
The Council may add items and take action on items not listed on the agenda.
f. Allocation of 2013 City Employee Donations and Carry- Forward of Unspent 2012
Human Services General Fund Dollars ... page 44
g. Human Services Funding — Shared Application... page 50
h. Panther Lake Open Space Trail Projects — 30% Design ... page 62
i. EarthCorps 2 -Year Contract... page 65
j. T- Mobile Site Lease Renewal — Twin Lakes /BPA ... page 67
6. PUBLIC HEARING
a. Steel Lake Management District Reformation... page 72
• Staff Presentation
• Public Comment
• Council Action — Resolution: Renewing Steel Lake Management District No. 1
and Calling for a Vote by Affected Property Owners.
7. COUNCIL BUSINESS
a. Arts Commission Appointments ... page 146
b. Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies... page 147
c. Minutes: January 8, 2013 Parks Recreation, Human Services, Public Safety
Committee... page 280
8. ORDINANCES
Second Reading:
a. CB #620: Zavo Group, t_LC Franchise ...page 283
An ordinance of the City of Federal Way, Washington, granting Zayo Group, LLC, a
nonexclusive franchise to occupy rights -of -way of the City of Federal Way, Washington
within the specified franchise area for the purposes of installing fiber optic network within
and throughout the City of Federal Way
9. COUNCIL REPORTS
10. MAYOR'S REPORT
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Collective Bargaining pursuant to RCW 42.30.140(4)(b)
12. , ADJOURNMENT
The Council may add items and take action on items not listed on the agenda.
CITY OF
., z*... Federal Way
PROCLAMATION
"Kiwanis Children's Cancer Awareness Month"
WHEREAS, Kiwanis International was founded on January 2, 1915; and
WHEREAS, the men and women of the Pacific Northwest District Kiwanis have exhibited a
deep sense of pride in Community by serving the needs of family and children worldwide; and
WHEREAS, Pacific Northwest. District Kiwanis Division 32 is represented in the Communities
of Federal Way, Auburn; Kent, Renton, Covington, Black Diamond, Maple Valley and
WHEREAS, the Pacific Northwest District of Kiwanis has, effective October 1, 2010, initiated
the multi -year District wide Service Project, Kiwanis Children's Cancer Cure Program; and
WHEREAS, the Kiwanis Clubs of Division 32 will collaborate with Seattle Children's Hospital;
and .
WHEREAS, the local Kiwanis Clubs are the epitome of their defining statement "Kiwanis is a
Global Organization of Volunteers Dedicated to Changing the World One Child and One
Community at a Time ".
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and Federal Way City. Council, do hereby proclaim
February 2 013 as Kiwanis Children s Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Federal Way
and call upon the people of the City to celebrate the many contributions made by the members of
the Kiwanis Clubs of the Pacific Northwest.
SIGNED this 19th day of February, 2013
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Skip Priest, Mayor
Jeanne Burbidge, Councilmember
Dini Duclos, Councilmember
Susan Honda, Councilmember
Jim Ferrell, Deputy Mayor
Bob Celski, Councilmember
Kelly Maloney, Councilmember
Diana Noble- Gulliford, Councilmember
c \rir
%i:.'i:::I:!••!�:::i'.!i2 \': . %li:.':::�::!" >:a�:::'.:i2 \•. %lii.'':::: <'.•:::::!.:i:1: ' 'i:c_''::::�.:!�::::�..�:1: : %:i3 �:;�...:::::�..�L�: ;ili:.''�
.., •:;;
CITY OF
,��...,
Federal Way
,PROCLAMA TION
"Rotary Day - February 23"
WHEREAS, Rotary was founded on February 23, 1905 by Attorney Paul Harris and three of his
friends, a mining engineer, a coal merchant and a tailor.; and
WHEREAS, the name Rotary was derived from the early practice of rotating meeting locations
among the members businesses: and
WHEREAS, within a year Rotary had grown so large that a common meeting place was established;
and
WHEREAS, wearing a Rotary Pins let other business people know that you were ethical in your
business practices and you could be trusted; and
WHEREAS, Federal Way Rotary was Charted April 10, 1969; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Motto is "Service Above Self, our only mission is to help others both locally
and internationally; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way Rotary has .provided nearly $1,000,000 in Scholarships for areas High
School Seniors, and have supported 'local Community organizations like Boys & Girls Club, Multi
Service Center, FUSION, Communities in Schools, Caregivers Network, Birth to Three, Center Stage,
the Federal Way Symphony; and
WHEREAS, Internationally, 'Rotary has been in the fore front with the World Health Organization
in the task to eradicate Polio since 1985; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way :Rotary has completed Projects around the world such as Dental
Clinics in Guatemala; Solar power to a girls school in India; Solar Water Pumping Stations in Ghana;
Solar Power for 5 Medical Clinics iri Nicaragua; and Bed Netting for Malaria prevention in Zambia;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and Federal Way City Council, do hereby proclaim February
23, 2013 as Rotary Day in the City of Federal Way and call upon the ,people of the City to recognize
the accomplishments the Federal Way Rotary has made in our community and internationally.
SIGNED this 19th day of February, 2013
FEDERAL SPAY CITY COUNCIL
Skip Priest, Mayor
Jeanne Burbidge, Councilmember
Dini Duclos, Councilmember
Susan Honda, Councilmember
Jim Ferrell, Deputy Mayor
Bob Celski, Councilmember
Kelly Maloney, Councilmember
Diana Noble - Gulliford, Councilmember
,, :;;;.;.;:;,,;;;:;:;:: ;�;:;..;,
'.;��.. i�in �finz �;: :�C '.;������a. ,�������,,�� ;; ,��,�i.�, 1, :���������; ; •:��.�i�i �, �::,����i�:`:: %;i��.�ii �, `������;�
%i:•��::i:< "�:::i!.:�:1. �f:i:•.�'::�:!.y,i @..!.t�L:7 : %i:e��'��'_:...`:::�_.hl:, i$..�::i %:..:`:.::N.:�:`f iii:: i�!4':...`:::�_.: `: ii:•:'Y
CITY OF
,�..., Federal Way
PROCLAMATION
"One Day Federal Way Mission VolunTeen"
WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way is a city that values humanity and the respect
of individual expression and lifestyle; and
WHEREAS, each day, an estimated 160,000 children in America refuse to go to
school because they dread the physical and verbal aggression of their peers; and
WHEREAS, bullying is a key issue affecting the physical and emotional health, and
academic success of Federal Way Public Schools students; and
WHEREAS, spreading awareness of this issue is key to building a safer community;
,and
REAS, teenagers volunteering helps build responsible citizenship; and
WHEREAS, the 2013 Advancing Leadership Youth Class is holding One Day
Federal Way: "Mission VolunTEEN ", on February 19th, to encourage
volunteerism volunteerism among Federal Way youth;
NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Mayor and Federal Way City Council, do hereby
proclaim that Tuesday, February 19, 2013, be declared "One Day Federal Way:
Mission VolunTEEN," an opportunity.'for the youth of Federal Way to be part of
the solution by taking action against bullying , creating positive relationships, and
building a safer community.
SIGNED this 19th day of February, 2013
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Skip Priest, Mayor
Jeanne Burbidge, Councilmember
Dini Duclos, Councilmember
Susan Honda, Councilmember
Jim Ferrell, Deputy Mayor
Bob Celski, Councilmember
Kelly Maloney, Councilmember
Diana Noble- Gulliford, Councilmember
7 .7
;,.`A
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council approve the draft minutes of the February 5, 2013 Regular City
Council Meeting and the February 11, 2013 Special City Council Meeting?
COMMITTEE: N/A MEETING DATE: N/A
CATEGORY:
® Consent ❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Carol McNeilly, City Clerk DEPT: Human Resources
Attachments:
Draft minutes from the February 5, 2013 City Council Meeting and the February 11, 2013 Special City Council
Meeting.
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/A Q M DIRECTOR APPROVAL: N/A N/A
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
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
1ST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION
Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only)
ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006
RESOLUTION #
CITY OF
,'. , Federal Way
MINUTES
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Council Chambers - City Hall
February 5, 2013
7:00 p.m.
www.cityoffederalway.com
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Priest called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
City officials present: Mayor Skip Priest, Deputy Mayor Jim Ferrell, Councilmember Kelly
Maloney, Councilmember Susan Honda, Councilmember Jeanne Burbidge, Councilmember
Bob Celski, Councilmember Diana Noble- Gulliford and Councilmember Dini Duclos.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Maloney led the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. PRESENTATIONS
a. Ceremonial Swearing in of 'Police Officers
Deputy Police Chief Andy Hwang introduced Police Officers Justin Anholt and Travis
Loyd. City Clerk McNeilly delivered the ceremonial oath of office to the Police Officers.
b. Police Chiefs Citation Certificate
Deputy Police Chief Andy Hwang presented Ginger Lundberg with the Police Chiefs
Citation Certificate. Over the past three years Ms. Lundberg has made and donated over
three dozen quilts for the Police Department to donate through the Adopt -a- Family
Program. Ms. Lundberg stated it is a pleasure for her to be able to give back to the
community she lives in.
c. Mayor's Emerging Issues
Legislative Update:
Mayor Priest reported that on January 30th he met with several representatives in
Olympia to discuss the City's legislative priorities. There are two bills relating to
metal theft and enforcement. The proposed legislation strengthens penalties for
thefts, introduces licensing requirements for sellers and recyclers and creates a
law enforcement task force to focus on putting metal thieves in jail. Additional
legislation proposes licensing requirements for scrap metal buyers. This morning
Mayor Priest, Deputy Mayor Ferrell, Parks and Public Works Director Roe and
Robin Corak of the Multi- Service Center were in Olympia to testify on this
City Council Minutes — February S, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 7
legislation.
In regards to Lodging Tax, there is a bill to preserve cities' ability to use local
lodging tax revenues to support community events. Mayor Priest thanked
Councilmember Duclos for testifying at the House Finance Committee on that bill.
City's Bond Rating — Federal Way Community Center:
Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management Director Cary Roe presented
information on the City's bond rating by Moody's regarding the Federal Way
Community Center. Mr. Roe provided historical budget information, recapped the
2003 FWCC bond refund process, and highlighted key dates relating to the bond
refund. The FWCC currently has a total of 5,700 members, offers numerous
programs for children, adults and seniors and is exceeding the financial goals set
for it by the Council.
February 11, 2013 Special Meeting:
Mayor Priest announced that the Council will be conducting a Special Meeting on
February 11th to discuss the Performing Arts and Conference Center (PACC)
along with the former AMC Theatre site. Staff will provide historical steps taken by
Council to date, the design team of Lorax will present some designs and cost
estimates, staff will provide information on funding sources and ask Council for
direction regarding the next steps. After staff presentations there will be an
opportunity for Council questions and an opportunity for the public to comment.
No Council action is anticipated at this meeting.
4. RECEPTION — Honoring Councilmembers Maloney and Noble - Gulliford
The Council recessed at 7:39 p.m. for a reception honoring Councilmembers Maloney and
Noble - Gulliford who were appointed to the Council on January 19, 2013. The Council
reconvened at 7:58 p.m.
5. CITIZEN COMMENT
Clara McArthur stated she believes the Council violated ethical transparency at their January
1 9th special meeting. She welcomed new Councilmembers Maloney and Noble - Gulliford.
6. CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed below have been previously reviewed in their entirety by a Council Committee of three members
and brought before full Council for approval. All items are enacted by one motion. Individual items may be
removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion.
a. Minutes: January 8, 2013 Special Meeting, January 15, 2013 Special and Regular
Meetings and January 19, 2013 Special Meeting
b. Vouchers
c. Acceptance of Grants for Performing Arts /Conference Center (PACC)
d. Washington State Cooperative Purchasing Agreement
Motion: Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved approval of Consent Agenda items 5.a. through
5.d. Councilmember Duclos second.
Vote:
Deputy Mayor Ferrell Yes
Councilmember Maloney Yes
Councilmember Honda Yes
City Council Minutes — February S, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 7
7.
Councilmember Burbidge Yes
Councilmember Celski Yes
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford Yes
Councilmember Duclos Yes
Motion carried 7-0
COUNCIL BUSINESS
a
�
2013 Council Committee Appointments
City Attorney Pat Richardson presented information on the Council Committees, their
meeting dates and topics they review. Under Council Rule 20.9 Committee appointments
are for two-years. However, with the resignation of Councilmembers Kochmar and
Freeman and the recent appointments of Councilmembers Maloney and Noble-Gulliford,
the Deputy Mayor is recommending modifying the appointments.
Motion: Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved the following Council Committee
appointments:
• Land Use/Transportation Committee: Chair Councilmember Celski, with
Councilmembers Burbidge and Noble-Gulliford.
• Finance, Economic Development and Reqional Affairs Committee: Chair
Counciimember Duclos, with Councilmembers Celski and Honda.
• Parks Recreation, Human Services and Public Safetv Committee: Chair
Councilmember Honda, with Councilmembers Burbidge and Maloney.
Councilmember Duclos second.
Vote:
Deputy flAayor Ferrell
Councilmember Maloney
Councilmember Honda
Councilmember Burbidge
Councilmember Celski
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford
Councilmember Duclos
Motion carried 7-0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Appointment to SCA Emerqencv Medical Services Advisorv Task Force
Deputy Mayor Ferrell reported that State Law provides that a county-wide tax for
emergency medical care and service requires the participation of cities with a population
over fifty-thousand. With the resignation of Councilmember Kochmar, a new
representative from Federal Way needs to be appointed.
Motion: Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved to appoint Councilmember Duclos to the
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Task Force. Councilmember Celski second.
Vote:
Deputy Mayor Ferrell
Councilmember Maloney
Councilmember Honda
Councilmember Burbidge
Councilmember Celski
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford
Councilmember Duclos
Motion carried 7-0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ciry Council Minutes — February S, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 of 7
c. Human Services Commission Appointments
Motion: Councilmember Honda moved to re-appoint Ronald Secreto, Mary Schultz,
Robyn Richins and Lydia Assefa-Dawson to the Human Services Commission for
three-year terms expiring January 31, 2016. Councilmember Burbidge second.
Vote:
Deputy Mayor Ferrell Yes
Councilmember Maloney Yes
Councilmember Honda Yes
Councilmember Burbidge Yes
Councilmember Celski Yes
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford Yes
Councilmember Duclos Yes
Motion carried 7-0
d. Approval of Letter to Citv Council Applicants
Deputy Mayor Ferrell stated it is important to officially thank all of the applicants who
participated in the interview process to fill the City Council vacancies on January 19�'. He
proposed approval of the draft letter in the agenda packet.
Motion: Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved approval of th� draft letter in the agenda
packet to be signed by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councilmembers Honda,
Celski, Burbidge and Duclos. Councilmember Celski second.
Vote:
Deputy Mayor Ferrell Yes
Councilmember Maloney Yes
Councilmember Honda Yes
Councilmember Burbidge Yes
Councilmember Celski Yes
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford Yes
Councilmember Duclos Yes
Motion carried 7-0
e. Council Retreat Facilitator
City Attorney Pat Richardson reviewed the proposal submitted by Jim Reid to facilitate
#his year's Council Retreat. The proposal includes finro options for setting the retreat
agenda:
Option 1: Mr. Reid would work with a Council subcommittee to establish the retreat
agenda. The cost associated with this option is $2,660.00.
Option 2: Mr. Reid would work with all Councilmembers to establish the retreat
agenda. The cost associated with this option is $3,657.50.
Motion: Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved approval of Option 1; having Mr. Reid
facilitate the Council Retreat and work with a Council subcommittee to establish
the retreat agenda — cost of $2,660.00. Councilmember Honda second.
Vote:
Deputy Mayor Ferrell Yes
Councilmember Maloney Yes
Councilmember Honda Yes
City Council Minutes — February 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 of 7
Councilmember Burbidge Yes
Councilmember Celski Yes
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford Yes
Councilmember Duclos Yes
Motion carried 7-0
Chanqe the Date of the Council Retreat — March 9, 2013
In conjunction with Council approving to engage Jim Reid to facilitate the 2013 Council
Retreat, to accommodate Mr. Reid's availability the proposal is to move the Council
Retreat date to March 9, 2013.
Motion: Deputy Mayor ferrell moved to modify the Council Retreat to occur on
March 9, 2013. Councilmember Duclos second.
Vote:
Deputy Mayor Ferrell Yes
Councilmember Maloney Yes
Councilmember Honda Yes
Councilmember Burbidge Yes
Councilmember Celski Yes
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford Yes
Councilmember Duclos Yes
Motion carried 7-0
g. Establish Sub-Committee to Set Council Retreat Aqenda
As a follow-up to agenda item 7.e. where the Council approved establishing a
subcommittee to set the 2013 Council retreat agenda. This item identifies the
Councilmembers serving on the subcommittee.
Motion: Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved to establish a subcommittee consisting of
himself and Councilmembers Burbidge and Honda to set the 2013 Council Retreat
Agenda. Councilmember Celski second.
Vote:
Deputy Mayor Ferrell Yes
Councilmember Maloney Yes
Councilmember Honda Yes
Councilmember Burbidge Yes
Councilmember Celski Yes
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford Yes
Councilmember Duclos Yes
Motion carried 7-0
8. ORDINANCES
First Reading:
a. CB#620: Zavo Group, LLC Franchise
An ordinance of the Cify of Federal Way, Washington, granting Zayo Group, LLC, a
nonexclusive franchise to occupy rights-of-way of the City of Federal Way, Washington
within the specified franchise area for the purposes of installing fiber optic network within
and throughout the City of Federal Way
Deputy Public Works Director Marwan Salloum stated the proposed ordinance
Ciry Council Minutes — February S, 2013 Regular Meeting Page S of 7
�
grants Zayo Group LLC a non-exclusive franchise agreement allowing them to
install fiber optic cable in a portion of the City. Zayo Group will maintain $5-million
in liability insurance and post a$100K performance bond for this project.
City Cierk McNeilly read the ordinance #itle into the record.
Motion: Councilmember Duclos moved to approve the ordinance and
forward it to the February 19, 2013 City Council meeting for second reading
and enactment. Councilmember Celski second..
Vote:
Deputy Mayor ferrell
Councilmember Maloney
Councilmerr�ber Honda
Councilmember Burbidge
Councilmember Celski
Councilmernber Noble-Gulliford
Councilmember Duclos
Motion carried 7-0
COUNCIL REPORTS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Deputy Mayor Ferrell reported he was in Olympia earlier today to testify at a hearing that
focused on metal-theft legislation. Last week he attended the Chamber of Commerce's
Economic Forecast Breakfast.
Councilmember Burbidge stated the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee will be conducting a
retreat on February 13'h. She wilt be attending upcoming meeting of the Public Issues
Committee as well and the Transportation Policy Board. The Federal Way Symphony will be
hosting a performance on February 104h and Centerstage Theater will be performing a show
entitled "Believe in Yourself."
Councilmember Honda reported she met with the AKTION Group at the Federal Way
Community Center and they discussed ways to improve City Parks. She attended a workshop
on Community Orientated Transit last week. She will be attending the Arts and Heritage event
in Olympia tomorrow.
Councilmember Celski welcomed Councilmembers Maloney and Noble-Gulliford. The
Chamber of Commerce named Nancy Jaenicke as Community Volunteer of the year for her
work in the area of helping the homeless. March 25th is the date for this year's Roller-Mania
event; a fund raiser #or the Reach-Out Organization.
Councilmember Maloney thanked the Council for their transparency in regards to the Janwary.
19'h Council vacancy interviews. She complimented staff for the comprehensive orientations
they have provided.
Councilmember Noble-Gulliford will be attending the Arts and Heritage Day tomorrow in
Olympia. Last week she attended an event at the Auburn Airport as part of an oral history of
Roy Miller that the Federal Way Historical Society will be preparing.
Councilmember Duclos attended a meeting of the Regional Policy Committee where they
discussed the Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement as well as approval of 2014-2019 Medic One/
Emergency Medical Services Strategic Plan. There was also a presentation from the
Mockingbird Society a non-profit that works with children in foster care programs. On January
City Council Minutes — February S, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 6 of 7
28ch she was in Olympia and testified in support of House Bill 5262.
10. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Priest had no report.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Priest adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m.
Attest:
Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk
Approved by Council on:
City Council Minutes — February S, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 7 of 7
CITY OF
� Federal Way
MINUTES
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
Council Chambers - City Hall
February 11, 2013
5:30 p.m.
www. cityoffederalway. com
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Priest called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
City officials present: Mayor Skip Priest, Deputy Mayor Jim Ferrell, Councilmember Kelly
Maloney, Councilmember Susan Honda, Councilmember Jeanne Burbidge, Councilmember
Bob Celski, Councitmember Diana Noble-Gulliford and Councilmember Dini Duclos.
Gity staff present: City Attorney Pat Richardson and City Clerk Carol McNeilly.
2. PERFORMING ARTS/CONFERENCE CENTER (PACC)
� Historv and Process
Community and Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty reviewed the City
Center Vision adopted in the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. In 2008 the City conducted a
National Citizen Survey and inquired if residents support the use of city funds to
develop a PACC in the downtown core. Sixty-finro percent of respondents stated they
"somewhat" #o "strongly" support the development. In 2009 Webb Management
conducted a#easibility study on the success of a PACC in the City. The s#udy revealed
that a PACC would be competitively placed in the market. LMN conducted a siting
analysis throughout the City Center for a PACC and one of the top sites identified was
the Toys R Us site. The City secured a$5M state grant with the condition a PACC
would be constructed within 10 years. In 2012, the City issued a RFQ for joint
development of a PACC and related hospitality components. Lorax Partners and
Associates were selected from the RFQ respondents.
• Presentations bv Lorax / LMN Architects of Alternative Sitinq/Desi�tn Concepts
PJ Santos of Lorax Partners stated the project goal is to create a new cultural and
civic center, enhance the urban fabric with community gathering spaces and serve as
a catalyst for City Center re-development.
Wendy Fautz with LMN Architects shared information on the program components
being proposed which include a theatre, conference rooms, kitchen, lobby, and office
space. The theatre's functionality would be multi-purpose and accommodate
numerous types of events. Ms. Pautz reviewed technical components of the theatre
which include the stage, hall, proscenium opening, pit and wing space. Meeting rooms
would be located off the lobby and would accommodate up to 100 participants each.
Mr. Santos reviewed three proposed layouts for the placement of a PACC on the site.
City Council Minutes — February I1, 2013 Special Meeting Page 1 of 4
• Overall Cost Estimate
Mr. Santos stated the current development estimate is $31,750,000 for a 700-seat
theatre with 3,000 s.f. of conference space. This cost includes $750,000 for storm
detention. Mr. Santos reviewed various cost options for development.
• Revenue Sources
Mr. Doherty stated with a preliminary cost estimate of $31,750,000, the infrastructure
related portion would be $5M (there are sufficient funds available to finance this
portion). The non-infrastructure balance is $26,750,000; available funding is
$9,940,000. The balance to fund is $16,81Q,000.
Potential funding options include naming rights, grants, state capital funding and a
capital campaign. The remaining balance for financing could be addressed via short-
term financing, a property tax levy lid Iift and property tax excess lid lift.
• Next Steps
Next steps include creating momentum to engage support, donations, grants and
other contributions. Development of schematic design plans that would lead to a land
use application are estimated at $950,000. In February 2011, council approved
$750,000 for preliminary design work. The balance would be $475,000.
The Council asked clarifying questions of Mr. Doherty and Mr. Santos relating to
ongoing operations of the facility; potential hotel partners; the timeline for development
and current bond rates.
3. FORMER AMC THEATRE S1TE
• Historv and Process
Mr. Doherty reported the City purchased the site in January 2007 for $4.1 M. The City
has issued two RFQ's for re-development of the site. Several proposals have been
received; however; none of the proposals have been able to secure financing to date.
• Current Status
Over #he past few months staff has worked with a landscape architect to formulate
alternate concept plans for the AMC site. Plans include the original re-development
vision for the site with significant open space or town square and with private
development abutting.
• Presentation of Concept Desiqn Alternatives for Open Space / Private
Development Alternatives
Mr. Doherty reviewed concept alternatives for the site which include half of the site
with green-scape, a pond or water feature and two buildings for commercial
development along with possible residential or office space. Cost estimates range
from $2,250,000 to $2,500,000 with annual maintenance ranging from $75K to $100K
depending on the amount of lawn, gardens and other special features. There are
sufficient downtown parks, REET and other infrastructure-related funds to finance a
park.
• Discussion of Potential Interrelationship with PACC Development
Mr. Doherty stated these two sites (Toys R US and AMC) are inter-related due to
topography. Development costs for a PACC on the Toys R Us site includes $750,000
for stormwater retention. The PACC could capture water in an artistic way to feed a
Ciry Council Minutes — February 11, 2013 Special Meeting Page 2 of 4
water feature on the AMC site, therefore sharing costs relating to stormwater.
Mr. Santos suggested viewing the development of both sites on parallel paths.
• Next Steps
Next steps include marketing the site to developers as a joint venture with the City to
create an urban place. The City will commit to building the park in tandem with the
private development. The private portion should include retail, cafes, etc. with housing
or office space.
The Council asked follow-up questions of Mr. Doherty relating to which site to develop
first; including development of the parcel next to the Transit Center; the importance of
including an active use component in the development and possible partnership with a
higher education facility.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
Joanne Piauette with the Federal Way Coalition of the PerForming Arts provided background
on the Coalition and their work. The Coalition has funding that will go towards the
development of the PACC and they are eager to begin a financing campaign.
Phil Wamba spoice in support of development of a PACC.
Joe Hawe Federal Way Harmony Kings Barbershop Chorus President stated the group
supports developing a PACC. They would like to see a facility in Federal Way that can
accommodate their performances.
Preston Johnson spoke in support of a PACC in Federal Way.
Debra Twerksv with 4-Culture spoke in support of moving forward with the development of a
PACC. She feels the vision of the project has evolved into a sustainable model.
Maurice Cooper spoke in support of developing a 700-seat PACC rather than a smaller
venue.
Mark Davidson representative from the Federal Way School District spoke in support of
developing a PACC.
Barbara Michael spoke in support of a PACC.
Karla Kluqe, Jet City Chorus member, submitted a letter for the City Clerk to read into the
record. The letter stated the group supports a PACC in Federal Way.
Bettv Huff submitted written comments for the City Clerk to read into the record. She urged the
Council to move forward with development of a PACC.
Pam Smith, Managing Director of Auburn Performing Arts, submitted written comments forthe
City Clerk to read into the record. She supports the development of another theater in the
region.
Deputy Mayor Ferrell noted the Council will be discussing these topics at the Council Retreat
on March gtn.
City Council Minutes — February 11, 2013 Speciad Meeting Page 3 of 4
5. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Priest adjourned the meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Attest:
Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk
Approved by Council:
City Council Minutes — February I1, 2013 Special Meeting Page 4 of 4
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #: � �
Sus.rEC�r: Adelaide NTS — 8"' Avenue SW (SW Dash Point Rd to SW 296'" St)
POL[CY QUEST[ON: Should the Council ap�rove the installation of three speed humps on 8�' Avenue SW between
SW Dash Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296 Street?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: 7esse L.
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
�, P.E. — Senior Traffic
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DE�'r: Pubiic Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum dated Febniary 4, 20 i 3.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize the installation of three speed humps on 8�' Avenue SW between SW Dash Point Road SR 509)
and SW 296`h Street.
2. Do not authorize the installation of the proposed traffic calming devices and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDAT[ON: Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council
Consent Agenda for approval.
MAYOR APPROVAL: ����E��� / D[RECTOR APPROVAL: ��
Co ttee Cow�ci Coromittee Council
COMM[TTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
..._��F..�• ��.�
.�..:a\ � �
� :•�
Susan Honda, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the installation of three speed humps on 8`h Avenue SW
between SW Dash Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296'h Street. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED 8Y CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACT[ON:
� APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
� DEN[ED tST readieg
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACfION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
DATE:
TO: .
VIA:
FROM:
5UBJECT:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
February 4, 2013
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Skip Priest, Mayor �,�
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergenc Managemen�"' \
Jesse Hannahs, P. E., SeniorTrat�ic Engineer �(,�-�-
Adelaide 1VTS - 8`" Avenue SW (SW Dash Point Rd to SW 296� St)
BACKGROUND:
Residents in the vicinity of 8�' Avenue SW between SW Dash Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296�' Street
submitted a petition requesting the installation of traffic calming devices to control vehicle speeds in an effort to
improve vehicular and pedestrian safety along 8�' Avenue SW. A traffic study was conducted and the results
are as follows:
• Roadway Classification : Minor Collector
� Average Daily Tra, fj`'ic (ADT): 1030
� 85`" percentile speed: 34.2 mph
Based on the current adopted NTS installation criteria (per table below), 8"' Avenue SW scored 3.0 total
severity points. This meets the minimum 3.0 severity point to qualify for the installation of traffic calming
devices.
Table: Minor Collector
Point 85`� Percentile Average Daily Location 5-Year Collision Histo
Scate S eed Traffic ADT) SchooUPark Totat In'u Fatal
0.0 0- 25 0- 1,000 No 1 - -
0.5 26 - 27 1001-1800 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+
A neighborhood traffic safety meeting was held on October l, 2012 at Adelaide Elementary School to
discuss potential traffic calming devices that could be implemented on 8�' Avenue SW.
To be effective in reducing speeds along 8`� Avenue SW and to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety,
the group consensus was to have the City instal( three speed humps on 8'�' Avenue SW between SW Dash
Point Road (SR 509) and SW 296`�' Street near the following addresses:
a. 29926 8�' Avenue SW
b. 29837 S 8�' Avenue SW
c. 29638 S 8`'' Avenue SW
Wildwood NTS
1 /28/2013
Page 2
In accordance with established NTS poiicies, staff sent ballots to property owners and occupants within
600 feet of the proposed traffic calming device locations and also to those with the proposal located atong
their sole access route. T�e following table summarizes the ballot results:
One of the installation criteria requires a 51% majority approval of the returned ballots. Based on the
ballot results represented in the above table, the balloting exceeds this majority.
The estimated cost of this project is approximately $11,000, which falls within the $15,000 per
neighborhood per year budget limitation policy. The cwrent allocated NTS budget per year is $50,000
with $20,000 designated specifically for school NTS and/or school safety related improvements. Staff
recommends approving the installation of three speed humps on 8�' Avenue SW between SW Dash Point
Road (SR 509) and SW 296�' Street.
cc: Project File
Day File
K:ILUTC�2013\a2-04-13 Adelaide NTS - 8 AV SW (SR 509 to SW 296 ST).doc
COLJNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
TTEM #:_ t�
SUBJECT: S 320�' Street at 20`h Avenue S Intersection Improvements Pmject — 100% Design Status Report and
Authorization to Bid
POLICY QUEST[ON: Should the Council authorize staff to bid the S 320�' Street at 20'� Avenue S Intersection
Improvements Project and return to the LLTTC and Council for bid awazd, fiuther reports and authorization?
COMM[TTEE: I.and Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
■
■
Ordinance
Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Brian Roberts, P. E., Street Systems Project
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
inee � �, DEPT: Public Works
Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated February 4, 2013.
Optious Considered:
1. Authorize staff to bid the S 320�` Street at 20"' Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project and return to
the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization.
2. Do not authorize staff to bid this project and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council
Consent Agenda for approval.
MAYOR APPROVAL: _`�I�i I�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Li ►'w �
Commi ouncit Committee council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDAT[ON: Forward Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council Consent Agenda for
approval.
�;� �! ����
�►�; J.��s -•�'•
.��
r.�
Susan Honda. Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOT[OIY: "I move to authorize staff to bid the S 320rh Streel at 2U`h Avenue S Intersection
Improvements Project and return to the L UTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYCITYCLERKS OFFlCE)
COUNC[L ACT[ON:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED IST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACT[ON Enactment readiug
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
(tEV[SED — 02/06J2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 4, 2013
TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM• Cary M. Rce, P.E., Director of Pazks, Public Works Emergency Management ��
' Brian �Roberts, P.E., �ireet Systems Project Engin� o
SUBJECT• S 320 Street at 20 Avenue S Intersection Improvements Project — 100 /o Design Status
' Report and Authorization to Bid
BACKGROUND'
The intent of this project is to increase the capacity of the intersection by the addirion of a second left-turn lane
in each direction of S 320`� Street at 20�' Avenue S, with 250 feet of turn lane storage. Work will include
utility re(ocation, storm drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighring, tratiic signal replacement,
signing, channelization, and landscaping.
PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES:
Design $ 450,000
ROW Acquisition 0.00
20 i 3 Construction Cost 2,100,000
10% Construction Contingency 210,000
Consttuction Management 350,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $ 3,110,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
Budgeted City Funds (20i 1/2012) $ 500,000
Budgeted Ci.ty Eunds ( 2013/2014) 3,500,000
Mitigation 144,284
Interest 3,245
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $ 4,147,529
FUNDING BALANCE $1,037.529
This project is within available budget and staff anticipates bidding the project in February of 2013 and
awarding it in April 2013. Consttuction wiil commence in early May 2013 witii an estimated substantial
completion before October 30, 2013.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:�
SUBJECT: 21S` Avenue SW at SW 336�' St Intersection —100% Design Status Report and Authorization to Bid
POL[CY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staffto bid the 21�` Avenue SW at SW 336�' Street Intersection
Project and return to the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization?
COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
■
■
Ortlinance
ResoluNon
STAFF REPORT BY: Brian Roberts, P. E., Street S;
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
Engincer ' � DEwc: Public Works
Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memorandum
Considered:
February 4, 2013.
1. Authorize staff to bid the 21S` Avenue SW at SW 336`� St Intersection Project and return to the LUTC
and Council for bid award, fisrther reports and authorization.
2. Do not authorize staff to bid this project and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City
Council Consent Agenda for approval.
MAYOR APPROVAL: _'!��`� D[RECTOR APPROVAL: �� �
//� C°°nci Conunittee Counc�
COMM[TTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the February 19, 2013 City Council Consent Agenda
for approval.
�Sl�j7 _ E j�:,►
:•� �.
PROPOSED COUNC[L MOTtOIV: "I move to authorize staff to 6id the lls` Ave SW at SW336`y Street
Intersection Project and return to the LUTC and Council for bid award, further reports and authorization. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNC[L ACT[ON:
❑ APPROVED COUNC[L B[LL #
❑ DEN[ED 1� reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACT[ON Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORD[NANCE #
REV[SED — 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 4, 2013
TO: Land Use and Transportarion Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor ��,,/�
FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works d Emergency Management �%'r/" �
' Brian Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engin
SUBJECT- 215� Avenue SW at SW 33b"' St Intersection — i00% Design Status Report and Authorizarion
' to Bid
BACKGROUND:
This project will improve the intersection of 21S` Avenue SW at SW 336�' St by constructing dual left-tum
lanes eastbound and westbound and a right—turn lane westbound. 'Tiiis project will include access control
along SW 336�' Street and also instalt a new traffic signal west of the intersection to allow for left turn access
into the businesses north and south of the roadway. Addirional work witl inciude utility relocation, storm
drainage, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting, signing, channeiization, and landscaping.
PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDTfURES:
Design $ 650,000
ROW Acquisition 650,000
2013 Construction Cost 3,500,000
10% Construction Contingency 350,000
Construction Management 525,000
Utility Relocation (PSE) 160,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECf COSTS $ 5,835,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING:
TIB Grant $ 3,360,000
Budgeted City Funds 1,859,000
Mirigation 132,947
tnterest Earning 1,871
Lakehaven Utility District 30,000
Comcast 36,000
Century Link 35,fl00
Puget Sound Energy 10,000
TOTAL AVAILABLE BUDGET $ 5,464,818
At this time the project budget has a funding shortfall of $370,182. The estimated funding short fall is due to
the need to relocate facilities owned by utility companies (PSE, Century iink and Comcast) that was
constructed within a private easement adjacent to the exisring right of way. As we proceed with bidding the
project, the total project costs will be refined and presented to the Committee and Council at the Project bid
award for further action. A possibte source for additional funding for this project will be from the S 320`fi
Street at 20`�' Ave South Intersection Improvements project which is estimated to have a$1,000,000 funding
balance at the 100% design stage.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 ITEM #:�
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: ENTERING INTO AN MOU WITH THE INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE.
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Federal Way Police enter into an MOU with the Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force based out of the Seattle Police Deparhnent.
COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety
Council Committee - (PRHS&PS)
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: Feb 12, 2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Steve Arbuthnot, Commander DEPT: Police
Attachments:
1. PRHS&PS Staff Memo
OpNons Considered:
1. Accept the recommendation to enter into an MOU with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
2. Re'ect the recommendation to enter into an MOU with the Internet Crimes A�ainst Children Task Force�_
_ ......................................�................................................................................................................................................................................._............................................................................................................._...................._..._......................
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option #1
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DIRECTOR APPROVAL;� �'��✓1 /�',%�3 1�l-� r� �3
Committee Councii
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: "I MOVE TO FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
TO ENTER INTO AN MOU WITH THE INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN TASK FORCE. "
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to enter into an MOU with the Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Force and authorize Police Chief Brian Wilson to sign the MOU. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1sT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/lY0 ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED— 02/27/12 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 12, 2013
TO: Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM: Brian J. Wilson, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Request to enter into an MOU between the Federal Way Police Department and
the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
Background
The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) is federally funded through a grant
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Seattle PD is the host agency
that runs ICAC. As an affiliate member Federal Way agrees to abide by the operational and
investigative standards set forth for ICAC investigations. The Federal Way Police Department
meets the standards and is in compliance with minimum requirements necessary to be a member.
Membership in the ICAC Task Force will result in Federal Way investigative personnel having
access to ICAC training at no cost. This specialized internet training will be valuable in
investigating other internet based crimes, including human trafficking. Additionally,
membership establishes a relationship which will allow the Federal Way Police to quickly move
significant investigations to a federal level and gain assistance from the ICAC Task Force.
The Federal Way Police Department currently investigates these crimes that occur within our
jurisdiction. Becoming an affiliate member of the ICAC Task Force does not require the
commitment of personnel and would not increase our current caseloads.
The recommendation is for the approval of the Federal Way Police Department to enter into an
MOU with the ICAC Task Force to enhance our capability in investigating internet crimes
against children.
�
GITY OF
Federal Way
City of Federal Way
Police Department
Memo
To:
From:
Chief Brian Wilson, via Chain of Command
Commander Steve Arbuthnot
Date: 01/16/13
Subject: Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force
This memo is to request review of this program and to recommend that the Federal Way
Police Department become an Affiliate partner with the Task Force. The Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Force (ICAC) is Federally funded through a grant from Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Seattle PD is the host agency that runs
ICAC. As an affiliate member Federal Way agrees to abide by the operational and
investigative standards set forth for ICAC investigations. I have reviewed these
standards and Federal Way is in compliance with minimum requirements necessary to be
a member.
Membership will result in access for Federal Way investigative personnel to ICAC
training. It will require Federal Way to investigate ICAC crimes in our jurisdiction and
assistance to other jurisdictions when possible or necessary. Membership also opens
the avenue to quickly move significant investigations to a federal level and gain
assistance.
Please review the attached documents and let me know if you need anything else from
me.
WASHINGTON STATE
INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
TASK FORCE
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Executed by
The SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT (SPD�,
a department of the City of Seattle, hereinafter referred to as "SPD",
Department Authorization Representative: Captain Greg Ayco
PO Box 34986
Seatde WA 98124-4986
and
The FEDERAL WAY POLICE DEPARTMENT,
a department of the City of Federal Way, hereinafter referred to as "FWPD",
Department Authorized Representative:
33325 8TH Avenue South
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Agreement by having their representatives affix
their signatures below.
FEDER.AL WAY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Brian Wilson, Chief of Police
SEATTT.E POLICE DEPARTMENT
John Diaz, Chief of Police
Date: Date:
WHEREAS, SPD is the recipient of a Federal grant through the Office of Juvenile Jusrice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to assist in the investigation and prosecution of Internet crimes
against children; and
WHEREAS, SPD has been selected by OJJDP to oversee the mulri-jurisdicrional Washington
State Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force intended to combat crimes related to the
sexual exploitation and victimization of children through the Internet, online communication
systems, and other computer technology; and
WHEREAS, SPD will assist police agencies in Washington State to increase their computer
forensic capabilities and receive appropriate training to investigate Internet related cases.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
This Interagency Agreement contains three (3) Articles.
ARTICLE I. TERM OF AGREEMENT
T'he term of this Interagency Agreement shall be in effect until terminated pursuant to the
provisions hereof.
ARTICLE II: OPERA.TIONAL STANDARDS
Federal Way Police Department agrees to participate on the Northwest Regional Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Force that is overseen by SPD.
Federal Way Police Department agrees to adhere to the ICAC Task Force Program O�ierational and
Investigative Standards, attached to and made part of this Agreement, as Attachment A. The
undersigned law enforcement agencies agree to investigate ICAC cases within their jurisdicrion, and
assist other jurisdictions to investigate these cases.
Federal Way Police Departxnent agrees to utilize applicable state and Federallaws to prosecute
crixninal, civil, and forfeiture actions against identified violators, as appropriate.
Federal Way Police Department shall maintain accurate records pertaining to prevention, education
and enforcement activities, to be collected and forwarded not less than monthly to Captain Greg
Ayco, Seatde Police Department, PO Box 34986, Seattle, WA 98124-4986, for statistical reporting
purposes (form provided.)
ARTICLE III. AMENDMENTS
No modification or amendment of the provisions hereof shall be effective unless in writing and
signed by authorized representatives of the parties hereto. The parties hereto expressly reserve the
right to modify this Agreement, by mutual agreement.
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
Internet Crimes A ainst
g
Children Program
OPERATIONAL
AND
INVE STIGATIVE
STANDARDS
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 1 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
Definitions
As used herein, the following defmitions shall apply:
"OJJDP" is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
"NCMEC" is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
"CEOS" is the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division of the
Department of Justice.
"Commander" is the individual designated as the leader of the state or regional ICAC
Task Force
"Supervisor" is any manager responsible for supervising personnel involved in ICAC
related cases.
"ICAC" is the Internet Crimes Against Children program composed of Task Forces and
Affiliates.
"TASK FORCE" is defined as an ICAC law enforcement agency designated by OJJDP to
act as the State and/or Regional Task Force.
"AFFILIATE" is defined as a law enforcement agency that is working in partnership with
a Task Force and has agreed in writing to adhere to ICAC Operational and Investigative
Standards.
"PARTNER" is defined as an agency assisting a Task Force absent a written agreement.
"NATIONAL I1�TITIATIVE" is defined as any investigative proposal that relies on the
cooperation and resources of all Task Forces or mandates action by OJJDP.
"Unlawful images, contraband images, images depicting the sexual exploitation of
minors" Any visual depiction of child sexual exploitation as defined by federal and/or
state statute.
"CVIP" is the Child Victim Identification Program operated by the National Center for
Missing & Exploited Children.
"CYBERTIPLINE" is a reporting mechanism for cases of online child sexual
exploitation and enticement operated by the National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children.
For the purposes of this program, crime is defined as any offense that involves the
exploitation of children facilitated by technology.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 2 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
Investigative interest is established when there is reasonable suspicion that a screen name
or other potentially identifiable entity has committed a crime or that entity is engaged in a
sequence of activities that is likely to result in the commission of a crime.
A proactive investigation is designed to identify, investigate and prosecute offenders that
may or may not involve a specifc target, and requires online interaction and a significant
degree of pre-operative planning.
A reactive investigation involves the investigation of a complaint of a crime.
Reasonable suspicion is established when sufficient facts exist to lead a law enforcement
afficer to believe that an individual or organization is involved in a defmable criminal
activity.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 3 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
1. Oversight
1.1 Each ICAC agency shall have supervisory systems and procedures that shall provide
for observation, documentation, and periodic review of ICAC activity. Such system
should comply with the principles of quality case management and ensure that ICAC
activities comply with both agency and ICAC Operational and Investigative Standards
(hereto forth, "the Standards").
1.2 Task Forces shall submit all proposed national initiatives to OJJDP prior to project
initiation.
1.3 OJJDP may suggest amendments to the original proposal following consultation with
the presenting Task Force and other federal, state, and local entities.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 4 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
2. Selection and Retention of ICAC Task Force Personnel
2.1 Supervisors should evaluate prospective ICAC candidates for work history that
indicates prior investigative experience, court testimony skills, ability to handle sensitive
information prudently, and a genuine interest in the protection of children, and an
understanding of the harmful effects of unlawful images.
2.2 Given the graphic nature of evidence routinely encountered in ICAC related
investigations, the mental health of all personnel involved in such cases is a concern.
ICAC supervisors are encouraged to make reasonable efforts to inform assigned
personnel about departmental employee assistance program policies, procedures, and
services available to them.
2.3 ICAC supervisors and/or his/her designee should work to ensure the long term well-
being of any individuals involved with ICAC related child sexual exploitation
investigations. The following recommendations are encouraged:
• Workspace considerations - The physical location in an office should be
conducive to feeling comfortable while at work.
• Preparation for new employees - Develop an interview process in that the
potential candidate is educated about the true nature of the crime.
• Work flexibility - Allowing investigators and others who are exposed to unlawful
images, contraband images, images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors to
have flexibility (e.g. frequent breaks, having an open-door policy, etc.)
• Educating colleagues - Colleagues should be aware that viewing of child sexual
abuse images should be treated as serious, restricted and stressful.
• Work with Mental Health Providers (MHP) — In compliance with local agency
guidelines work with MHP to make recommendations for care of unit staff and
provide education/training regarding self-care and stress management, etc.
• Best Practices - ICAC Commanders and supervisors are encouraged to share or
seek out any daily office practices used by them or other ICAC Task Forces that
can promote mental health and wellbeing.
• Training — Encourage attendance at trainings that discuss the specific stressors
associated with exposure to images or videos depicting child sexual abuse.
ICAG Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 5 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
3. Training
3.1 All professional and administrative personnel assigned responsibilities associated
with ICAC operations shall be required to read and comply with the Standards.
Additionally, all training program curriculuxn supported by ICAC resources shall be
consistent with the Standards, and approved by OJJDP or, in instances of local training,
the Commander.
3.2 Commanders are responsible for ensuring that the individuals nominated for ICAC
sponsored training are employed by agencies that have agreed in writing to adhere to the
Standards and that any prerequisite requirements for the training session have been met.
3.3 ICAC task forces may develop and deliver regional training. The training shall
comply with the Standards. Any subsequent support required as a result of the regional
training shall be the responsibility of the task force providing the training.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 6 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
4. Case Management
4.1 Case Predication and Prioritization Factors
4.1.1 Cases may be initiated by referrals from the CyberTipline, Internet service
providers, or other law enforcement agencies, and by information gathered through
subject interviews, documented public sources, direct observations of suspicious
behavior, public complaints, or by any other source acceptable under agency policies.
4.1.2 Supervisors are responsible for determining investigative priorities and selecting
cases for investigation. Assuming the information is deemed credible, that determination
should begin with an assessment of victim risk and should also consider other factors
such as jurisdiction and known offender behavioral characteristics. The following factors
should be considered:
• A child is believed to be at immediate risk of victimization
• A child is vulnerable to victimization by a known offender
• A known suspect is aggressively soliciting a child(ren)
• Manufacturers, distributors or possessors of images that appear to be home
photography with domiciled children
• Aggressive, high-volume unlawful images, contraband images, images depicting
the sexual exploitation of minors, manufacturers or distributors who either are
commercial distributors, repeat offenders, or specialize in sadistic images
• Manufacturers, distributors and solicitors involved in high-volume trafficking or
belong to an organized group sharing unlawful images, contraband images,
images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors ring that operates as a criminal
conspiracy.
• Distributors, solicitors and possessors of unlawful images, contraband images,
images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors
• Any other form of technology facilitated child sexual victimization
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 7 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
4.2 Record Keeping
4.2.1 ICAC agencies shall be subject to existing agency incident reporting procedures and
case supervision systems. At a minimum, a unique identifier shall be assigned to each
ICAC case.
4.2.2 All affiliated agencies will report their activity to the respective Task Force
Commander by the l Oth of each month using the ICAC Monthly Performance Measures
Report.
4.2.3 Task Forces will compile and submit their monthly performance measures report to
the OJJDP designated location before the end of the following calendar month. This
monthly report does not replace the semi-annual progress report required by the Office of
Justice Program's Financial Guide.
4.2.4 ICAC Case Tracker — Task Forces will compile and submit information on all cases
referred for local, state, or federal prosecution. Information is required for all cases
referred by the grant receiving agency, as well as all affiliates that received more than
$20,000 a year, or any affiliate the Commander selects to include. The report is on-going
and begins with the prosecutorial agency the case is referred to and continues through the
fmal disposition of the case. This on-going quarterly report will be due within 30 days
of the end of the quarter and does not replace either the semi-annual progress report
required by the Office of Justice Program's Financial Guide, nor does it replace the
Monthly Performance Measures Report (see 4.2.3 above).
4.3 Undercover Investigations
4.3.1 Carefully managed undercover operations conducted by well-trained officers are
among the most effective techniques available to law enforcement for addressing ICAC
offenses.
4.3.2 Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that ICAC investigators receive a copy of
the Standards.
4.33 ICAC investigations shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the principles
of law and due process.
4.3.4 The following minimum standards apply to ICAC investigations:
a. Only sworn, personnel shall conduct ICAC investigations in an undercover
capacity. Private citizens shall not be asked to seek out investigative targets, nor
shall they be authorized to act as police agents in an online undercover capacity.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 8 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
b. ICAC personnel shall not electronically upload, transmit, or forward any
contraband. This does not prohibit the transfer of evidence between law
enforcement officials as provided by section 4.4.4 of these Standards.
c. Other than images or videos of individuals, age 18 or over, which have
provided their informed written consent, and at the time consent was given were
employed by a criminal justice agency, no actual human images or videos shall be
utilized in an investigation. Employee is defined as a sworn, or compensated
individual, or any individual working under the direction and control of a law
enforcement agency.
d. Absent prosecutorial input to the contrary, during online dialogue, undercover
officers should allow the investigative target to set the tone, pace, and subject
matter of the online conversation. Image transfer shall be initiated by the target.
e. i7ndercover online activity shall be recorded and documented. Any departures
from this policy due to unusual circumstances shall be documented in the relevant
case file and reviewed by an ICAC supervisor.
4.4 Evidence Procedures
4.4.1 The storage, security, and destruction of investigative infortnation shall be
consistent with agency policy. Access to files should be restricted to authorized
personnel.
4.4.2 The examination of computers and digital media shall be consistent with agency
policy and procedure.
4.4.3 Unlawful images or images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors are
considered contraband, and should be maintained pursuant to each agency's policies
regarding such. It is recommended that absent a court order specifically ordering
otherwise, evidence conta.ining unlawful images, contraband images, images depicting
the sexual exploitation of minors shall not be released to any defendant or representative
thereof.
4.4.4 The transfer of evidence containing unlawful images, contraband images, and
images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors among law enforcement shall be done
in a secure manner. Methods of transfer may include hand-delivery, electronic
transmission of digitally protected files, delivery via a service that tracks the shipment, or
other methods consistent with agency policy and practices.
4.5 Workspace and Equipment
4.5.1 ICAC equipment will be reserved for the exclusive use of agency and/or designated
ICAC personnel. When possible, undercover equipment and online accounts shall be
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 9 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
purchased covertly. No personally owned equipment shall be used in ICAC investigations
and all software shall be properly acquired and licensed.
4.5.2 ICAC personnel shall not use ICAC computers, software, or online accounts for
personal use.
4.5.3 Absent exigent or unforeseen circumstances, all ICAC investigations should be
conducted in a professional and ethical manner in an approved workspace as designated
by a Supervisor. Alternative workspace policies may be developed and approved by the
Comx�ander (in consultation with OJJDP when appropriate) to allow for investigations to
continue during event driven instances where the physical location of the investigator
may vary.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 10 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
5. Information Sharing
5.1 Conventional boundaries are virtually meaningless in the electronic world of the
Internet and the usual constraints of time, place, and distance lose their relevance. These
factors increase the possibility of ICAC agencies targeting one another, investigating the
same subject, or inadvertently disrupting an ongoing investigation. To foster
coordination, collaboration, and communication, each ICAC agency shall make every
effort to deconflict all active investigations.
5.2 When a common target is identified, the agency should consider contacting other
local, state, and federal agencies that may be involved in an investigation of the same
target.
5.3 When transferring an ICAC investigation to another agency, the appropriate ICAC
Comxnanders shall be notified that a referral has occurred.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 11 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
6. Victim Identification
6.1 Identifying child victims is a critical element of the ICAC Program: DOJ and OJJDP
require all Task Forces and affiliates-to submit child victim images to the Child Victim
Identification Program (CVIP) as a means to improve child victim identificarion. Absent
exigent circumstances, child victim images will be sent to the CVIP consistent with
NCMEC guidelines. In addition, ICAC agencies are encouraged to collaborate with
NCMEC to identify children depicted in unlawful images, contraband images, images
depicting the sexual exploitation of minors.
6.2 A focus of the ICAC Program is to protect children. In circumstances where reporting
of child abuse is not required under existing laws, ICAC agencies are strongly
encouraged to report instances where a child may be at risk for abuse or exploitation.
6.3 Absent exigent circuxnstances, victim-identifying information should be protected
from public disclosure.
6.4 Adhere to state and federal victimization notification and assistance laws.7.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 12 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
Community Education and Crime Prevention
7.1 Prevention education activities are a critical component of the OJJDP ICAC Program.
ICAC agencies should foster awareness and provide practical, relevant guidance to
children, parents, educators, librarians, and other individuals concerned about child safety
issues.
7.2 Presentations to school staff, parents, and community groups are excellent ways to
promote awareness. These presentations shall not depict identifiable victims, not
otherwise in the public domain, nor shall they use pornographic or sexually explicit
images. Presenters shall not discuss confidential investigative techniques.
7.3 No member of an ICAC Task Force may endorse any product or service without the
express consent of an OJJDP Program Manager. While appearing at public presentations,
ICAC members may indicate a preference for a product or service, but to avoid an
implicit endorsement, such ICAC members should indicate adequate alternatives.
7.4 The materials and presentation should be consistent with the national ICAC goals as
outlined below:
Purpose of the ICAC Program
The mission of the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force program is to assist state
and local law enforcement agencies in developing an effective response to cyber enticement and
the production, possession, and distribution of unlawful images, contraband images, and images
depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. This support encompasses forensic and investigative
components, training and technical assistance, victim services, prevention and community
education.
Background on the ICAC Program
The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) program is a national network of 61 coordinated
local taskforces and nearly 3,000 local and regional affiliated agencies engaged in both
proactive and reactive investigations, forensic examinations, effective prosecutions and
communiry education. The ICAC Program was developed in response to the increasing number
of children and teenagers using the Internet, the proliferation of unlawful images, contraband
images, images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors, and the heightened online activity by
predators searching for unsupervised contact with underage victims. By helping state and local
law enforcement agencies develop effective and sustainable responses to online child
victimization and unlawful images, contraband images, images depicting the sexual exploitation
of minors, the ICAC program delivers national resources at the local level.
The ICAC program actively protects children who use the Internet by proactively investigating
the online sexual exploitation of children by predators. Because ICAC practitioners understand
that arrests alone cannot resolve the problem of on-line victimization, the ICAC program is
dedicated to training law enforcement and educating parents and youth about the potentiad
dangers online and o, fj`'ering safety tools.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 13 of 14
LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ONLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE
8. Media Relations and Releases
8.1 Media releases relating to prosecutions, crime alerts or other matters concerning
ICAC operations shall not include inforxnation regarding confdential investigative
techniques and should be coordinated (when applicable) with other Task Force
participants, Federal law enforcement agencies, and State and local agencies involved in
the investigation consistent with sound information management and media relations
practices.
8.2 Commanders and supervisors (or their designees) may speak to members of the media
about their own departrnents' ICAC-related activities according to their own agency's
guidelines. No individual affiliated with the ICAC program may speak on behalf of the
ICAC Program as a whole.
8.3 Commanders should inform an OJJDP Program Manager if approached by national
media outlets about the ICAC Program (as opposed to media seeking information about
local activities) so that a coordinated national response can be prepared by OJP.
8.4 Information provided by ICACs to the media shall be consistent with the information
provided in Section 7.4.
ICAC Program Operational and Investigative Standards
FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Last Update: May 31, 2011
Page 14 of 14
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBJECT: ALLOCATION OF 2013 CITY EMPLOYEE DONATIONS AND CARRY-FORWARD OF UNSPENT 2012
HUMAN SERVICES GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.
POLICY QUESTION: How should funds raised by City employees at the December 2012 auction/pledge drive
and unspent 2012 Human Services General Fund dollars be allocated to human services agencies?
COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety
CATEGORY:
X Consent
❑ City Council Business
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: February 12,
2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Dee Dee Catalano DEp'r: Coxnmunity & Economic
........--- ............................................................... Develo�ment Services
Attachments:
2013-2014 HSGF funding recommendations
Background:
Every year City employees hold an auction and pledge drive to raise money for human services. The funds raised
are divided equally between United Way of King and Pierce Counties and the City of Federal Way Human
Services fund.
By the end of December 2012, the City of Federal Way employees raised $5,833 for the Human Services Fund to
be allocated in 2013. The Human Services Commission considered allocating these funds at their January 28,
2013 meeting.
Concurrently, the HSC also considered allocating $3,700 in unspent 2012 Human Services General Fund dollars.
The Navos Employment Services program met only 63 percent of its annual performance measures goal;
therefore, it received 63 percent of its annual grant amount of $10,000, leaving a balance of $3,700.This money
was carried forward into 2013. The combined total of the employee donations and the Navos carry-forward is
$9,533.
The HSC traditionally recommends allocating employee donations and any unspent funds to an agency or
agencies that currently receive Human Services General Fund monies. The Commission decided to focus on
those programs that City Council funded in 2013, but at a lower amount than they received in 2012.
The Coxnmission voted to recommend allocating the $9,533 as follows:
HSC Recommended
Agency Origina12013 Allocation Additional Fundin Tota12013 Award
KCSARC - Sexual Assault $25,000 $5,000 $30,000
Services
WA Women's
Employment & Education $7,000 $3,000 $10,000
REACH Plus
Va11ey Cities Counseling &
Consultation Youth $5,000 $1,533 $6,533
Develo ment
Options Considered:
l. Approve the Human Services Commission's recommendation to allocate $5,000 to King County Sexual
Assault Resource Center Sexual Assault Services; $3,000 to Washington Women's Employment &
Education REACH Plus; and $1,533 to Valley Cities Counseling & Consultation Youth Development.
2. Do not approve the Human Services Commission's recommended funding and give staff alternate
direction.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1.
MAYOR APPROVAL: ���s�n� ���Y�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
co ttee co committce council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the Human Services Commission's recommendation to
allocate the 2012 City employee donations and the 2012 Human Services General Fund carry forward doldars to
the February 19, 2013 consent agenda for approval.
� Committee Chair
�
Committee Member
// i ��
/ /
r��� - - u � -
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move�.�ivard of Human Services General Funds in the amount of $5,000 to
King County Sexual Assault Resource Center Sexual Assault Services; $3,000 to Washington Women's
Employment & Education REACH Plus; and $1,533 to Yalley Cities Counseling & Consultation Youth
Devedopment program. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYC]TY CLERRS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1sT �'esdin8
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
Human Services Commission Final Recommendation 08/20/12
2013-2014 HSGF
/Mon t,� or ►eosr sr� o/on�,�dr�y/
Human Services Commission Final Recommendation 08/20/12
2013-2014 HSGF
••NOTE: Combine both YWCA requests in 1 wntract
Muman Services Commission Final Recommendation 08/20/12
2013-2014 HSGF
Human Services Commission Final Recommendation 08/20/12
2013-2014 HSGF
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUBJECT: HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING — SHARED APPLICATION
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council authorize a Memorandum of Understanding Agreement with the
City of Kent for management of the shared on-line application system for Human Services funding?
COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety MEETING DATE: February 12, 2013
CATEGORY:
X Consent
❑ Ordinance ❑ Public Hearing
❑ City Council Business ❑ Resolution ❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: 7ay Bennett, Community Services Manager� DEPT: Community & Economic
Develo�ment Services
Attachments: Memorandum of Understanding
Background
In 2010, the City of Federal Way joined with 18 cities to provide a common online application for Human
Service funding. At that time, this was provided through eCityGov. During the funding cycle in 2010, staff
determined there was numerous shortfalls with the product offered through eCityGov and, in collaboration with
the other cities, began a search for a better product.
The vendor selected (Westaffl offered a superior project and a lower cost. However, due to the timing, it was
decided by all of the cities to have eCityGov contract with the vendor for 2011 and 2012. Because of the high
administrative cost being charged by eCityGov the cities determined it would be better to have the agreement
between Westaff, and eCityGov transferred to one of the member cities. The City of Kent volunteered to act as
lead agency. The cost savings for Federal Way will be $6,750 annually.
The attached Memo of Understanding with the other participating jurisdictions describes the mechanism Kent
will use to invoice the City of Federal Way and the other participating cities for the contracted services based on
a prescribed fee schedule.
Options:
1. Authorize the Mayor to execute the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Kent.
2. Do not authorize the Memorandum of Understanding and provide direction to City staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1
MAYOR APPROVAL: `� DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
ommi Co il Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Kent
for management of the on-line application process for Human Services funding to the February 19, 2013 consent
agenda for approval. �
�
. Committee Chair Committee Member Co ittee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Kent
for management of the on-line application process for Human Services funding. "
(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 #
1ST reading
Enactment reading
ORDINANCE #
RESOLUTION #
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITIES OF KENT, AUBURN, BELLEViTE,
BOTHELL, BURIEN, COVINGTON, DES MOINES,
FEDERAL WAY, ISSAQUAH, KENMORE,
I�RKLAND, MERCER ISLAND, REDMOND,
RENTON, SAMMAMISH, SEATAC, SHORELINE,
TUKWILA, AND WOODINVILE FOR PLANNING,
FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A JOINT
HUMAN SERVICES APPLICATION AND FUNDING
PROGRAM.
THIS MEMORANDUM OF iJNDERSTANDING ("MOU") is entered into pursuant
to Chapter 3934 RCW by the Cities of Kent, Auburn, Bellevue, Bothell, Burien,
Covington, Des Moines, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kenmore, Kirkland, Mercer Island,
Redmond, Renton, Sammamish, SeaTac, Shoreline, Tukwila, and Woodinville,
Washington hereinafter referred to as "Cities", to provide for planning, funding, and
implementation of a joint human services application and funding program.
WHEREAS, the Cities engage in activities which support human service providers in
King County; and
WHEREAS, the Cities wish to make the most efficient use of their resources by
cooperating to provide funding to support human service providers in King County; and
WHEREAS, through the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the Cities have the authority to
engage in cooperative efforts which result in more efficient use of Government resources;
and
NOW THEREFORE, and in consideration of the terms, conditions and performances
made herein, it is agreed as follows:
1. Pur�ose of MOU: The purpose of this MOU is to facilitate the alliance of the 19
member Cities who independently provide funding to organizations to provide critically
needed human services in their communities, but jointly receive applications for grant
funding through one online grant subscription service and portal. The various human
service programs funded by the member cities include food security, housing and
homelessness prevention, health, mental health, youth services, and others.
2. Joint Participation.
a) Lead Citv. The City of Kent shall be the designated lead city ("Lead City").
The Lead City shall contract directly for and manage the online grants
subscription service with Western States Arts Federation ("Vendor"). The
other responsibilities of the Lead City are described in Section 4.
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 2 of 10
b) Participatin�Cit� A Participating City is a City participating in the joint
online funding application portal, who is a party to this MOU, and who is not
a Lead City.
3. Fundin�Arran e� The Lead City and each Participating City will jointly
participate in the costs to run the online grants subscription service. The allocation of
costs shall be based on population ranges of each city, as established by population
estimates made by the Office of Financial Management pursuant to RCW 43.62.030. The
initial allocation shall be as described in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein.
Any Participating CiTy requesting a change in allocation may only do so by written
amendment to this MOU, in accordance with Section 12. Each Participating City shall
provide its annual financial contribution to the Lead City no later than thirty (30) days
after receiving invoice from the Lead City, pursuant to Section 4(a) below.
4. Responsibilities of Lead Citv. The Lead City has been designated to act as the
fiscal and administrative agent for the Participating Cities. The responsibilities of the
Lead City shall include the following:
a) Send an invoice to each Participating City by February 15th of each year for
their annual funding participation.
b) Contract with the Vendor, and manage the performance of the online grants
subscription service.
c) For each year after the first year of this agreement, provide a projected
estimate of the annual financial contribution to be made by each of the
Participating Cities no later than September 30th of the preceding calendar
year in which the contribution is to be made.
d) Maintain accounts and records which properly reflect transactions related to
this MOU.
5. Duration. This MOU shall become effective when it is approved by a majority of
the Cities and shall remain in effect through December 31, 2013, with automatic
extensions annually, unless terminated as described in section 6.
6. Termination. Any City may terminate its participation in the MOU without cause
by giving the other Cities a thirty (30) day written notice. The terminating party shall
remain fully responsible for meeting its funding responsibilities and other obligations
established by this MOU through the end of the calendar year in which such notice is
given. If at any time termination of a City results in fewer than ten Cities remaining as
parties to this MOU; then this MOU shall automatically terminate after sixty (60) days
for all remaining Cities, provided that all Cities shall remain fully responsible for funding
responsibilities and other obligations established by this MOU through the end of the
calendar year in which such termination becomes effective.
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 3 of 10
7.
Notices. Notices to the Cities shall be sent to the following persons:
8. Indemnification.
Each City agrees to indemnify the other Cities from any claims, damages, losses, and
costs, including, but not limited to, attorney's fees and litigation costs, arising out of
claims by third parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death, caused
solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of such City, the City's employees,
affiliated corporations, officers, and lower tier subcontractors in connection with this
MOU.
Each City hereby waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington
for claims of any type brought by any City agent or employee against the other Cities.
This waiver is specifically negotiated by the parties and a portion of the City's payment
hereunder is expressly made the consideration for this waiver.
9. Insurance. Each City shall procure and maintain in full force throughout the
duration of the MOU comprehensive general liability insurance with a minimum
coverage of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence/aggregate for personal injury and property
damage. In the event that a City is a member of a pool of self-insured cities, the City
shall provide proof of such membership in lieu of the insurance requirement above. Such
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 4 of 10
self insurance shall provide coverage equal to or greater that required of non-self
insurance pool member Cities.
10. Oversight Committee. This MOU shall be managed by an Oversight Committee
made up of six City representatives, as follows: one each from three member Cities from
South King County, and one each from three member Cities in East King County, to be
designated by the Lead City. The representative of each City shall be that person
designated in section 7 of this MOU. The Oversight Committee shall meet at least
annually to discuss the terms of the MOU and request any changes to the services
provided pursuant to the MOU.
11. Apnlicable Law; Venue; Attornev's Fees. This MOU shall be governed by and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit,
arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this MOU, the parties
specifically understand and agree that venue shall be exclusively in King County,
Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees
and costs of suit.
12. Amendments. This MOU may be amended, altered, changed or extended in any
manner by the mutual written consent of all member Cities.
13. Counterparts. This document may be executed by facsimile or electronic mail in
any number of current parts and signature pages hereof with the same effect as if all
parties had all signed the same document. All counterparts, each one which shall be
considered an original, together constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have entered into this MOU as of this
day of , 2013.
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 5 of 10
CITY OF AUBURN
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF BELLEVUE
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF BOTHELL
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF BURIEN
By: _
Title:
Date:
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 6 of 10
CITY OF COVINGTON
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF DES MOINES
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF ISSAQUAH
By: _
T�tie:
Date:
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 7 of 10
CITY OF KENMORE
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF KENT
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF KIIZKLAND
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND
By: _
Title:
Date:
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 8 of 10
CITY OF REDMOND
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF RENTON
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF SAMMAMISH
By: _
Title:
Date:
CITY OF SEATAC
By' -
Title:
Date:
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 9 of 10
CITY OF SHORELINE
:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF TUKWILA
:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF WOODINVILLE
:
Title:
Date:
F.\CivillFles�Open Files10733-12 Human Senrices�t9(SiyOnlineGr�rtMOU DAG Fnal.doc
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
Online Grant Funding Application MOU
Page 10 of 10
Exhibit A
Fee Schedule
Ci 2013 Fee Po ulation
Auburn $750.00 63,390
Bellevue 1 000.00 124,600
Bothell $500.00 17,2$0
Burien 500.00 47,730
Covin ton 500.00 17,760
Des Moines 500.00 29,700
Federal Wa 750.00 89,460
Issa uah 500.00 31,150
Kenmore 500.00 21,020
Kent $1,000.00 119,100
Kirkland 750.00 81,480
Mercer Island 500.00 23,154
Redmond 750.00 55,360
Renton $1000.00 93,910
Sammamish 500.00 47,420
SeaTac 500.00 27,210
Shoreline 750.00 53,270
Tukwilla 500.00 19,080
Woodinville 500.00 10,960
12,250.00
Population Fee
0-50000 $500.00
50000-90000 $750.00
90000+ $1,000.00
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
ITEM #:
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUB.IEC'r: Panther Lake Open Space Trail Project 30% design
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to proceed with the design of the Panther Lake Open
Space Trail Project and return to Parks Commission, PRHSPS and Council at the 85% design completion for
further reports and authorization?
COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
�■
Ordinance
Resolution
MEETING DATE: Feb 12, 2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Stephen Ikerd – Parks & Facilities Manager DEPT: PRCS
_..._ ......................... .............. ................._....... . . . _. . .......................................................... _. _.... . ................ .. .__ ............. . ..._....---.._............................................_ _._.....
Attachments: Panther Lake Open Space Trail Project memo.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the Panther Lake Open Space Trail Project and return to
Parks Commission, PRHSPS and Council at the 85% design completion for further reports and
authorization?
2. Do not authorize proceeding to the 85% design and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1: Authorize staff to proceed with the design of the Panther Lake Open
Space Trail Project and return to Parks Commission, PRHSPSC and Council at the 85% design completion for
further reports and authorization.
MAYOR APPROVAL: .��L=-�— DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ����'�
Commi Cou��l Committee Councu
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the authorization; for stafj`'to proceed with the design of
the Panther Lake Open Space Trail Project and return to Parks Commission, PRHSPSC and Council at the 85%
design completion for further reports and authorization to the full Council Feb 19, 2013 consent agenda for
approval.
i�1'�(/"�1'`' j� _ " "
Committee Chair
Committee Member
Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I m�approval of authorizing staff to proceed with the design of the
Panther Lake Open Space Trail Project and return to Parks Commission, PRHSPSC and Council at the 85%
design completion for further reports and authorization "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1sT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/lY0 ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF
"�.- Federal Vi/ay
Parks and Facilities Division
Date: February 1, 2013
To: PRHSPS Council Committee
Via: Mayor Skip Priest
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works & Emergency Mgmt. ��✓�
From: Stephen Ikerd, Parks & Facilities Manager
John Mulkey, Street Systems Project Engineer
Subject: Panther Lake Open Space Trail project; 30% design status report.
Background:
The City recently worked with a consultant; Huitt-Zollars and the Parks & Recreation
Commission to identify potential trail connection routes between the BPA trail and West
Hylebos Wetlands. A decision was made following the study to focus on a phased
approach which included developing a loop trail around Panther Lake with a connection to
the BPA trail, and add parking and site improvements as funding becomes available.
This 30% project design includes the following site improvement elements:
1. Paved pedestrian trail around Panther Lake with a connection to the BPA trail.
2. Eagle Scout Bridge Replacement
3. Create an associated parking lot with a new driveway access to SW Campus Dr.
4. Park monument sign.
5. Utility connections.
6. Playground Equipment Area.
7. Picnic shelter area.
8. Restroom.
9. Park fixtures; picnic tables, benches, garbage can holders, etc.
10. Interpretive signage.
The next phase of the project design will only involve the design improvements of
elements 1 through 5 but the Environmental Documentation (SEPA) will include all of the
project components, 1 through 10.
Project Estimated Expenditures:
Phase Paved Pedestrian Trail Parking Lot � New Driveway Eagle Scout Bridge
(Including utilities and Mon. sign) Replacement
Design Contract $240,653 $ 0 $ 0
2014 Construction Cost $621,472 $569,097 $219,712
10% Construction Contingency $62,147 $56,910 $21,971
12.5% Construction Management 77 684 71 137 27 464
Total Phase Costs $1,001,956 $697,144 $269,147
Total Construction Estimate $1,968,248
Available Budget:
King County Trail Levy (2008 through 2012) $619,906
King County Trail Levy (2013) $150,000
City Funds 172 676
Total Available Budget $942,582
The current shortFall including the trail construction, parking lot, entrance improvements
and bridge replacement is $1,025,666. The Department will apply for grants, accept
donations, research mitigation sources and other opportunities to complete the project.
Staff recommends proceeding with project design for the first five elements:
1. Paved pedestrian trail around Panther Lake with a connection to the BPA trail.
2. Eagle Scout Bridge Replacement
3. Create an associated parking lot with a new driveway access to SW Campus Dr.
4. Park monument sign.
5. Utility connections.
As we proceed with the project design to 85%, the total project costs will be refined and
presented to Committee and Council for further reporting and action.
The Parks and Recreation Commission recommend approval of the 30% design and
authorization to proceed with the design of the first five elements of the project.
s
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 ITEM #: � �
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBdECT: EarthCorps 2 year contract.
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Mayor and Council authorize a 2 year contract with EarthCorps to provide
Urban Forest Health services to the City?
COMMITTEE: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: Feb 12, 2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ Other
DEPT.: PRCS
STAFF REPOR'r._BY.�........_Ste�hen Ilcerd.....-._Parks_&_Facilities_Manager .................................................................................................................................................._....._._._........._...._........__._......................._
Attachments: EarthCorps contract memo.
Options Considered:
1. Authorize a 2 year contract for Urban Forest Health services in the amount of $40,000.00 to EarthCorps
and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement.
2. Do not authorize a 2 year contract for Urban Forest Health services to EarthCorps and provide direction
to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Option 1: Authorize a 2 year contract for Urban Forest FIealth services in the
amount of $40,000.00 to EarthCorps and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement.
MAYOR APPROVAL: ���r��:v�/ DIRECTOR APPROVAL: L�/v, `,
Co e Co il Committee C�
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to forward the authorization for a 2 year contract for Urban Forest
Health services in the amount of $40,000.00 to EarthCorps and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement to
the full Council February 19, 2013 consent agenda for approval.
,���(./(,Q�/1�.� f -����.�id
� Committee Chair
���
Committee Member
Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move pproval of authorizing a 2 year contract for Urban Forest Health
services in the amount of $40,000.00 to EarthCorps and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement"
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1ST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION . Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED — 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF
�� Federal Way
Parks and Facilities Division
Date: February 1, 2013
To: PRHSPS Council Committee
Via: Mayor Skip Priest G��
Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works & Emergency Mgmt.
From: Stephen Ikerd, Parks 8� Facilities Manager
Subject: EarthCorps Contract
Background:
The City has successfully been working with EarthCorps on an Urban Forest Health services
program for nearly two years after the Friends of the Hylebos merger. The City funding for this
program has significantly reduced the amount of invasive plants at Dumas Bay Sanctuary and
West Hylebos Wetlands. This program also plants appropriate native trees and plants back into
areas found to be in need. Without this program and the ability of EarthCorps to organize a large
workforce of staff and volunteers we would never have been able to make the significant progress
on forest health that has been realized to date.
Scope of work:
EarthCorps will provide each year; event management services for nine (9) volunteer projects and
one (1) event preparation day, with City of Federal Way and Corporate volunteers.
The proposed 2013 and 2014 sites include: West Hylebos Wetlands, West Hylebos Blueberry
Farm, Dumas Bay Sanctuary Park, Poverty Bay Open Space and Panther Lake Open Space.
Event details:
• Nine (9) volunteer events each year will be managed by EarthCorps staff. At the beginning
of each year EarthCorps will work with Parks staff to identify and agree upon specific work
projects within the above mentioned sites.
• Volunteer event management services include but are not limited to providing onsite
volunteer leadership, supervision, technical support, volunteer recruitment, event
coordination, tools, volunteer hospitality, coordination of projects with the City of Federal
Way and project reporting.
• EarthCorps will also provide volunteer education at each event that cover safety, tool use,
and environmental restoration techniques.
• Each event includes 12 hours of Project Management time for planning and onsite
leadership of the event and prep day if scheduled.
• EarthCorps will manage plant orders and order porta-potties if the City is unable to supply
a porta-potty for events at Panther Lake or Brooklake.
• The City will supply mulch and Greens dumpsters when available and deemed appropriate
for the site upon request at least two weeks in advance.
• In addition to the city funded events, EarthCorps has leveraged two grants; one with
Google and one with the Rose Foundation for 2013. These grants will allow EarthCorps to
complete four additional events and eighteen additional crew days of work on city property.
Annual Expenditures:
Event management $16,405
Outreach (solicit volunteers 8� grants) $1,725
Plants 8� supplies 1 870
Total Project Costs $20,000
Available Budget:
2013 Council approved funds $20,000
2014 Council approved funds 20 000
Total Available Budget $40,000
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: T-MOBILE SITE LEASE RENEWAL — TWIN LAKES / BPA
ITEM #:
POLICY QUESTION: SHUULD THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE RENEWAL OF THE WIRELESS SITE LEASE
AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AMENDMENT?
COMMITTEE: PARKS RECREATION HUMAN SERVICES& PUBLIC
SAFETY
CATEGORY:
� Consent
❑ City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: Patricia Richardson
��■
Ordinance
MEETING DATE: February 12,
ZU12
❑ Public He�ring
Resolution ❑ Other
DEPT: Law
T-Mobile entered into a Lease Agreement with the City on December 20, 2002 for installation and operation of
certain eguipment on City owned land located on the BPA trail for use in connection with its wireless telephone
communications service. The lease was renewed in 2007 and expired on December 19, 2012. T-Mobile has
requested to renew the lease for an additional fve yeaz term pursuant to the terms of the lease. This amendment
will increase the monthly rental rate from $1,387.74 to $2,530.64 and will increase 4% each year beginning
January l, 2014.
Options Considered: l .
2
Recommend approval of the lease renewal and authorize the Mayor ta
execute the amendment.
the lease renewal.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approvat of the lease renewal and authorize the Mayor to
execute the amendment.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
� DIRECTOR APPROVAL: � �1�
C�/%%� Comminee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIOPi: I move to forward the proposed Second Amendment to the T-Mobile Site
Lease to the February 19, 2013 consent agenda for approval.
���� �� �
Committee Chair Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION:
BPA trail, beginning December
sign said amendment. "
Member
"I mo�pproval of the Second Amendment to the T-Mobile Site Lease on the
20, 2012 and terminating on December 19, 2017, and authorize the Mayor to
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERXS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
D APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1$7 reading
0 TABLEDlDEFERREDlNO ACI70N Enactment resdi�g
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordi»ances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED- 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION q
SECOND AMENDIVIENT
TO
SITE LEASE AGREEMENT
{AG # 03-018)
This Second Amendment to Site Lease Agreement ("Second Amendment") is dated effective this
20`h day of December, 2012, and is entered into by and between the City of Federal Way, a
Washington municipal corporation ("City"), and T-Mobile West LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, formerly known as T-Mobile West Corporation, a Delaware corporation, which was
successor-in-interest to Voicestream PCS III Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Tenant").
A. The Ciry and Tenant's predecessor-in-interest, VoiceStream PCS III Corporation
("V S PCS III") entered into a Lease Agreement dated effective December 20, 2002, whereby the City
agreed to lease to VS PCS III, as Tenant, a portion of the space on, and air-space above, the Ciry
Praperty located at SW 348`� Street, Federal Way, with an Assessor's Parcel No. of 542242Q900 , as
amended by that certain First Amendment to Site Lease Agreement dated December Z0, 2007,
executed by the City and T-Mobile West Corporation ("First Amendment"). The Lease Agreement
and First Amendment are collectively referred to herein as the "Lease".
B. The Lease provided that Tenant may renew the Lease for three (3) additional five (5)
year terms under Secrion 2.
C. Under Section 27.6. of the Lease, any modification of or amendment to the Lease
must be in writing and executed by both parties.
D. The First Amendment renewed the Lease for a five (5) year term which expires on
December 19, 2012.
E. The City and the Tenant agree and desire to amend the Lease to renew the term of the
Lease for an additional five (5) years, which will constitute the second (2�) Renewal Term.
F. Pursuant to Section 2 of the Lease, the City represents that it previously performed a
maxket rent analysis as permitted therein and that based on that previous market analysis, City
believes the current monthly Rent for this Lease is more than twenty percent (20%) below fair
market rent, and City now desires to increase the monthly Rent under the Lease as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
T-Mobile site ID:
SE09?53A, Twin Lakas-BP?,
— 1 —
Term.
Pursuant to Section 2 of the Lease, the Lease is hereby renewed for an additional five (5) yeaz
term commencing on December 20, 2012 and expiring at 11:59 PM on December 19, 2017, which
term shall constitute the second {2°d) Renewal Term under the Lease.
2. Rent.
Commencing on December 20, 2012, the new monthly Rent under the Lease shall be Two
Thousand Five Hundred Thirty and 64;100 Dollars ($2,530.64) per month. The Rent shall be
increased by four percent (4%) each January 1 during the term of the Lease beginning on January 1,
2414.
3. Notiees.
Section 16 of the Lease is hereby amended to change the notice address for the City and
Tenant as follows:
If to City: City Attorney
33325 Eighth Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98063
With a copy to: Mayor
33325 Eighth Avenue Sauth
Federal Way, WA 98063
If to Tenant: T-Mobile USA, Inc.
12920 SE 38�' Street
Bellevue, WA 98006
Attn: Lease Compliance/SE04753A
4. Full Force and Effect.
All other terms and conditions of the Lease not modified by this Second Amendment shall
remain in full force and effect.
5. Si�ature Authoritv. The persons who have executed this Second Amendment
represent and warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Second Amendment in their
individual or representative capacity as indicated.
DATED the effective date set forth above.
T-hlobil2 sitz ZD:
Sc",0�753A, Twin Lakes-SPA
- 2 -
CITY OF FEDERAL �VAY
:
ATTEST:
Carol McNeilly, CMC, City Clerk
Skip Priest, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney
TENANT:
E
:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
> ��.
COUNTY OF KING )
LLC, a De(awaze Limited Liability
Printed Name
David Ciailacher
Uce President, West Region
Title
OlylalN LM� W l4lsdemtli
9'/�� ���•�L89aw4MeemnaM
/ J
19aMP��W��ers[dM1CaUS
Dale A 121216 NF.613] -0B Op'
On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the
of T-tilobile West LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, that
executed the forego' instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and
voluntary act and deed o 'd corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath
sCated that he/she was authoriz to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the
eorporate seal of said corporation.
GNEN my hand and official seal this�_ day of
T-Mobile sit= IP�:
SE��47�3A, Twir Lak�s-8??�.
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public in and for the State of
My commission expires
- 3 -
2012.
S�
a
�� `�°c�`
C
��\
�yb �
��
CALIPORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CML CODE § 1189
State of California
County of ( li� ��
On Jar1,n�Y ��, Zb �� before me, �C�� r�1 Z�d� ��'�-L ; l'l ��►2i✓� ���b l� G,
Date Here Insert 14ame and le of the Officer
personaliy appeared ��b�C� �.���tc�tlw-
Name(s) of Signer(s)
��� BEATRIZ RODR{CUEZ
�. Commisaion #� 1�9638
� ��w
Z ;�:. Notary Public - CalHornia
�t� S�n Bernardino Counry
M Comm. Ex ires Au 30. 2016
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(a�'whose name.(sj is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged
to me that he%He/##e� executed the same in
hisA�ieNN°rei� authorized capacity.(i�s�;- and that by
his/#�� signature�} on the instrument the
person�, or the entity upon behalf of which the
person�acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature:
Place Notary Seal Above Signature Public
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, ff may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent remova/ and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: ���'`� P IrV1�,v�(���-i� 't"a Le U� -Pc�IVCQ,YvurVr- 5� U�-7�3�
Document Date: �eC�W►�,r Z� � Z01 Z Number of Pages: 3
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: �aNa �a����'"
�] Corporate Officer — Title(s): Y�L� �✓C StC,�vt,-�
❑ Individual
.
❑ Partner —❑ Limited ❑ General Top of thumb here
❑ Attorney in Fact
❑ Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
❑ Other:
Signer Is Representing:
Signer's Name:
❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s):
O Individual
.
O Partner — � Limited 0 General Top of thumb here
❑ Attorney in Fact
O Trustee
❑ Guardian or Conservator
� Other:
Signer Is Representing:
� 2010 National Notary Association • NatfonalNotary.org • 1-800-US NOTARY (1-500-876-6827) iiem xayui
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:
SUS,TEC'r: Hearing and resolution to renew the Steel Lake Management District No.l, calling for a vote by affected
property owners on the renewal of the proposed District.
POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt a resolution to renew the Steel Lake Management District No.l,
calling for a vote by affected property owners on the renewal of the proposed District after holding a public
hearing?
COMMITTEE: N/A
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
❑ City Council Business
❑ Ordinance
� Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: William Annleton. P.E.. Surface Water
Attachments:
■ Staff Memo dated February 19, 2013
■ Resolution to renew the Steel Lake Management District No. l
■ Steel Lake Management District Plan (2014-2023).
■ Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the SLMD
Options Considered:
MEETING DATE: N/A
� Public Hearing
❑ Other
: Public Works
1 Adopt the resolution to renew the Steel Lake Management District No.l, calling for a vote by affected
property owners on the renewal of the proposed District.
2. Do not adopt the resolution and provide direction to staff.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: The Mayor recommends Option 1.
MAYOR APPROVAL:
committee
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Council Co-� Council
N/A N/A N/A
Bob Celski, Chair Jeanne Burbidge, Member Diana Noble-Gulliford, Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move to adopt the resolution to renew the Steel Lake Management District
No.l, callingfor a vote by affected property owners on the renewal of the proposed District. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
❑ DENIED 1ST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 08/12/2010 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 19, 2013
TO: City Council
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor �
FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and Emergency Management
' William Appleton, P.E., Surface Water Manager �---�
Steel Lake LMD - Public Hearing Date and R solu�� tion to Reform the SLMD
SUBJECT: Calling for a Vote
BACKGROUND:
After 10-years of successful lake management, 2013 will bring to a close the existing Steel Lake,
Lake Management District (LMD) (2004-2013). The LMD provided an organizarional structure and
funding mechanism that allowed for proactive lake management focusing on the protection and
enhancement of water quality, recreational use and aesthetic value of Steel Lake. Citizens involved
in the formation and operations of this LMD are now interested in reforming the Steel Lake LNID for
another 10-year period.
Attached is a signed petition to the City of Federal Way City Council to renew the Lake Management
District Number 1, beginning in 2014 thru 2023. The petition meets the criteria set forth in
RCW 36.61.030 for the initiation of a Lake Management District.
At the January 15, 2013 City Council meeting, both a public hearing date concerning the reformarion
of the SLMD was set for February 19, 2013 and a resolution of intent to reform the SLDM was
adopted.
Following the public hearing, Council is being asked to approve the attached resolution calling for
the reformation of the Steel Lake Management District No 1, calling for a vote by the affected public.
If the resolution is adopted, voting ballots will be prepared and mailed out to the affected parties
based upon criteria in Chapter 36.61.080 RCW.
If the reformation of the District is approved by the voters (simple majority required), then an
ordinance creating the SLMD will be drafted for consideration by the City Council. Following
adoption of the Ordinance, an assessment roll will be created, published and sent to the affected
parties. A public hearing will also be set regarding the assessment roll, after which resolutions
establishing the assessment role and Steel Lake Advisory Committee will be brought before City
Council for consideration. The adoption of an Ordinance establishing the time of payrnent, interest
and penalties will then be brought before Council. The final step in the reformation process is the
selection and appointment of the Steel Lake Management Advisory Board.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Federal Way,
Washington, to renew the Steel Lake Management District number 1,
calling for a vote by affected property owners on the renewal of the
proposed district.
WHEREAS, the City has completed the attached 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District
Plan (SLMDP) (Exhibit A) which includes the basis for the annual LMD work plan and LMD
management goals; and
WHEREAS, the Plan was created because of citizen interest in the long term protection of
Steel Lake; and
WHEREAS, Steel Lake contains significant natural resources including wetlands, and
supports many beneficial public purposes including recreation, water quality, stormwater
protection, aesthetics, and property value support; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 35.21 RCW and chapter 36.61 RCW a lake management
district may be formed to provide funding to support the maintenance and improvement of lakes;
and
WHEREAS, the Steel Lake community has demonstrated support for the Steel Lake
Management District number 1(District) through submittal of a petition calling for the renewal
of the District (Exhibit B) pursuant to the requirements of chapter 36.61 RCW; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a City resolution, a public meeting was conducted on February
19th, 2013, on the renewal of the District after public notice of the hearing was provided to all
affected property consistent with Chapter 36.61 RCW; and
WHEREAS, after considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the City of
Resolution Page 1 of 4
Federal Way City Council declares that submitting the question of renewal of a lake management
district to a vote by the affected property owners is within the public's interest; and the proposed
financing for a lake management district is considered feasible;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin�s. the City of Federal Way City Council finds that it is in the public
interest to renew the District and the financing of the lake improvement and maintenance
activities is feasible. Attached and hereby incorporated is the 2014-2023 SLMDP (Exhibit A).
The plan describes (1) the proposed lake improvement and maintenance activities which avoid
adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and provide for appropriate measures to protect and enhance
fish and wildlife; (2) the number of years the lake or beach management district will exist; (3) the
amount, method, description, and frequency of special assessments or rates and charges, and the
possibility of revenue bonds that are payable from the rates and charges; and (4) the estimated
special assessment or rate and charge proposed to be imposed on each parcel included in the
proposed lake management district.
Section 2. Vote of Affected Property Owners. The renewal of the Steel Lake
Management District Number One (the "District") shall be referred to a vote of the property
owners within the proposed management district. The residents' Petition to the Federal Way City
Council to renew a Lake Management District for Steel Lake is attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by this reference. The City Clerk of Federal Way shall prepare the
appropriate ballot, based upon criteria in Chapter 36.61.080 RCW, calling for a vote on the
renewal of the District. The ballots shall be submitted to the affected residents no later than
Resolution Page 2 of 4
_. P�� ��� , and shall be returned to the City of Federal Way by no later than five o'clock
p.m. (5:00 p.m.) on ���'., ;) . All ballots must be signed by the owner or reputed
owner of property according to the assessor's tax rolls. Each property owner shall mark his or her
ballot for or against the creation of the proposed lake management district, with the ballot
weighted so that the property owner has one vote for each dollar of estimated special assessment
or rate and charge proposed to be imposed on his or her property. The valid ballots shall be
tabulated and a simple majority of the votes cast shall determine whether the proposed lake
management district shall be approved or rejected. If approved by the voters within the proposed
district, the implementation of the District will be effective January 1, 2014 and shall remain in
effect for a term of ten (10) years, said term to expire on December 31, 2023.
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution.
Section 4. Corrections. The City Clerk and the codifiers of this resolution are authoriz�l to
make necessary corrections to this resolution including, but not limited to, the correction of
scrivener/clerical errors, references, resolution numbering, section/subsection numbers and any
references thereto.
Section 5. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date
of this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the Federal Way City Council.
Resolution Page 3 of 4
<
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON this _ day of , 2013.
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:
RESOLUTION NO.:
Resolution
Page 4 of 4
���r��r ,�
The 20'i 4-2023 Steei Lake
Mar��gement �istrict Plan
February 8, 2013
� GTY OF
� FederallNay
Public Works Oepartment
Surface Water Management Division
33325 8�' Avenue South
Federai Way, WA 98003
APPROVALS
�, City of Federal Way
Manager
Dan Smith, City of Federal Way
Surface Water Quality Coordinator
q��'�-� �
Hotiie Shilley, City of Federai Way
Surface er Quality Coordinator
Tom Dezutte , ake Resident
SLAC Chair
��
Margaret Reyhner, Lake Resident `
SLAC Co-Chair
3
�
Bill Linehan, Lake Resident
SLAC Committee Member
_ � �.�-�:-...—�
Mela .e Cannon, Lake ttesident
SLAC Committee Member
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................1
i.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTWCT GOALS ............................................................................................1
2.Q BACKGROUND AIYD PAST LAKE MANAGEMENT EFFORTS ...................................................._.. 2
2.1 EARLY EFFORTS .............................
2.2 2001- 2002 ....................................
23 2003-••--•••••• ...................................
2.4 2004-20 t 3 .....................................
............ • • • ............. .......................................... • -• • •--•.......... _... __...... 2
....................................................................... •-•--................. __..... 2
•••-•-• .........................................................••••-•.........._.........._........ 2
._.....-----•• ..................................••-•--••-•--•.............•••--•-•.............__... 3
3.0 LAKE AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................. 3
3.1 LAND USE ....................................................................................•••.._............._.......-••--................................3
3.2 SHORELINE USE..••••-•• .............................••••-••••...................._........•--•••-•..........-••••-•....................................._. 5
33 OLJ'fLET, STREAM AND WETLAND LOCATIONS ..............••••-••....._.....................••--•••--........._...........•••-•.......... 6
3.4 NON-POINT N(JTRIENT SOLJRCE LOCA1'IONS._...•-•••••-•• ...........................•-••....................••-•••••-•-•..........--•...... 7
3.5 LAKE BATHYMETRY ..........................................•••........................_........._............................_.............•-•-•.._.. 7
3.6 WATER SOURCE.•••••••-••...•-•••••••••-•••••-•••••-•••••-• .................•••-•.......-••••••••......................_............_.......••••••--.... 8
3.7 WATER QUALTfI' .....................................................................................•---........_...........••••---•-•....._......---••-- g
3_7 1 Historic Water Quality Data .............................•---...........---..................------......................----•-----.........._. 8
3.7.2 WaterQualityAssessments---.•-• :::...........................................................................................................9
3.8 WATER R[G[�tT'S ..................................•••........_..............••••................................._..........................._............10
3.9 BENEFICIAL AND RECREATIONAL USFS ........................••••._................................-••................_....••••............ 10
4.0 THE AQUATIC WEED PROBLEM .........................................................................................................13
5.0 AQUATIC PLANT CHARACTERISTICS
14
5.1 NAT[VE AQUATIC PLANTS IN STEEL LAICE ........................................................••-•••-..._..........................._... 14
5.1.1 Native Emergent Plants ..........................................�--._..............._..._............._...................---.............---.. IS
5.1.2 Native Rooted Floating-Leaved Plants ................................................................................................. !S
.i.1.3 Native Submerged Macrophytes ....................................................................................•----................... 1S
Smatl-leafed pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) .............................................................................................................. t�
Naiads(Naja flexilis) ....................................................................................•-••--•--••...................._._..........-•--•--..._.............15
5.1.4 Native Submerged Macroalgae ...........................•--�--..................................--•-•----...........------.........------: IS
P(ant-tike algae (Chara, sPP).....••• ................................................................................:................................................... l6
Plant-like algae (Ni�ella, sp.) .................••-..........._........................._..............._...._..............__....................................._......_ l6
SZ NON-NATIVE AQUA1'iC Pi.AIJTS IN STEEL LAKE...•-• ................................••-•._...............••-•••............__......_.. 16
S.2_! Non-Native Emergenl Plants ......................••---------.........----.............-•------...................--��---.........-•---...... 17
Yeilow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) ...............••................_.......................................................-••..............................••••.....17
Japaz►ese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidaJum) ...................................................................................................................17
5.2.2 Non-Native Rdoted Floating-Leaved Plants ......................................................................................... 17
Fragrant water iily/ Whete water IiIY �N3'n+Phaea odorata) ...................•••............._........................_...._..._.........................17
S_2.3 Non-Native Submerged Macrophytes..-•-•-• ..................................•---...................................................... 18
6urasian watermilfoil (Myriophy!/um spicatum) ..........................•-•----........................_...._..........-•---._......._.........._........... l8
6.0 AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES•--..........••• .................................................................20
b.l AQUATIC HERBiC[DES .............••..........--••••-••••-•..........••-••-.................._................°•--...-••.........••--••-••...._..._. 20
6.1.1 Aquatic Plant and Algae Management Genera! Permit-------------------------------------------------------•-•-----........_ 21
6.1.2 Discharge Management Plan .......................................................................•--•----................_......_......... ll
6.1.3 Aquatic Herbicide Contro! oJMiljoil.-�-------•• .............................•-------�--..........-•-----------�--.......--•-----•---... 22
6.1.4 Aquatic Herbicide Corrtro! o.f Fragrant Waterlily .........................................................•----•---........---.... 22
6. LS Aquatic Herbicide Conlrol of Emergent Vegetation: Yellow Flag Iris and Japanese Knotweed __...... 23
6.1.6 Aquatic Herbicide Coniro! of Native Aquatic Plan[s ..................................................•--------...----.-----•--. 24
6.2 MAMJAL METHODS•••............••• ............................•••---•••---•...••-••••-•.........._.........._........._............................. 25
6.2_ 1 Fland-Pulling ..............................................................................................•--.........._........_..........---....... 25
6.2.Z Cutting or Raking ...........................................................�--......................... .......15
....................................
6.2.3 Weed Rolling ................................................................. ............ 26
............................................................
ManualMethod Advantages .......................................................................................................................••••---••-•••-._......26
ManuaiMethod Disadvantages ..........•-• ................................................................................................•••••••......._............26
Manual Method Suitability fior Steel Lake...••• .................................................••.........._....................••-•-•••-••-•••..._.............27
6.3 D[VER DREDGING .......................•-•.........................................................•--••..........._........................._......... 27
Diver Dredging Advantages......-•-••.....••--• ...............••.........................
....................................••••---•...•••-••..........................27
DiverDredging Disadvantages......•-•• ...............................................................................................................................27
DiverDredging Permit Requirements ..........................................................•-••...•-•••••-•..._.................................................28
Diver Dredging Suitability for Steel Lake _.....s ...............••••••••......._........................_......_..........._.....-••••-••-••••..._..........•••...28
6.4 BOTTOM BA[LRIERS .................................................................................................................................... 28
BottomBarrier Advantages .......................................................................................................••••-••••..............................28
BottomBarrier Disadvantages .......................................................................................................•••-••••••••••••-......._..........29
Bottom $amer Permit Requ'vements .....................••......-•••---°----•°--.....-•---........................................__...._..............•-•••...29
Bottom Barrier Suitability for Steel Lake .........................................................................................•--................••••......_..29
6.5 BIOLOGICAf.CONTROL••-• ...........................................•-••••---•-•.......-••-•-............................-•••-••._...._.............29
6.5.1 GrassCarp .............•--•.......--•-•••.........._............................_......--�•-----......................................................29
6..i.2 Waterrniljoil Weevil ............................................•-�-•-----•--•--..._....................................._......................... 31
6.6 ROTOVATION•••-• ..................................•••-•.................................•-•...._..........:......_.............•••-•••--•.............._.3i
6.7 HARVESTING.......•--••••.......-• ...................................•-•--...._.....__......._....._....•-•••••.....•••................_.....•-••••••••..32
6.8 MECHArnCn[,CLrrCING .............................•-•...................................•••••............................__.........:..............32
6.9 Ditnwnowiv.....-• ........................................................................................................................................32
6.10 No Ac'r�ox Ai.�[trrA'nvE ............ ::.......................................................................................................... 33
7.0 INTEGRATED AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT PLAN ..........................33
8.0 PRESERVATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND AQUATIC HABITAT ...................................34
9.0 ALGAE MANAGEMENT PLA1V ...............................................................................................................36
10.0 WATER QUALITY 1�ONITOItING PROGRAM ...................................................................................37
11.0 LAKE OUTLET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM .....................................•••••-............_............................. 38
12.0 CANADA GEESE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM .....................•-•...........................................................38
13.0 COMMUN[TY EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMEIVT PROGRAM ...................................................39
14.0 LMD ANNUAL COSTS AND COMMI�'TEE AUTNORIZATION ......................................................40
14.1 PRIIvtaxY LMD MatvAGEtv[EN�r Go,4t....... ..................••••••.._...._.....................•---•••••-••••••-••-•.......,...................... 40
i4.2 OPTIONAL LMD MANAGEMEIVT GOAI.S .................................••••••••-•.................................-•••••••••.................... 42
i43 SLAC RESeorrSiBQ,rr�s/AUrt[oftcfY ................•••••••••......................_.......••••---•-••-......................-•••••••-•-••-•-•...43
14_4 PETtT[ONTOCREnTELMD ......................................:...••••-•••-•.........................._...•••••••••••-.........._._..................43
15.0 REFERENCES.......--• ...................................................................................................................................44
APPENDICES
Appendix A ...........................................................Signed Petition
Appendix B ...........................................................Assessment Rate by Pa�cel
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 1 ......................................................................Steel Lake Wate�shed/Stormwater Conveyance Map
Fig2 ......................................................................Steei take Land Use Map
Fig 3 ...........................................................•-•--......2010 Steel Lake Bathymetry Map
Fig 4 ......................................................................Steel Lake TSl values, 1994-2004
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 ..................................................................Land Use Estimates for the Steet Lake Watershed.
Table 2 ..................................................................Shoreline Use Estimates for Steel Lake
Tabie 3 ..................................................................Physical Characteristics of the Steel Lake Watershed
Table 4 .......................................................::.........Trophic State Index (TSl) Wate� G1uaNty Parameters
Table 5 ..................................................................List of Steel Lake 8eneficial Uses
Table 6 ....................................................••-••.........2002 WDFW Total Fish Counts
Table 7 ..................................................................KenUAubum Rainer Audubon 2010 Bird Count
Table 8 ..................................................................Primary LMD Management Goals
Table 9 ..................................................................Estimated Annual Cost for Contracted Aquatic Plant
Management Program
Table 10 ................................................................Optional LMD Management Goals
DiSTRtBUT10N UST
The foliowing lists City staff involved with the implementation of this project:
• wll Appleton, P.E., Surface Wate� Manager, City of Federal Way
• Dan Smith, Surface Water Quatity Program Coordinator, City of Federat Way
• Hollie Shilley, Water Quality Specialist, City of Federal Way
Page lntentionaliy Left Blank
INTRODUCTION
In 2403, the City of Federa( Way City Council, by Ordinance 03-452, created the inaugural ten year Steel
Lake Management District (LMD) Number 1 sun-setting on December 3 t, 2013. In 2012, the appointed
members of the Steel Lake Advisory Committee {SLAC), representing the property owners of the LMD and
acting per Resolution 03-397, began preparing the work scope to renew Steel Lake Management District
Number 1 for a second multi-year period. This document, the 2014-1023 Stee! Lake Management District
Plan (SLMDP), outlines management goals established by the SLAC ko provide the basis for the creation of
a renewed Steei Lake Management District, set to become effective the beginning of 2014.
Per the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 35.21.403, any city or town may establish lake management
districts (LMD) within its boundaries as provided in chapter 36.61 RCW. The Washington State legislature
finds that the enviror►rnental, recreational, and aesthetic values of many of the state's lakes are threatened by
eutrophication and other deterioration and that existing governmental authorities are unable to adequately
improve and maintain the quality of the state's lakes. It is through RCW 36.6I that a governmental
mechanism may be estabtished by which property owners can embark on a program of lake improvement
and maintenance for their and the general public's benefit, health, and welfare.
RCW 36.61.020 outlines the requirements for the creation of a lalce management district, inctuding the
protocols for financing the LMD improvements and maintenance of a lake. RCW 36.61 also describes the
set of activities permitted to be undertaken by an LMD: (1) The control or removal of aquatic plants and
vegetation; (2) water quality; (3) the control of water levels; (4) storm water diversion and treatment; (5)
agricultural waste control; (6) studying lake water quatity problems and solutions; (7) cteaning and
maintaining ditches and streams entering or leaving the lake; and (8) the related administrative, engineering,
iega(, and operational costs, including the costs of creating the lake management district.
1.0 LAKE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOALS
Depending upon year-to-year fund balances, the renewed Steei Lake Management District Number 1 will
allow for the implementation of all activities granted by RCW 36.61.020. However, a more reasonable set of
management goals have been established for the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan
(SLMDP). These management goals are based upon iake improvement and maintenance activities that may
be expected to be implemented over the LMD's ten-year period (2014-2023) per approval by the Steel Lake
Advisory Committee (SLAC):
l. Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation
2_ Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat
3. Management of hazardous algae b(ooms
4. Water quality monitoring
5. Maintenance of lake outiet channel
6. Management of Canada geese
7. Community Education and Public Involvement
CITY OF FEOERAL WAY
2D14-2Q23 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PAST LAKE MANAGEMENT
EFFORTS
Past lake management work for Steel Lake has primarily been limitEd to aquatic plant management and
public education and involvement. The foilowing outlines these efforts.
2.1 Early efforts
Until the incorporation of the City of Federal Way in i 990, the Steel Lake community was under the
jurisdiction of King County. Earty aquatic plant management efforts were spear-headed by ihe Steel Lake
Residents Association to improve Steel Lake and the region around the lake. In the late 1980s, Steel Lake
was reported to be infested by the non-native aquatic plant, Eurasian watermilfoil (see Section 5:2.3 for a
description. The Eurasian watermiifoi( (milfoil) infestation covered large littoral areas of Stee( Lake up
to the 15-foot depth interval, and was severe enough to result in the formation of dense beds that affected
shallower near shore areas. The cor�ditions caused restrictions to fishing, swimming, sailing, and other
types of boating.
In 1990, Federal Way was incorporated as a city and the Surface Water Management (SWM) division
began actively engaging in the lake water quality issues. By 1994 the City of Federa( Way and the Stee1
Lake Residents' Association agreed to equally fund a multi-year aquatic piant management program for
Steel Lake to combat recurring milfoil infestations. [n addition, the City was able to obtain a Department
of Ecology Grant to augment costs. During a successive four-year period, a number of efforts were
undertaken by the Residents' Association-City alliance including: a whote-lake Sonar� treatment in
1994 (Resource Management, Inc.); annual diver surveys (Herrera Environmental); and the preparation
of a 1994 Lake Management Plan (Envirovision,1994).
2.2 2001- 2002
A iull foltowed ihe mid-to-tate i 990's aquatic vegetation work, then Steet Lake became reinfested with
milfoil in the summer of 2001. The City of Federal Way provided notification of the issue to a(1 Steel
Lake residents and immediately began to develop a strategy for future aquatic weed management. In
early 2002, although the Steel Lake Residents' Association had dissolved, SWM began gathering support
of lakefront residents to re-form 1he aquatic plant management program. SWM obtained a twayear Earty
Infestation Grant from the Washington Department of Ecology (Eco(ogy) that funded a series of
underwater surveys and provided permit-authorized and contractor-implemented 2,4-D herbicide
treatments that were successful in eradicating a five-acre milfoil infestation. Concurrentiy, efforts also
began that year to form a Steering Committee to initiate the process to create a Lake Management
District (LMD) for Steel Lake.
2.3 2003
In 2003, SWM staff compieted an updated integrated Aquatic Vegetation Management Ptan (IAVMP)
required by the Ecology-issued Aquatic Noxious Weed Control National Po(lutant Discharge Elimination
System Waste Dischazge Genera( Permit_ The IAVMP was approved by Ecoiogy and provided the basis
for LMD development. That year, SWM coordinated a number of Steel Lake Steering Committee
meetings that resulted in the formation of a long-term aquatic vegetation management work plan. Cost
2 CITY OF FEOERAL WAY
2014-2423 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
estimates from both the IAVMP and the work plan were used to calculate the necessary properiy
assessment rates (based on parcel types) that wouid be required to fund a ten-year LMD.
AquaTechnex continued to work under contract for the City in 2Q03. Two systematic aquatic ptant diver
surveys were performed that established populations of all submerged, floating and emergent aquatic
plants (both native and non-native). Following the successful efforts taken under the Ecology Grant in
2002, milfoil populations were limited and scuba-diver hand-pulling was sufficient to control ihe
infestation.
After a public vote and action by Federal Way City Council, the process to form Steel Lake Management
District Number One was completed toward the end of 2003. The ten-year LMD began in 2004.
2.4 2004-2013
Surface Water Management (SWM) has rnanaged all aquatic plant management activities on Steel Lake
per tt�e ten-year (2004-2013) Steel Lake Management District (LMD). In summary, the annual LMD
programs have been administered through the imp(ementation of work plans that included: quarterly
Advisory Committee meetings, annua( aquatic plant surveys, treatment and control methods as
warranted, and effective public education. Steei Laice LMD Final reports describing annual aquatic plant
management efforts during this period may be found at htto:Nwww.citvoffederalwav.comlindex.asax?nid=189
3.0 LAKE AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
The Steei Lake watershed is iocated approximately twenty miles south of Seattle, in the City of Federal
Way, King County, Washington. The watershed is 429 acres in size and drains a gently sloping
topographic area with elevations ranging from 440 feet to 500 feet (Figure 1). The entire watershed of
Steel Lake ties within the City of Federal Way.
3.1 Land Use
Land use in the watershed is primarily comprised of single-family residences (Figure 2 and Table 1).
Steel Lake Park, multi-family residences, and vacant land comprise most of the remaining land in the
watershed. It should be noted that the sub-basin boundary in Figure 1 and land use estimates in Table t
are for Redondo Creek sub-basin CPR3, which includes an additional acreage to the north and west of the
lake outlet.
CITY Of FEDERAL WAY
2044-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMEN7 DISTRICT PlAN
4 CtTY OF FEDERAL 1NAY
2014-2023 ST£EL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Tabie 1. Land Use Estimates #or the Steel Lake Watershed (Subbasin CPR3)
Land Use Ciassification Area (Acresj Percent (°6)
Commercial 12.34 2:88
Drainage 0.74 0.17
Industrial 0.6 0.14
Institutional 5.81 9.36
Multi-family 27.26 5.36
Office 5.8d 1.36
Open Space 2.65 0.62
Park 28.70 6.70
Rigfit of Way 65.23 95_22
Single family 172.27 40.19
Stee) Lake 47.37 11.05
Utilities 2.29 0.54
Vacant 57.52 13.42
Watershed (Total) 428.63 100.00
Data Source: King County Parcel Assessor InfortnaGon and City of Federal Way GIS, 2012
m
3.2 Shorefine Use
Steel Laice includes 7,129 feet of shoreline (Table 2). T'he majority of the shoreline includes lake
frontage adjacent to single-family properly (5,179 feet). Pubiic access to the take is from Steei Lake Park
(parce( 092104 9026), owned and managed by the City of Federal Way. The Park is located on the south
shore of the lake and includes a pubtic beach area. A public boat launch (parcei 798440 0210), also
located on the south shore near the park, is owned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildtife
(WDFW). The largest undeveloped parcel (092104 9012) is tocated at the northwest corner, and has a
shoreline measuring 542 feet, with a portion classified as a Category I Wetland (see Section 3.3).
Table 2. Shoreline Use Estimates for Steel Lake
Shoreline Use Total frontage (ft) Percern •�)
Sin le family 5,178.63 72.64
Steel lake Park 872.67 12.24
Vacant 699.1 9.81
Multi fami 314.13 4.41
Public boat launch 64.49 0.90
Total 7, 729.03 100.00
Data Source: Ki�g County ParceF Rssessor Infortnafion and City of Federat Way GIS, 2012
5 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2U14-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRiCT PLAN
3.3 Outlet, Stream and Wetland tocations
Steel Lake forms the headwaters of Redondo Creek. Outflow from the lake general(y occurs only during
the wet season (November through April). The lake outlet drains in a northwest direction from the west
end of the lake, passing through wetlands to a culvert crossing at South 304th Street. The outiet continues
to flow underneath Pacific Highway South to eventually discharge into Puget Sound at Redondo Beach in
the City of Des Moines (approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the lake).
The Steel Lake outlet channei has a history of flow congestion due to an accumuiation of sediment, fallen
trees, woody debris, invasive blackberry vegetation, and trash. In addition, there is a lack of a defined
channel immediately downstream of the lake. SWM will continue to maintain the cutvert crossing at S.
304'� Street. In addition, it is envisioned that the Steel Lake LMD witl maintain the wettand area
upstream of the cuivert crossing to minitnize impacts to lake tevels caused by identified causes and
natural wetland processes.
Steel Lake wetland areas were surveyed by Sheldon & Associates for the City of Federai Way in 1998,
and this information is included in the July 1999 Final Wetland Inventory Report. The purpose of the
wetlands inventory report was to identify and map the general location of the wetiands within the city
limits of Federai Way. Generai wetland and buffer conditions and characteristics, wetland sizes, and
wetland ratings based on the City's proposed rating system are provided in the report. Although all
wetlands inventoried were mapped, the inventory process did not include delineation of wetland edges
(only approximate boundaries and locations of wetlands were determined).
The 1999 Sheldon & Associates Final Wetiand Inventory Report lists two separate categories of wetiands
associated with Steel Lake:
�. Category I wetland at the west end of Steel Lake (04-21-04-39) on parcels 092104 9196 and
092104 9124. Category I wetlands are defined as those greater than 2,500 square feet in area and
those that meet one of the following criteria:
1. Contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal
agencies as endangered, threatened or potentiaily extirpated plant, fish or animat species; or
2. Contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological
functions, or exceptionai local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems,
peat bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant
fiabitat or unique educational sites; or
3. Have three or more wetiand classes one of which is open water.
2. Cat�gory III wetlands at the north shore (09-21-04-3$) from approximately 21.i 1 South 304m
Street east to 2231 South 304`� Street. These Category III wetlands are described as having an
approximate cumulative size between 500 to 2,500 square feet. Category III wetlands do not
exhibit characteristics of Category I or II wetlands.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEt LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRlCT PLAN
3.4 Non�oint Nutrient Source Locations
The tnajority of surface water is conveyed to the lake through the City's stormwater system from the 429-
acre watershed. (Figure 1). The iargely urbanized nature of the watershed contributes typicat urban area
nutrient-related pollutants to the lake, in particular nitrogen and phosphorous. Poltutant sources in the
watershed—inciuding landscaping, gardening, domestic pets, flocics of resident and migratory Canada
geese, and vehic(e washing in upland areas of the watershed—all have the potential to contribute a
loading of nutrients into the lake. Large concentrations of these non-point nutrients can increase the
biological productivity of the lake and stimulate plant growth. It is worthy to note that al( lakefront
residences and most of the development in the watershed are connected to the Lakehaven Utility District
sanitary sewer system. _
3.5 Lake Bathymetry
On March 11, 2010, AquaTechnex completed a bathymetry mapping effort for Steel Lake (Figure 3). A
sonar unit accurate to a tenth of a foot was paired with a Trimble GPS data logger with sub-foot accuracy
to record depth readings at two second intervals along pre-determined transects. There were a totat of
20,674 points generated in the production of the mapping effort.
CiTY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRIC7 PLAN
Physical characteristics of Steel Lake are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Physical Characteristics of Steel lake Watershed
Characteristic Unit
Surface area 48.6 acres
lake volume 607 acre-feet
Maximum deptt� 29 feet
Avera e depth 12.5 feet
Lake altitude 440 feet
Shoreline le ih 9,129 fieet
Data Source: AquaTechnex Bathymetry Mapping, 2010_ Note that the lake suAace area calculated by AquaTechnex reflects tuN
lake pool condi6ais, and differs from the figure prov+ded in Tabie 1.
3.6 Water Source
The majoriiy of surface water enters the iake via stormwater outfalls located around the perimeter of the
lake (Figure 1). No streams flow into the iake.
3.7 Water Quality
Population growth, and specifically residential development, is associated with many environmental
impacts, including nutrient poiiution and subsequent eutrophication of lakes. Eutrophication of lakes
refers to a group of symptoms that lakes generaliy display when they have been overloaded by nutrients,
namely nitrogen and phosphorus. These symptoms include a disruption of the natural ecological state of
the lake, including higher primary production, higher a(gae biomass, and a shifting of the algal
community to a larger proportion of large blue-green algae that can be toxic to humans and pets. Thus,
eutrophication o�ten leads to lakes that are less economically beneficial and less aestheticai(y desirable to
humans {2003, Moore, Schindler, Scheuere(1, Smith and Frodge). Although the developed region
surrounding Steel Lake has seen a reduction in point source nutrient pollution (i.e. hook up to public
sanitary systems), there continues to be sources of nonpoint pollution in the watershed.
3.7.1 Historic Water Quality Data
A King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for Steel Lake began in
the i980s and continued for several decades untii budget cuts ended the program in 2004. The most
recent data generated by this program indicates that Steel Lake is relatively low in primary
productivity (borderline oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality.
The assessment of biological activity {or trophic state) can be ciassified into three general categories
of lake water quality: oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic. A common measurement used to
calcuiate a lake's water quality classification is the numerical trophic state index (itlustrated in
Table 4). Lakes with (ow concentrations of nutrients, low concentrations of aigae, and high
GTY OF FE�ERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRiCT PLAN
transparency (or ciarity) are considered oligotrophic. A take with high concentrations of nutrients
and algae and iow transparency is considered eutrophic. Lakes whose quaiity ranges between
eutrophic and aligotrophic are considered mesotrophic.
TaWe 4. Trophic State Index (TSI) Water Quality Parameters
Trophic StateiBiological Activity TSI
Oligotrophic/Low <40
Mesatrophic/Moderate 40-50
Eutrophic/High - >50
Data Source: Carlson, 1977
Historicai water quality data for Steei Lake are represented graphically in Figure 4. The data
indicate Steel Lake has been consistently trending toward (ower primary productivity (borderline
oligotraphic to mesotrophic) with very good water quality.
Figure 4, Steel Lake TSI 1994-2004
7C3
� 6fl
� 50
> 4{?
� 3Q
2�}
—�-- �ecchi - - -• - - - Chlor --�— TatP
�!����``..�, = ...�
_�., ...--
� � `��'s � � � °oQ cp� Q op 0Q
r^ � t- r t- s N N N (�r1 CV
Data Source: lfing County Lake Stewardship Program
3.7.2 Water Quality Assessments
The federal Clean Water Act, adopted in 1972, requires that all states restore their waters to be
"fishabie and swimmable." Washington's Water Quality Assessment�eveloped by the Department
of Ecology—lists the water quality status for all water bodies in the state_ This assessment meets the
federa! requirements for an integrated report under Sections 30�(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water
Act.
The most up-to-date information, The 2008 Water Qualiry Assessment and 303(d) List, was
reviewed for the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan (Ecology, 2012). The following
two assessment iistings for Steel Lake were found to be present:
9 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEE� LAKE
MAIJAGEMEIVT DISTRICT PLAN
1. Fecal Coliform, Category 2, Waters of Concern: Waters where the data are not su�cient
for listing a waterbody segment as impaired but may still raise a concern about water quality_
. Department of Ecology lakes monitoring data shows 0 of 3 daily maximum samples exceeded
the percentile criterion in 2003. Samples were coliected near Steel Lake Park recreation area
to re#lect water quality conditions in this area only.
. King County unpublished data from station A730 show a geometric mean of 134 cfu/100mL
with 50% exceeding the percentile criterion during 1998.
. King County unpublished data from station A730 show a geometric mean of 260 cfu/100mL
with 100% exceeding the percentile criterion during 1999.
. Remarks: Based on comments produced by the City of Federat Way, the assessment for this
►isting was changed from Categ�ry 5(Polluted Waters that Require a TMDL) to Category 2
(Waters of Concern) on January 5, 2406.
1. Invasive Exotic Species, Category 2, Waters of Concern: A�aters where the data are �ot
sufficient for listing a tivaterbody segment as impaired but may still raise a concern about
water quality.
• Ecology survey (Parsons and O'Neal, 2000) found Eurasian water-milfoil (Myriophyllum
spicatum).
• Remazks: Based on comments produced by the City of Federal Way, the assessment for this
listing was changed from Category 4C (Waters Impaired by a Non-Pollutant) to Category 2
(Waters of Concern) on January 3 i, 2005. Information cited for the new listing included the
implementation of an active aquatic weed management program in 2002, including an
annual milfoil eradication program; the approval by Ecology of the Steel Lake Integrated
Aquatic Vegetative Management Plan in 2003; and the formation of Lake Management
District Number One for Steel Lake in 2004.
3.8 Water Rights
In June 20t2, the Department of Ecology Water Resources Program was accessed electronically to
determine current water right certificates, water use permits, applications for water use, and claims of
water use on Steel Lake (Ecology, 2012). Using Geographic [nformation System (GIS) mapping, it was
determined that oniy one Certificate of Water Right carrently exists on Steel Lake:
• 2605 South 304�' Street {parcel 092104 9078).
3.9 Beneficial and Recreational Uses
Table 5 contains a list of beneficial uses that Steel Lake provides to area residents, visitors, and wildlife.
[n particular, the lake supports a large public park, excellent wetland habitat, and a trout-stocking
program. It is also important to note that motorized boats are prohibited on Steel Lake per City of Federal
Way Ordinance Number 12-715.
� � CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2Q14-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT D{STRICT PLAN
3.10 Wiidiife
Steel Lake is managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) as a trout and
warm-water tishery. Between 1947 and 1969, the lake was rehabrlitated on five occasions by treating
with rotenone to reduce poputations of spiny-ray fish and was stocked each of those years with
approximately 7,000 rainbow trout fry {Salmo gairdneri). Due to the mixed species character of the fish
community and the poor survival of trout fry, the fish management program changed in the 1970s by
eiiminating rotenone treatments and by stocking with rainbow trout ofcatchable size ( between 8 and i2
inches iong) in the spring of each year {City of Federal Way, 2003). Since 1991 an average of 6,000
trout have been released into the lake each year.
Due to program cutbacks, WDFW has not conducted fish population surveys in Steel Laice since 2002.
The results of that survey (utitizing electro-fishing and gult and fyke nets), may be found in Table 6.
Tabie 5. List of Beneficial Uses.for Steel Lake
Beneficial Use Location
Swimming Public and private shorefines and dodcs
Fishing Whole lake
Sailing Whole lake
Waterfow! habitat Co�centrated along westem shore
Aestetic enjoyment In lake and surrounding shoreline
Bird watching Throughout the lake
Wetland habitat Near tfie lake outlet (westem end of the lake)
Wildlife habitat Crayfish, turtles, and frogs primarily near shore
Trout stocking Deep water hab+tat. Mo trout spawn in the lake
City park App�oximately 873 feet of shoreli�e
Fish fiabitat Spawning (warmwater fish) occurs near dodcs
and lilies in the west end. No salmon spawn in the lake
Table 6. 2002 WDFW Tota! Fish Counts
Species Yellow Perch �rgemouth pumpkinseed Rainbow Trout �own
Bass Bullhead
Total Sampled 621 148 79 16 37
Percent 68.9% 16.4% 8% 4.1 % 1.8°k
Size, 1-4 inch 4 88 8 0 0
Size, 4-7 inch 46 49 51 0 2
Size, 7-11 inch 22 7 28 37 t2
Size,11-14 inch 0 1 0 0 2
Size,14-17 inch 0 1 0 0 0
Size, 17-19 inch 0 2 0 0 0
11 CiTY OF FEDERAI WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT UISTRlCT PLAN
The KendAuburn chapter of the Rainier Audubon Society 2010 Christmas Bird Coutit may be used as a
gauge of bird species that may visit Steef Lake (Table 7). Birds, mammals and small amphibians are also
known to use Stee� Lake. Reside�ts re,port seeing muskrats, bald eagles, skunks, raccoons, opossums,
sguirrels, turtles and frogs. There are no known tt�reatened or endangered fish species using Steel Lake.
Table 7. Kent/Aubum Rainier Audubon 2010 Christmas &rd Count
Ail available information on sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic animals (excluding fish) using
the water body is on a county-specific basis, and little or no information is availab(e on Steel Lake
proper.
Several non-native animal species are known to inhabit Steel Lake, including red swatnp crayfish
(Procambarus clarkii), Chinese mystery snails (Bellamya chinensis) and the red-eared slider tuctle
(Trachemys scripta elegans). These species were likely introduced to Steel Lake, and although the
impact of these non-native species is unknown, most invasive aquatic animal species compete against
native species for food sources, thereby presenting implications for the lake ecosystem if they multiply
dramatically.
12 GTY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGE#ENT OISTRiCT PLAN
In 2012, Aqua3'echnex completed a Steel Lake Discharge Management Plan (DMP) and State
Environmental Poticy Act {SEPA) Addendum per the requirements of the State of Washington,
Department of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National Potlutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit (Appendix G), section S2_B.4.
This requirement must be satisfied when the total proposed treated area in the water body is expected to
be five or more acres. The SEPA Addendum includes an "environmental checklist" that examines the
potential impacts of the project on the environment and answers questions regarding the current status of
Steel Lake including but not limited to: presence of sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic plant
species; sensitive habitats or wetlands; threatened or endangered fish species; aquatic animals using the
water body; sensitive, threatened or endangered aquatic animais; and waterfowt and other types of birds.
Historical observations of sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic ptant species have been
documented, but on(y reported for King County as a whole in the years prior to 1977. None listed have
been reported or identified within Steet Lake (Aqt�aTechnex, 2012). According to the Wasiungton
Department of Natural Resources data.base of high quality/rare ecologicat communities, there are no
sensitive, threatened, or endangered aquatic piant species located in Steel Lake (2012 DMS,
AquaTechnex).
4.0 THE AQUATIC WEEp PROBLEM
Noxious &eshwater aquatic weeds are plants that are not native to Washington. They aze generaily of
limited distribution, invasive, and pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies if left unchecked.
Because nonnative plants have few natural controis in their new habitat, they spread rapidly, out-
competing and effectively destroying native plant and animal habitats_ In addition, the presence of
noxious freshwater weeds may lower vatues of lakefront properties. Tt►e historical presence of aquatic
plants in Steel Lake, (including non-native and noxious species), have been shown to impair the use and
aesthetic value of the lake. 8ecause of the lake's shallow characteristics, aquatic plants have the potential to
restrict the available area for reoreation activities such as fishing, swimming and boating. In addition, other
regional lakes are in danger of becoming infested with noxious or invasive aquatic plants originating in
Steel Lake. T'he 2414-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan provides a long-term strategy for the
control of aquatic plants in Stcel Lake.
Under the authority of Chapter 17.10 RCW, the King County Noxious Weed Control Board classifies
noxious weeds based on each species' stage of invasion. This classification system is designed to: {i)
prevent small infestations from becoming large infestations; (2) contain already established infestations
to regions of the state where they occur, and, (3) prevent their movement to un-infested areas of
Washington. The following three major classes (A, B and C) are listed according to the seriousness of the
threat they pose to the state, or a region of the state:
Class A Weeds: Non-native species with a limited distri6ution in Washington. Preventing new
infestations and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority. Eradication is required by law.
Class B Weeds: Non-native species presentty limited to portions of the state. Species are designated for
control in regions where they are not yet wide-spread. Preventing new infestations in these areas is a high
� 3 CITY OF FEQERAL WAY
20'14-2023 STEEL tAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PIAN
priority. In regions where a Class 8 species is already abundant, control is decided at the local level, with
containment as the primary goal.
Class C Weeds: Non-native weeds found in Washington. Many of these species are widespread in the
state. Long-term programs of suppression and contro[ are a County option, depending upon local threats
and the feasibility of control in local azeas.
Between 2000 and 2012, the following five noxious weed species have been detected in Steel Lake:
Common Name Scientific Name Weed Class
Ewasian watermiifoil Myriop�iyllum spicatum B
Fragrant water tily Nymphaea odorata C
Yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus C
Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum B
5.0 AQUATIC PLANT CHARACTERISTtCS
Steel Lake is a typical urban Western V�ashington naturally-formed glacial take, and the aquatic ptants
(both native and non-native) that inhabit it are atso typicai. Surface Water Management (SWM), through
a ten-year Steel Lake Management Districi (LMD) that began in 2004, has coordinated all aquatic plant
management activities on Steel Lake.
5.1 Native Aquatic Piants in Steel Lake
Through the LMD, annual systematic surveys have been performed on Steel Lake to identify and
quantify the presence of native and non-native aquatic vegetation. This information has provided a
continued baseline of lake p(ant communities. Plant location maps may be found in all Steel Lake Annual
reports generated from 2004 to 2011.
Uvetall, the Steel Lake native aquatic plant community has been tated as healthy through this period.
Native vegetation has covered most littoral areas and did not interfere with the water use designations for
the lalce community during the period (swimming, boating, and fishing). Based upon the information
provided in the annual surveys, Steei Lake has been within the parameters calculated from WDFW and
Ecology criteria and adopted by the SLMDP for native vegetation littoral zone coverage (See section
8.0).
1'he fol(owing includes a summary of the types and characteristics of the dominant aquatic plant species
found during Steel Lake Aquatic Plant Surveys that have been conducted during the last eight years. A
portion of this information has been obtained from the Department of Ecology website (Ecology, 2012).
14 CITY OF FE�ERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRlCT PLAN
5. �. � Native Emergent Plants
There have been no dominant native emergent plant types noted in Steel Lake. Scattered along the
shoreline in rnoderate to dense patches have been a number of emergent species, Typha spp.
(Cattail), Eleocharis sp. (Spike Rush), and Scirpus spp. (Bull Rush}, that grow in shallow lake
margins. The seeds of the rushes are an important food for waterfowt and mammals. Cattail
rhiwmes and their basal portions are a food source for geese. Ail Steel Lake's native emergent
vegetation provides habitat for amphibians and fish and he(ps to stabitize shorelines.
5.9.2 Native Rooted Floating-Leaved Plants
The most dominant native rooted floating-leaved plant type that has been noted in Steei Lake is
Nuphar spp. (Yellow pond lily). This plant is a perennial water lily plant that has established a
moderate-sized stand in the shallow waters of the lake near the public beach and swimming area. It
is a food source for mammals and waterfowl and provides spawning habitat for fish.
5.1.3 Native Submerged Macrophytes
The most dominant native submerged macrophyte communities noted in Stee[ Lake are as foiiows:
SmaN-teafed pondweed (Potamogeton pusiltus)
These pondweeds have long, narrow leaves, and except for an occasional flower spike that
briefly rises above the water, they remain underwater for their entire lives. Their stems are
stender and profusely branched, and often have small, paired yel(owish glands at the leaf base.
The flower appears in 1-4 whorls on spikes measuring 3-15 mm long, not always above the
water. The root is fibrous to form the base of the ptant. The plant's seeds and winter buds form at
the laterai branch tips and near the leaf bases. Its seeds and vegetation provide cover and food for
aquatic animals.
Naiads {Naja flexilis)
Naiads (or slender water-nymph and common water-nymph) are completely submerged annual
plants, although they are often found as floating fragments. They have opposite teaves that are
often clustered near the tips of the stems. The leaf base is much wider than the rest of the leaf
blade, which helps to distinguish the naiads from other underwater plants. These plants have
inconspicuous flowers and fruits that are almost completely hidden by the leaf bases. Naiad
pottination takes place underwater. The plants have glossy, green, and fineiy toothed leaves that
are oppositely arranged, but appear to be whor(ed near ends of the stems. The leaves are long and
narrow with broad bases that clasp the stem, and taper to a long point 1-3 cm long and 1-2 mm
wide. The entire plant is eaten by waterfowl. Naiads are considered to be one of their most
important food sources. They also provide shelter for small fish and insects.
5.1.4 Native Submerged Macroafgae
The most dominant native submerged macroalgae communities noted in Steel Lake are as follows
(information obtained in part from the Department of Ecology website):
� � CITY OF FEDEi2At WAY
2014-2023 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Plant-like algae (Chara, spp)
Although these common (ake inhabitants look similar to many underwater plants, they are
actualiy algae. Chara are green or gray-green colored algae that grow compietely submersed in
shatlow (4 cm) to deep (20 m) water. tndividuals can vary greatly in size, ranging from 5 cm to
1 m in length. These algae are identifiable by their strong skunk-like or garlic odor, especially
evident when crushed.
Chara, like other algae, do not produce flowers. Instead, microscopic, one-celled sex organs
catled oogonia are formed. These tiny organs and patterns in the cases that surround them are
used to distinguish between species. Tiny spores are produced in fruiting bodies. In some species
the fruiting bodies are orange and very conspicuous. In addition, Chara may be attached to the
bottom by root-like st►vctures caiied holdfasts.
Piant-like aigae (Nitella, sp.)
Nitellas are bright green algae that often are mistaken for higher plants because they appear to
have leaves and stems. These long, slender, delicate, smooth-textured algae lie on the bottom of a
lake or pond and are seldom found in the water column. They often grow in deeper water than
flowering plants and frequently form a thick carpet or grow in clumps along the bottom_ Whorls
of forked branches are attached at regularly spaced intervals along the "stems". Nitellas
sometime grow together with muskgrasses (Chara spp.), another plant-like a(gae, to form
underwater meadows.
The plant has no true leaves. Six-eight eveniy forked branchlets grow in whorls at regular(y
spaced intervais along the "stem". Uniike the rough branchlets of most muskgrasses (Chara
spp.), Nitelda branchlets have a smooth texture. Nitellas have no true stems, but have hotlow,
stem-like structures that have whorls of forked branches along their entire length. The largest
Nitella species have "stems" up to 2 m long. The plant does not bear flowers; instead they have
microscopic spore-producing organs. The plants may be attached to the bottom by root-like
structures called holdfasts or be floating free above the sediment. Nitellas provide cover for fish,
food for fish and waterfowl, and stabilize the sediment. Because they have no roots, they remove
nutrients directly from the water. Nitellas are considered desirable species in Washington.
5.2 Non-Native Aquatic Plants in Steel Lake
As with native aquatic plants, annual systematic surveys performed on Steel Lake have identified and
located non-native aquatic vegetation. From this information, control strategies have been developed.
Plant location maps may be found in all Steel Lake Annual reports, 2004-20 i 1.
During this period, the Steel Lake non-native aquatic plant community has been limited to four noxious
species: Eurasian watermilfoii (Myriophyllum spicatum) Class B; Fragrant water lily (Nymphaea
odorata) Class C; Ye}low flag iris (Iris pseudacorus) Class C; and Japanese knotweed (Polygonum
spidatum) Class B. The following sections describe these non-native plant species in greater detail.
16 CITY OF FEDERAI WAY
2014-2U23 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT OISTRICT PLAN.
5.2.1 Non-Native Emergent Plants
The non-native emergent plants noted in Steel Lake are as fotlows:
Yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus)
Yellow flag iris is a Ciass C Noxious Weed. Yellow flag iris is native to main(and Europe, the
British Isles, and the Mediterranean region of North Africa and was introduced widely in western
Washington as a garden ornamental, the earliest from Lake McMurray in Skagit County in 1948.
The yellow flowers aze a distinguishing characteristic, and when not in flower, it may be
confused with cattaii (Typha sp. ) or broad-fruited bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum).Yellow
tlag iris is considered an obligate wetland species, with a>99% probability of occurring in
wettands as opposed to upland areas. The plants produce large fruit capsutes and corky seeds in
the late summer. Yellow flag iris can spread by both seeds and by rhizome growth, where it can
form dense stands that can exclude even the toughest native wetland species, such as Typha
latifolia (cattail). In addition to threatening plant diversity, this noxious weed can also alter
hydrologic dynamics through sediment accretion aiong the shoreline. This species produces
prolific seeds that may easily transpoct downstream to invade other vatuable resource areas.
Yellow ftag iris continues to populate shoreline areas of Steet Lake, but its numbers are
decreasing as it has been effectively targeted for treatment through the LMD aquatic plant
management program.
Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) is a Class B Noxious Weed. It is an escaped
ornamental that is becoming increasingly common along stream corridors and rights-of-way in
Washing#on. The plant has spreading rhizomes and numerous reddish-brown, freely branched
stems. It can reach four to eight feet in height and is often shrubby.
Although not formally listed as an aQUatic plant by the Department of Ecology, Japanese
knotweed can form dense stands that crowd out all other vegetation, degrading native plant and
animal habitat. It is difficuit to control because it has an extremely vigorous deep and dense
rhizomes mai system. In addition, the ptant can re-sprout from fragments to create new shoreline
infestations.
Japanese knotweed (JK) was documented to be colonizing a very small area on one single
property shoreline along South 308`�' Street. After two successive glyphosate treatments ending in
2009, it has been successfully eradicated.
5.2.2 Non-Native Rooted Floating-Leaved Piants
The only non-native rooted floating-ieaved plant noted in Steel Lake is:
Fragrant water lily/ White water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
Fragrant water lily is a Class C Noxious Weed. Fragrant watertilies are water plants with floating
leaves and targe, many-petaled fragrant blossoms. Requests for waterlily controi represent a high
percentage of the herbicide permit requests received by the Department of Ecotogy.
17 CtTY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MRNAGEMEIVT DISTRICT PlA{V
The hardy white and (sometimes) pink lilies have become natura[ized in Washington lakes and
rivers. These plants are native to the eastern United States and it is believed that the waterlily
was introduced to Washington in the late 1800s. Water (ilies have been intentionally planted in
many Washington lakes, especially those lakes in western Washington. Lake residents are
strongly discouraged from ptanting fragrant waterlilies in ialces or natural waterbodies because
they are aggressive pIants. Oftentimes "hitchhiker" plants such as hydritla can also be introduced
to our lakes when water lilies are p(anted. Shallow lakes like Steel Lake are particularly
vulnerabie to becoming completely covered by fragrant waterlilies.
Left unmanaged, wateriities will restrict lake-front access and eliminate swimming opportunities.
Waterlilies grow in dense patches, excluding native species and even creating stagnant areas with
low oxygen levels underneath the floating mats. These mats make it difficult to fish, water ski,
swim, or even padd(e a canoe through. Although relatively slow-spreading, waterlilies will
eventually colonize shallow water depths to six feet deep and can dominate the shorelines of
shaltow lakes.
Waterlilies reproduce by seed and atso by new plants sprouting from the large spreading roots
(underground stems called rhizomes). A planted rhizome will cover about a 15-foot diameter in
about five years. Each spring (April) new shoots appear from the rhizomes and grow up through
the water untii they reach the surface. The flowers appear from June to September. Root systems
are tenacious, and if pieces of the rhizome are broken off during control efforts, they will drift to
other locations and establish a new patch of lilies. Fragrant waterlily continues to populate
sporadic areas of Steel Lake, but their numbers are decreasing as they have been effectively
targeted for treatment through the LMD aquatic plant management program.
5.2.3 Non-Native Submerged Macrophytes
The only non-native submerged macrophyte noted in Steel Lake is as follows:
Eu�asian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum�
Eurasian watermilfoil (mitfoil) is a Class B Noxious Weed. Because it is widely distributed and
difficult to control, milfoil is considered to be the most problematic aquatic plant in Washington.
The introduction of milfoil can drastical(y alter a waterbody's ecology. Milfoil forms very dense
mats of vegetation on the surface of the water. These mats interfere with recreational activities
such as swimming, fishing, water skiing, and boating.
Milfoii is an attractive piant with feathery underwater foliage. Once commonly sold as an
aquarium plant, milfoil originated from Europe and Asia. It was introduced to North America
fifly to one-hundred years ago. The first known specimen of milfoil in Washington was collected
from Lake Meridian near Seattle in 1965. By the mid-1970s it was also found in Lake
Washington. Now milfoil is found throughout the Northwest; and in western Washington, has
spread up and dowr� the Interstate 5 corridor.
Some tips to identify milfoil:
• Count the pairs of teaflets. Milfoil usually has twelve or more pairs on each leaf.
� 8 CITY OF FEOERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT OISTRtCT PLAN
• Milfoil leaves tend to collapse around the stem when removed from the wa#er. Other miifoil
species have thicker stems and are usually more robust.
• The mature leaves are typically arranged in whorls of four around the stem.
Milfoit is an extremely adaptabie piant, able to tolerate and even thrive in a variety of
environmental conditions. It grows in still to flowing waters, roots in water depths from one to
ten meters (regularly reaching the surface while growing in water three to five meters deep), and
can survive under ice. Relative to other submersed ptants, milfoii requires high light, has a high
photosynthetic rate, and ca� grow over a broad temperature range. Miifoit grows best on fine-
textured, inorganic sediments and relatively poorly on highly organic sediments.
The sheer mass of milfoil plants can interfere with water flow to cause flooding. Stagnant mats
can create good habitat for tnosquitoes. Milfoil mats can rob oxygen from the water by
preventing the wind from mixing the oxygenated surface waters to deeper water. The dense mats
of vegetation can also increase the sedimentation rate by trapping sediments. Mitfoil also starts
spring growth sooner than native aquatic plants and can shade out these beneficiat ptants. When
miifoii invades new territory, the species diversity of nearby aquatic plants typically dec(ines.
White some species of waterfowl will eat milfoil, it is not considered to be a good food source.
Mono-speciftc stands of milfoi( provide poor habitat for waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife.
Significant rates of plant sloughing and leaf turnover, as well as the decomposition of high
biomass at the end of the grov�ng season, increase the internal toading of phosphorus and
nitrogen to the water column. Dense mitfoit mats alter water quality by raising pH, decreasing
oxygen under the mats, and increasing tetnperature.
Milfoil exhibits an annual pattern of growth. In the spring, shoots begin to grow rapidly as water
temperatures approach 15 degrees centigrade. When they neaz the surface, shoots branch
profusely, forming a dense canopy. The leaves below one-meter senesce in response to self-
shading. Typicaily, plants flower upon reaching the surface (usually in mid- to late-July). After
flowering, ptant biomass declines as the result of the fragtnentation of stems. Where flowering
occurs early, plant biomass may increase again later in the growing season and a second
flowering may occur. During fall, piants die back to the root crowns, which sprout again in the
spring. Milfoi( frequently over-winters in an evergreen form and may maintain considerable
winter biomass.
Although Milfoil can potentially spread by both sexual and vegetative means, vegetative spread
is considered the major method of reproduction. During the growing season, the plant undergoes
auto-fragmentation. The abscising fragments often develop roots at the nodes before separation
from the parent plants. Fragments aze also produced by wind and wave action and boating
activities, with each fragment having the potential to develop into a new plant. Milfoii can easily
be transported from lake to lake on boat trailers or fishing gear.
Milfoit continues to re-infest areas of Steel Lake as it is transported into the waterbody via boats,
trailers or waterfowl. But its densities have been held mostly in-check as it has been effectively
targeted for early identification and treatment through the LMD aquatic plant management
program.
19 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
20b4-2023 STEEL LAKE
MAfVAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
6.0 AQUATIC PLANT �OIV7ROL �4LTERNATIVES
The aquatic plant manageme�t control goais outlined in the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District
Plan {SL1vIDP) are based on, at a minimum, contro(ling three identified no�native plant communities:
milfoii, fragrant water lily, and yellow flag iris. To some extent, native submerged ptants may be also
controlled if they aze determined to impact the beneficial uses of the lake. The feasibility of the different
plant control techniques wili depend on the specific aquatic plant and the degree of control desired. This
section outlines common methods used to controi aquatic vegetation including their advantages and
disadvantages, and their suitability for Steel Lake.
6.1 Aqua#ic Herbicides
Aquatic herbicides are often required to manage freshwater noxious vegetation as the effects of the
weeds may l� significant and pervasive, having a serious poiential to profoundly impact species
diversity, habitat, water quality, recreation, water supply, drinking water, flood control, safety, and
health. Aquatic herbicides are often the �nost effective toots to remove these invasive plants and restore
the eeosystem (Ecology, 2012).
Aquatic herbicides are chemicals specificatly formutated for use in water to kill or contro! aquatic plants.
Herbicides approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmentai Protection Agency (EPA) have
been thoroughly reviewed and are considered compatibte with the aquatic environment when used
according to label directions. Note that i[he state of Washington imposes additional constraints on their
use above and beyond federal guidelines.
Aquatic herbicides are sprayed direc3ly onto floating or emergent aquatic plants or are apptied to the
water in either a liquid or pellet fvrm. Systemic herbicides are capable of killing the entire plant. Contact
herbicides cause the parts of the plant in contact with the herbicide to die back, leaving the roots alive
and able to regrow. Non-selective, broad spectrum herbicides wi(1 generally affect all plants that they
come in contact with. Selective herbicides wili affect only some plants. Dicots, broad leafed piants such
as Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyll�m spicatum), will be affected by selective herbicides whereas
monocots like Brazilian e(odea (Egeria densa) may not be affected.
The Integrated Aquatic Ptant Management and Treatment Plan (Section 7) contains detailed information
concerning the selected herbicide control measures used to prevent and/or halt the spread of aquatic plant
species infestations to prevent potential lake degradation and to provide the opportunity for the
reintroduction of native aquatic plants to Steel Lake.
Because of environmental risks due to irriproper application practices, aquatic herbicide treatment in
Washington state waters is regulated by the following restrictions:
• Applicators must be licensed by the Washington State Department of Agricutture.
• A 2001 9th Circuit District Court decision requires that applicants obtain coverage under a
National Poilutant E(imination System Discharge (NPDES) permit before they can legaliy apply
aquatic herbicides to the waters of the state.
• The Washington Department of Ecology requires noti6cation and posting before treatment.
Mitigation to protect rare plants or threatened and endangered species is atso required.
20 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEI LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
6.1.1 Aquatic Plant and A/gae Management General Permit
Aqu�tic herbicide appiications on Steel Lake are covered under a State of Washington, Department
of Ecology, Aquatic Plant and Atgae General Permit, Nationai Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Perrr►it (permit). The current permit regulates
the �se of pesticides and other products applied to manage aquatic nuisance piants, noxious weeds,
quarantine listed weeds, algae, and nutrients in fresh surface waters of the state of Washington.
Permit requirements differ depending on piant growth forms and the legai status of the plant species.
Impact to non-target plants is acceptabie only to the extent needed to control the target plants.
Ecology timits direct herbicide application to a percentage of the littoral zone for most control
treatments to preserve native plant habitat. As such, one of the goals of the SLMDP wili be to
maintain native aquatic vegetation for habitat while allowing partial piant removal to maintain
recfeation and other beneficial uses (see Section 8).
Comp(iance with the permit ensures the foilowing:
i. That the application of pesticides will not cause or contribute to a violation of the Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington (chapter 173-241A WAC),
Ground Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Management Standards
(chapter 173-204 WAC), and human health-based criteria in the National Toxics Rule (40 CRF
13136).
2. That all known, available, anYi reasonable methods of poliution control, prevention, and
treairnent (AKART) will be used when applying pesticides. Compliance with this permit, the
Washington Pesticide Control Act and the requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (F�'RA) label constitute AKART.
Additionatly, Federal and state regulations require that ef#luent iimits in an NPDES }�ermit must be
either technology or water quality-based:
• Technology-based limitations are based upon the methods availabte to treat specific poltutants.
Technology-based limits are set by EPA and published as a regulation or Ecology develops the
limit on a case-by-case basis (40 CFR 1253, and chapter 173-220 WAC).
• Water quality-based limits are calculated so that the effluent wili compty with the Surface
Water Quality Standards (chapter 173-241A WAC), Ground Water Standards (chapter 173-
200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (chapter 173-204 WAC) or the Nationa( Toxics Rule
(40 CFR 13136).
• Ecology must app(y the more stringent of these limits to each parameter of concern.
Eradication projects target only state-listed noxious weeds or quarantine-list weeds_ The goal is the
complete and permanent removal of these species from the entire waterbody. Therefore, littoral zone
iimitations do not apply to eradication of noxious weeds or weeds on the quarantine list. Impacts to
non-target piants are acceptable to the extent needed to eradicate the target plants. Eradication is
allowed only for a(L noxious weeds as identified in chapter 16-750 of the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) including those targeted under the SLMDP: Eurasian water mitfoil,
fragrant water lily, yellow flag iris, and Japanese knotweed.
21 C►TY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEI LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The permit has vetted all permit-covered herbicide applications through the Herbicide Risk
Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(Ecology, 2000).
6.9.2 Discharge Management Plan
In compiiance with section a S.3.D of the permit, a detaited, site-specific Discharge Management
Plan (DMP) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) addendum has been prepared and approved
for Steei Lake. This par#ictalar requirement is for projects where herbicide treatment areas are
expected to be five or more acres. The DMP and SEPA Checklist provides a way to identify
possible environmental impacts that may result from aquatic herbicide appiications, and helps
agency decision-makers, applicants, and the pubiic to understand how the plan will affect the
environment. The final ZO10 DMP-SEPA Checklist for Steel Lake is found in Appendix F.
6.1.3 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Milfoil
Within the past e(even seasons (2002-2012), Steel Lake has experienced localized Eurasian
watermilfoil (milfoil} infestations that have been controlled manually through diver hand-pulling six
different years. During this period, the size and scope of the infestation required permit-covered
herbicide treatments on four different occasions. Each time, the infestations have reacted well to
partial lake herbicide spot applications using 2,4-D AquaKleen� (2002), 2,4-D DMA*NM (2005),
and Triclopyr Renovate OTF (2009 and 2010).
The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC Chapter 16-750) lists milfoil as a Class
B Weed: a non-native spec�es that is designated for controi in regions where it is not yet wide-
spread, and where preventing new infestations is a high priority (as is the case with Steel Lake).
Mi(foil, when detected in Steet Lake, shall be treated with aquatic herbicide only under State of
Washington, Department of Ecoiogy, Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, Nationai Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit coverage.
When the aquatic plant surveys have detected milfoil in densities that require herbicide treatment,
the contracted aquatic biologist will consult with SWM staff in the selection of the most appropriate
product to be used (based on tocation of plants, product effectiveness, swimming restrictions, and
cost). The current permit authorizes the Permittee to dischatge the following herbicide products
designated for milfoit control into freshwaters of the state:
• 2,4D: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, butoxyethyl ester
• 2,4-D: 2,4-Dichiorophenoxyacetic acid, dimethylamine salt (DMA*IVM)
• Triclopyr TEA: Triethylamine salt of 3,5,6-trichlora2-pyridyloxyacetic acid
6.1.4 Aquatic Herbicide Control of Fragrant Water/ily
Fragrant waterlily has historically infested Steel Lake, inhabiting near shore areas around the lake.
Per the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC Chapter 16-750), fragrant water lily
is a Ciass C Weed: a non-native weed that requires a long-term program of suppression and control.
Under permit coverage, Steel Lake has seen progressive eradication o�' fragrant waterlily during the
first ten-year LMD (2003-2013) through implementation of selective herbicide treatments.
ZZ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the following herbicide into freshwaters of
the state:
� Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyt)glycine, isopropylamine salt
Glyphosate (trade names include Rodeo, AquaMaster, and AquaPro) is a systemic, broad spectrum
herbicide registered by the United States Environmentai Protection Agency (USEPA) for aquatic
applications to ftoating-leaved plants and shoreline plants; it has no water use restrictions. It is
generally applied as a liquid to the leaves. Plants treated with glyphosate can take several weeks to
die and a repeat application is often necessary to remove plants that were missed during the first
application. The active ingredient in glyphosate moves through the plant from the point of foliage
contact into the root system. Visible effects on most annuai weeds occur within two to four days,
seven days or more on most perennial weeds, and thirty days or more on most woody ptants. It is
known that extremely cool or ,cloudy weather following treatment may stow the activity of this
product and can delay visual effects of control. Visible effects include gradual wilting and yeilowing
of the plant, which will advance to complete browning of above-ground growth and deterioration of
underground plant parts.
Glyphosate has been very effective for treatment of fragrant waterlily colon�es on Steel Lake
because it can be applied directly to the floating leaves) making it easier to kill the targeted
vegetation (unlike fluridone or endothall which must be applied to the water). Generally two
applications of glyphosate have been�required (second applications are made later in the summer to
control plants missed during the first hert�icide application). The control effectiveness of fragrant
waterlily is easy to measure through visual surveys of the impact to floating leaves.
One drawback of using herbicides has been the "uplifting" of mats of decomposing waterlity roots
that form large floating islands in the waterbody after treatments killed the piants. Floating mats
were problematic at xhe implementation of the LMD in 2003, but have since become non-existent as
the densities of the liiy colonies have been severely diminished over time.
6.1.5 Aquatic Herbicide Controi of Emergent Vegetation: Yellow
Flag lris and Japanese Knotweed
Yellow flag iris and Japanese knotweed have historically infested Steel Lake. Under permit
coverage, Steel Lake has seen the gradual eradication of yellow flag iris and the complete
eradication of Japanese knotweed during the first ten-year LMD (2003-2013) through the
application of selective herbicides. Per the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board (WAC
Chapter 16-750), Yellow flag iris is a Class C Weed (a non-native weed that requires a long-term
program of suppression and control); and Japanese knotweed is a Class B Weed (a non-native
species that is designated for control in regions where it is not yet wide-spread and where preventing
new infestations is a high priority, as is the case with Steel Lake).
The current permit authorizes the Permittee to discharge the fotlowing herbicide into freshwaters of
the state:
• Glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl)gtycine, isopropylamine salt
23 ClTY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEI LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
These emergent species have abundant leaf surface areas that absorb the chemica( for transtocation.
As Japanese knotweed is resistant to fotiar application, stem injection of glyphosate has been
accomptished. The use of glyphosate herbicide has enabled the elimination of mature plants without
the destructive disturbance of the shoreline by excavation. Future applications will ensure that
experienced herbicide applicators will selectively target individua( weed species to limit collaterat
damage to other native plant species. The application of glyphosate to emergent plants (Yellow flag
iris, and Japanese knotweed) has also allowed specific areas to be targeted for removal by manual
spot applications on private property, whici� requires Temporary Rights of Entry granting the city
and its agents (AquaTechnex) access to complete treatments of the emergent weeds.
6.1.6 Aquatic Herbicfde Control of Native Aquatic Plants
The pernut covers aquatic piant management activities inctuding partiai plant removal far recreation
and other beneficial uses. Permit requirements differ depending on plant growth and the legal status
of the plant species.
Following aquatic plant surveys, or when lake residents report native plant growth in densities that
may be impacting the beneficial uses of the lake (i.e. swimming, boating, fishing), the coniracted
aquatic biologist wifl be asked to provide their professional judgment regarding the need for controi
of native aquatic plants via herbicide treatment. The Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) wil(
have the authority to approve or disapprove of contractor recommendations for native ptant control.
When required, the contracted aqua�ic biologist will consuit with both SWM staff and the SLAC in
the selection of tfie most appropriate herbicide product to be used (based on targeted plant species,
location of plants, product effectiveness, swimming restrictions, and cost). T'he permit has vetted all
permit-covered herbicide applications through the Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aguatic Plant
Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. The current permit authorizes
the Permittee to discharge the foliowing herbicides (expected products for native submerged
vegetation control, i.e. Chara, spp. and Nitella, sp.) into freshwaters of the state:
• Diquat: Dibromide salt of 6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a2',1"-c) pyrazinediium
• Endothall: Dipotassium salt of 7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1 ]heptane-2,3dicarboxylic acid
• Endothali: mono(N,N-dimethylalkyalmine) salt of 7- oxabicyclo[2.2. t]heptane-2,3-
dicarboxylic acid
• Imazamox:2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyt-(1-methylethyl}5-oxo-lH-imidazo(-2yl)-5-
(methoxymethy(�3-pyridinecarboxylic acid
Aquatic Herbicide Controi Advantages
Aquatic herbicides are easily apptied around docks and underwater obstructions. Aquatic herbicide
application can be tess expensive than other aquatic ptant control methods, especially when used in
controtling wide-spread infestations of state-listed noxious aquatic weeds.
Aquatic Herbicide Control Disadvantages
• Some herbicides have swimming, dric�icing, fishing, irrigation, and water use restrictions.
• Non-targeted plants as weli as nuisance plants may be controlled or kil(ed by some herbicides.
24 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
• Depending on the herbicide used, it may take several days to weeics or several treatments during
a growing season before the herbicide controls targeted plants.
• Rapid-acting herbicides may cause low oxygen conditions to deve(op as plants decompose. Low
oxygen may cause fish kills.
•' To be most effective, herbicides must be applied to rapidly-growing plants during the growing
season only.
• Some expertise in using herbicides is necessary in order to be successful and to avoid unwanted
impacts.
• Public perception to the application of chemicals to water can be unfavorable.
Aquatic Herbicide Controi Suitability for Steel Lake
The application of aquatic herbicides, in combination with other aquatic plant controt methods,
substantially increases the likelihood of eradicating ali targeted noxious aquatic plants (and native
aquatic p{ants when warranted) from Steel Lake. In situations where eradication is the goal, the
app(ication of aquatic herbicides is the most aggressive and prudent tnethod to rapidly reduce vegetation
coverage and readily allows for other methods such as bottom barrier installations and diver hand
pulling.
6.2 Manual Methods
A number of manual methods for both non-native and native vegetation control in Steel Lake have been
implemented from 2004 to 2011 during the duration of the Lake Management District (LMD). The
following describes commonly used manual methods:
6.2.1 Hand-Pulling
Diver hand-pulting of aquatic plants in Steel Lake (specifically Eurasian watermilfoil) has been
successful(y implemented when the number of plants has been small (2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, and
20t 1). The process is similar to pulling weeds out of a garden. It involves removing entire plants
(teaves, stems, and roots) from the area of concern and disposing of them in an area away from the
shoreline. in water less than three feet deep no specialized equipment is required, although a spade,
trowel, or tong knife may be needed if the sediment is packed or heavy. In deeper water, hand-
pulling is best accomp(ished by divers with SCUBA equipment and mesh bags for the collection of
plant fragcnents. Some sites in Steel Lake may not be suitable for hand pulling such as areas where
there are deep flocculent sediments.
6.2.2 Cutting or Raking
Cutting differs from hand pulling in that plants are cut and the roots are not removed. Cutting is
performed by standing on a dock or on shore and throwing a cutting too! (weed rake) oat into the
water. Weed rakes may only be used on Steei Lake to the minimum extent necessary to maintain
beneficial use of the shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in
the WDFW Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet (Appendix H).
The Steel Lake LMD has implemented a weed rake loan program that provides Stee( Lake residents
an opportunity to borrow rakes that are designed especialiy for the control of native aquatic
25 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
20'14-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PIAN
vegetation. Rakes may be checked out once the Lake Management District dete►mines that the
targeted area does not contain mitfoii or other submerged non-nafive vegetation. Each year on
September 15, the program is shut down pursuant to WDFW pamphlet requirements.
Weed rakes have been used as necessary by lake residents from 2004 to 2011 to maintain the
beneficial uses of the shoreline for fishing, boating and swimming. In addition, the City of Federal
Way Parks and Recreation staff' has also utilized aquatic weed rakes to remove unwanted native
plants from the public �swimming area prior to the opening of swimming season. Lake residents and
City staff have been able to control native aquatic plants using two different styles of rakes
depending on the type of plant targeted: a rake with a sharp cutting blade for submerged vegetation,
and a rake with (arge tines for control oi floating or slightly submerged piants.
6.Z.3 Weed Ro/ling
Several automatic ptant contro( products are commercially available that mechanicalty disturb the
lake bottom to remove aquatic plants and prevent their re-growth within a well-defined area. They
sweep, ro(1, or drag repetitively over the piants and sediments to keep the area free of aquatic plant
growth. These devices must be attached to a dock or post to work properly and each product requires
electricity to operate. Depending on the equipment used, up to a 42-foot radius around the dock or
post can be controiled.
Manual Method Advantages ,
• Manual methods are easy to use around docks and swimming areas.
• The equipment is inexpensive.
• Hand-pulling a(lows the flexibility to remove undesirable aquatic plants white leaving desirable
plants.
• These methods are environmentally safe and will not harm aquatic wildlife.
• Manual methods do nat require expensive permits, and can be performed on aquatic noxious
weeds with Hydraulic Project Approval ob#ained by reading and following the WDFW Aquatic
Ptants and Fish pamphlet.
Manual Method Disadvantages
• As plants re-grow or fragments re-colonize the cleared area, the treatment may need to be
repeated several times each summer_
• Because these methods are labor intensive, they may not be practical for large areas or for thick
weed beds.
• Even with the best containment efforts, it is difficult to collect all plant fragments.
• Some pfants, like waterlilies which have massive rhizomes, are dit�icuit to remove by hand
putling.
• Pulling weeds and raking stirs up the sediment and may make it difftcult to see remaining plants.
26 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
• Sediment re-suspension can aiso increase nutrie�t levels in laice water. Hand putling and raking
may impact bottom-dwelling animals.
� The V-shaped cutting tool is extremeiy sharp and can be dangerous to use.
Manual Method Suitability for Steel Lake
• Annual diver hand-pulling (when appropriate), shouid be sufficient to remove small quantities of
re-emerging miifoil plants. In combination with herbicide treatments (when warranted), manuat
methods used to contain and control can effectively combat milfoil re-infestations in subsequent
y�. -
• Due to the success of herbicide (glyphosate) treatments, manual efforts. for the control of fragrant
water lily and yellow flag iris is not necessary.
• The weed rake load program for Steel Lake has proven to be successful. The LMD ensures that
the rakes should only be used to the minimum extent necessary to maintain beneficiat use of the
shoreline (not to exceed the maximum length of ten linear feet), as specified in the WDFW
Aquatic Plants and Fish pamphlet.
6.3 Diver Dredging
Diver dredging (suction dredging) is a method whereby SCUBA divers use hoses attached to small
dredges to suck plant material from the sediment. The purpose of diver dredging is to remove all parts of
the p(ant including the roots.
Diver dredging is more effective in areas where softer sediment allows easy removal o� the entire plants,
(although water turbidity is increased with softer sediments). Harder sediment may require the use of a
knife or tool to heip loosen sediment from around the roots. In very hard sediments, mitfoil plants tend to
break off leaving the roots behind and defeating the purpose of diver dredging. Diver dredging is less
effective on plants where seeds, turions, or tubers remain in the sediments to sprout the next growing
season. For that reason, Eurasian watermilfoil is genera(ly the target plant for removal during diver
dredging operations.
Diver Dredging Advantages
Diver dredging can be a very selective technique for rernoving pioneer colonies of Eurasiar�
watermilfoil.
• Divers can remove plants around docks and in other difficult to reach areas.
• Diver dredging can be used in situations where herbicide use is not an option for aquatic plant
management.
Diver Dredging Disadvantages
• Diver dredging is very expensive.
27 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DiSTRICT PLAN
• Dtedging stirs up large amounts of sediment. This may iead to the release of nutrients or long-
buried toxic materials into the water column.
• Only the tops of piants growing in rocky or hard sediments may be removed, leaving a viable root
crown behind to initiate growth.
• Acquisition of permits may take more than a year.
Diver Dredgi�g Permi# Requirements
Diver dredging requires Hydrautic Approval from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Temporary
Modification of Water Quality Siandards from Ecology. Also diver dredging may require a Section 404
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Diver Dredgi�g Suitability for Steei Lake
Although diver dredging could be used after the initial herbicide applications to remove piants that were
missed or unaffected by the herbicide, the method greatly disturbs sediments and can affect nutrient
concentrations and algal production in the lake. Therefore, because other removal and control techniques
have proven to be successful, diver dredging is not considered suitable for Steel Lake.
6.4 Bottom Barriers
A bottom scfeen or benthic barrier covers the sediment like a blanket, compressing aquatic plants while
reducing or blocking light. Mater�als such as burlap, plastics, perforated btack Mylar, and woven
synthetics can all be used as bottom screens.
Bottom barriers will control most aquaiic plants however freely-floating species will not be controlled by
bottom screens. In addition to controlling nuisance weeds around docks and in swimming beaches,
bottom barriers have become an important iool to help eradicate and contain early infestations of noxious
weeds such as Eurasian watermilfoil and Brazilian elodea. Pioneering colonies that are too extensive to
be har{d palled can sometimes be covered with the bottom barrier material. When using this technique for
Eivasian watermilfoil eradication projects, divers should recheck the barrier within a few weeks to make
sure that ali rc►ilfoil plants remain covered and that no new fragments have taken root nearby. The less
plant material that is present before installation, the more successful the barrier will be in staying in
piace.
Bottom Barrier Advantages
• Instatlation of a bottom 6arrier creates an immediate open area of water.
• Bottom barriers are easiiy installed around docks and in swimming areas.
• Properly installed bottom barriers can control up to i 00 percent of aquatic plants.
• Barrier materials are readily avaiiable.
28 CiTY OF FEDERAI WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PIAN
Bottom Barrier Disadvantages
• Bottom barriers are oniy suitable for locatized control.
• For safety and performance reasons, bottom barriers must be regularly inspected and cnaintained_
• Harvesters, rotovators, fishing gear, propeller backwash, or boat anchors may damage or dislodge
bottom barriers.
• Improperly anchored bottom barriers may create safety hazards for boaters and swiinmers.
• Swimmers may be injured by poorty maintained anchors used to pin bottom barriers to the
sediment. -
• Some bottom barriers are difficult to anchor on deep muck sediments.
• Bottom barriers interfere with fish spawning and bottom-dwelling animals.
• Without regular maintenance aquatic plants may quickly colonize the bottom barrier.
Bottom Bar�ier Permit Requirements
Bottom barrier instaltation in Washington requires an hydrauiic approval obtained from the Department
of Fish and Wildlife. In addition, the City of Federal Way Community Development must review each
instailation to determine whether a shoreli�e permit is required.
Bottom Barrier Suitability for Steel Lake
Sever�l bottom barriers have been installed by individual lakefront homeowners prior to 2001, and they
appear to have held up quite welL LMD-funded a�d/or contractor-installed bottom barriers have not been
required. They will only be used to eradicate localized infestations, or when dense milfoil azeas show
resistance to herbicide applications.
6.5 Biologica! Control
Many problematic aquatic plants in the westem United States that are non-indigenous species (i.e
Eurasian watermilfoilj may be controlled bioiogically by organisms from their native ranges. Classic
biological control ager�ts are host-specific and attack the growth or reproduction of only the species that
are targeted for control. Theoretically, by stocking an infested waterbody or wetland with these
organisms, the target plant can be controlled, allowing native plants to recover. The following list
outlines a number of approved biologicat control agents that are availabte for release in the United States:
6.5.1 Grass Carp
The grass carp (Cteno pharynogodon), also known as the white amur, is a vegetarian fish native to
the Amur River in Asia. Because this fish feeds on aquatic p(ants, it can be used as a biological tooi
to control nuisance aquatic piant growth. In some situations, steriie {tripioid} grass carp may be
permitted for introduction into Washington waters.
29 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
20'14-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife determines ihe appropriate stocking rate for each
waterbody when issuing a grass carp-stocking permit. Success witk� grass carp in Wasitington has
been varied (sometimes the same stocking rate results in no control, controt, or even compiete
etir►3inatior� of all underwater plants). Grass carp should be stocked oniy in waterbodies where
complete elimination of all submersed plant species can be tolerated.
Grass Carp Advantages
• Grass carp are inexpensive compared ta some other control methods and offer long term
controt.
• Grass carQ offer a bio(ogical altemative to aquatic plant contro(.
Grass Carp Disadvantages
• Depending on plant densities and types, it may take several years to achieve plant control
using grass carp and in many cases control may not occur.
• If the waterbody is overstocked, all submersed aquatic plants may be eliminated. Removing
excess fish is difficult and expensive.
� The type of plants grass carp prefer may also be those most important for habitat and for
waterfowi food.
• Fish may need to be restocked at intervals
• If not enough fish are stocked, tess-favored plants, such as Eurasian watermilfoil, may take
over the lake.
• Stocking grass carp may tead to algae blooms due to a sudden loading of fecal-reiated
nutrients.
• All inlets and outlets to the lake or pond must be screened to prevent grass carp from escaping
into streams, rivers, or other lakes.
Grass Carp Permit Requirements
Stocking grass carp requires a fish-stocking permit from the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Also, if inlets or outlets need to be screened, a Hydraulic Project Approval application
must be compieted for the screening project.
Grass Carp Suitability for Steei Lake
Grass carp are not suitable for aquatic plant control in Steel Lake. Infestations of milfoil have not
reached leve(s where a bio-control such as grass carp would be necessary. The lake also has an
outlet stream that eventualty flows into Puget Sound, making it much more difficutt to obtain the
permits necessary to stock grass carp.
30 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRlCT PLAN
6.5.2 Watermilfoil Weevil
The milfoil weevil, Euhryclriopsis lecontei, has been associated with declines of Eurasian
watermilfoil {Myriophyllum spicatum) in the United States (e.g., Illinois, Minnesota, Vermont, and
Wisconsin). In Washington State, the milfoii weevi( is present primarily in eastern Washington and
occurs on both Eurasian and northern watermi(foil (M. sibiricum), the latter plant being native to the
sta.te. Although the milfoil weevil shows potentiai as a biological control for Eurasian watermilfoil,
more work is needed to determine which factors limit weevil densities and what lakes are suitable
candidates for weevil treatments in order to implement a cost and control effective program.
Watermilfoil Weevil Advantages
• Milfoil weevils offer a biological alternative to aquatic plant control.
• They may be cheaper than other control strategies.
• Biocontro(s enable weed control in hard-to-access areas and can become self-supporting in
some systems.
• if they are capable of reaching a critica! mass, biocontrols can decimate a weed population.
Watermiifoil Weevit Disadvantages
• There are many uncertainties as to the effectiveness of this biocontrot in western Washington
waters.
• There have not been any docwnented declines of Eurasian watermilfoi( in Washington State
that can be attributed to the milfoil weevil.
• Bio-controls often do not eradicate the target plant species.,
Watermilfoil Weevil Permit Requirements
The milfoil weevil is native to Washington and is present in a number. of lakes and rivers. It is found
associated with both native northern miifoil and Eurasian watermilfoil. However, importing out-of-
state weevils into Washington requires a permit from the Washington Department of Agricutture.
Waternrilfoil Weevil Suitability for Steei Lake
Since the milfoil weevil is a new bio-control agent, it has not been released yet intentionally in
western Washington to control Eurasian watermilfoil, therefore it is uncertain how et�ective the
weevil will be and whether populations per stem can be maintained at tevels high enough to
eradicate Eurasian watermilfoil. Milfoil infestations in Steel Lake have not been severe enough to
warrant bio-control introduction of watermilfoil weevil as other methods are readily avaitable and
more suitable.
fi.6 Rotovation
Rotovators are underwater rototi(ler-tike btades that are used to uproot submerged aquatic plants. The
rotating blades churn seven to nine inches deep into the lake bottom to dislodge plant root crowns that
31 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEI LAKE
MANAGEMENi DISTRICT PLAN
are generally buoyant. The plants and roots may then be removed from the water using a weed rake
attachment to the rototiller head or by harvester or manual coliection.
6.7 Harvesting
Mechanical harvesters are large mact►ines which both cuts and collects aquatic plants. Cnt plants are
removed from the water by a conveyor belt system and stored on the harvester until disposal. A barge
may be stationed near the harvesting site for temporary plant storage or the harvester carries the cut
weeds to shore. The shore station equipment is usually a shore conveyor that mates to the harvester and
lifts the cut plants into a dump truck. Harvested weeds are disposed of in landfills, used as compost, or
in reclaiming spent gravel pits or simitar sites.
6.8 Mechanical Cutting
Mechanical weed cutters cut aquatic ptants severat feet below the water's surface. Unlike harvesting, cut
plants are not cottected white the machinery operates.
Rotovation, Harvesting or Mechanical Cutting Suitability for Steel Lake
None of these options (rotovation, harvesting or mechanical cutting) are suitable for the level of non-
native aquatic plant infestations expected in Stee! Lake. These are not considered eradieation tools but
rather are used to manage and control heavy, widespread infestations of aquatic weeds. Because the
process creates plant fragments, these methods may serve to spread and expand any existing infestations.
According to Ecology, "There is tittle or no reduction in plant density with mechanical harvesting."
Since the aim of the SLMDP is to eliminate non-native aquatic piants milfoil from Steel Lake, rotovation,
harvesting or mechanical cutting are not compatible control strategies (harvesting and cutting do not
remove root systems; and rotovation would cause damage to the lake sediments and associated animals in
a system that does not already receive dredging for navigability).
6.9 Drawdown
Lowering the water level of a lake or reservoir can have a dramatic impact on some aquatic weed
problems. Water level drawdown can be used where there is a water control structure that aliows the
managers of lakes or reservoirs to drop the water levei in the waterbody for extended periods of time to
control some aquatic plant species. However, regular drawdowns can also make it difficult to establish
native aquatic plants for fish, wildlife, and waterfowl habitat in some reservoirs.
Drawdown Suitabifiity for Steet Lake
Drawdown is not a viable control strategy for Steel Lake. The outlet from Steel Lake flows through a
wetland to a natural stream system, and does not have a control structure installed. Not only would
drawdown be difficult to achieve, it woutd afso cause significant damage to the ecosystem. The amount
32 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRI�T PLAN
of drawdown required to impact milfoil would dry out the littoral zone of the lake. This would damage
native plants and animals in both the lake and the adjacent wetland and have many negative
consequences for residents living around the Lake. Without a surface inflow to the system, returning the
water level to a previous state would be both cost and time prohibitive.
6.10 No Action Alternative
The no action alternative acknow(edges the presence of invasive aquatic plants in Steel Lake but does not
cail for any control or planr�ing activities.
No Action Advantages
There are few advantages to "doing nothing" to control or prevent the further spread of invasive aquatie
piants; however, there may be a perception of saving money by not investing in activities such as
herbicide apptication or mechanical control methods.
No Action Disadvantages
The no action alternative may result in long-term de(eterious effects on the ecology, recreational uses and
aesthetics of Steel Lake. Invasive aquatic plants disrupt dissolved oxygen patterns, dispiace native plant
species, and impair navigation. While changes to water quality may be less obvious, their seasonal and
long-term impacts can seriously threaten features that attract homeowners, outdoor enthusiasts, angiers,
and boaters to Steet Lake. '
No Qction Suitabili#y for Steel Lake
Based upon the recurrent milfoil infestations of Steel Lake, the "no action" aiternative is not appropriate
for Steel Lake.
7.0 tNTEGRATED AQUATIC PLANT MANAGEMENT AND
TREATMENT PLAN
The following Integrated Aquatic Ptant Management and Treatment Plan for Steel Lake provides
information regarding the selected aquatic ptant management control measures designed to halt the
spread of aquatic plant species infestations, to prevent potentiat lake degradation, and to provide the lrest
opportunity for the reintroduction of native aquatic plants:
Annual diver surveys wi(t be performed by a contracted aquatic plant management firm to
monitor changes in the aquatic plant community.
An aquatic biologist will develop a management plan for all identified non-native aquatic plants
to target them for control at as low a density as environmentally and economically feasible and at
leve(s that do not impact public safety or the beneficial uses of the (ake.
All aquatic herbicides will be applied per a State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Aquatic
Plant and Atgae General Permit, National Po(lutant Discharge Eiimination System (NPDES) and
State Waste Discharge General Permit (permit).
33 C1TY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEI IAKE
MANAGEMEIJT DISTRtCT PLAN
All identified species of noxious weeds as listed in WAC 16-754 shall be reduced to leveis that do
not impact public safety or the be�►eficial uses af the lake.
All appropriate aquatic plant control and treatment methods shall be used as needed for al( other
probiematic aquatic weeds �d native aquatic plants, using tt�e best available science to identify
and understand their effects on human, aquatic ar►d terrestriai ecosystems prior to their
implementation. -
Each year, the SLAC wilt review the findings of the annual diver survey, and in consultation with the
contracted aquatic biologist, will determine the direction of the annual plant management and treatment
plan. The aquatic ptant species in Steel Lake targeted for eradicatioa are expected to be: Eurasian
watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), fragrant water lily (Nymphaea odorata), and yellow flag iris (Iris
pseudacorus).
In addition, native aquatic weeds (i.e., th�n-leafed pondweed and submerged macro algae) may also be
controlled when warranted. lVianual methods will be implemented by lake residents per stipulations
outlined in Section 6.2.2. Aquatic herbicides may also be used to control native vegetation to levels that
do not impact fish and wildlife habitat when the contracted aquatic biologist has documented that their
densities are impairing public safety or the beneficial uses of the lake (Section 6.1.6), and when the
SLAC concurs with this determination.
8.0 PRESERVATION Of NATIVE VEGETATION AI�tD
AQUATIC HABITAT
Noxious freshwater aquatic weeds, if left unchecked, pose a serious threat to our State's water bodies.
The historical presence of non-native aquatic plants in Steel Lake has been shown to impair the use and
aesthetic value of the lake. Because of Steel Lake's shallow characteristics, aquatic plants have the
potential to restrict the available area for recreation activities such as fishing, swirnming and boating. In
addition, other regional lakes are in danger of becoming infested with noxious or invasive aquatic plants
that are transported from Steel Lake via boat, boat trailer or waterfowl.
Since 2001, the year-by-year systematic eradication of noxious aquatic plant species in Steel Lake has
allowed for the re-introduction of desirable native aquatic p(ants. In theory, ihe integrated approach
implemented during the ftrst Steel Lake LMD (2003-2013), has improved fish and wildlife habitat and
the overall ecological health of Steel Lake by assuring that the native aquatic vegetation propagates and
that habitat is preserved. The text below, adapted from the Department of Fish 8t Wildlife Aquatic Plants
and Fish Publication, illustrates the importance of aquatic habitat preservation:
Aguatic noxious weeds can adversely affect ecological functions by crowding out native
vegetation and creating single species stands. While it is recogrrized that nafive aquatic plants
can become a nuisance to swimmers and boaters due to excessive growth, it is important to
recognize the value of native pdant species for frsh and wildlife. 77tese native plants provide
habitat for fish and wildlife, help stabilize shorelines, produce oxygen, trap beneficial
nutrients, and keep sediment in �lace.
34 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRtCT PLAN
For example, pondweed is a critical food source for waterfowl and marsh birds. Pondweed
also provides cover from predators for warmwater fish such as perch and bass. Aquatic
beneficial plants are defined as native plants (such as pondweeds, bladderwort, or coontail) or
non-native plants not included on the noxious weed list.
Warmwater gsmefish often utilize vegetation in the shallow waters of lakes for spawning, early
rearing, and feeding. Largemouth and smatlmouth bass generally prefer ponds and reservoirs
with abundant aquatic vegetaCion. Bluegill, sunfish and crappie also inhabit vegetated quiet or
slow-moving waters for protection from predators. Too much vegetation can result in
overpopulation if predators that access prey species, while too little vegetation can adversely
affect the predator prey balance and result in a decline in the fishery.
Aquatic plants provide important living space for insects, snails and crustaceans, which in turn
become food for fish aruf waterfowl. Yegetated areas support many times more of these tiny
creatures than to do non-vegetated areas. The plants make important nurseries for young fish,
. frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians_ Several species of reptiles, including tur#les, garter
snakes and water snakes use these areas for cover and forage (WDFW, 1998).
In 2003, AquaTechnex reported that submersed narive aquatic piants were scattered in moderate to dense
patches around the shoreline of the lake, and that floating teaf and submerged native aquatic plants
covered approximately 55 percent of the lake littoral zone. In successive years, the native plant
populations in the lake were reported to f�e healthy as mapped. In 2010 and 2011, it was noted that the
native plant community had remained healthy and relatively unchanged (however plant densities were
down from the same period of time in previous years due to a multi-year pattern of summertime cooler
weather).
The removal of non-native piant species during the early years of the Steel Lake LMD program may have
had a short-term negative impact on warmwater fish populations due to a loss of habitat cover, but as
mentioned above, the removal of invasive vegetation has protnoted growth of native plants and has
allowed native plant species to re-seed over the long-term.
Although the need to re-vegetate is not likely at this time, the goal of the SLMDP will be to continue
maintaining at least 35% native aquatic vegetative cover. This level is based upon the following targets:
• Washington Department o€ Fish & Witdlife recommended extent of native vegetative cover for
fish habitat needs of 20% to 60% of the ialce acceage (Jackson, 2003, WDFW, personal
communication). �
• The Department of Ecology recommended warmwater fishery needs for native vegetative cover
of 25°/a to 40% of the lake acreage (Hamel, 2003, Ecology, personal communication).
Based on a lake surface azea of 48.6 acres (AquaTechnex, 2010), the acreage needed for adequate native
vegetation coverage will be calculated from the results of the annual plant survey. If there are Iess than
t 7 acres (35% coverage of the lake) of native aquatic vegetation cover, the Steel Lake Advisory
Committee wiil determine whether mitigation measures are necessary to support wildiife species. If
mitigation efforts are deemed necessary, native aquatic vegetation may be planted in the lake to
supplement natural recovery efforts. Native vegetation may inciude floating leaved rooted plants such as
Brasenia schreberi (water-shield); submerged plants such as Ceratophyllum demersum (coontait),
35 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MAiVAGEMENT D1STRtCT PLAN
Utricularia vulgaris (common bladderwort), and Potamogeton spp. (pondweeds); and submerged
macroalgae such as Chara spp. (muskgrass) and Nitella sp.
9.0 ALGAE MANAGEMENT PLAN
�n 2007, the Department of Ecology began implementing an Algae Control Program that provides
funding of $250,000 annually for loca! governme�ts to help in the identification (freshwater taice toxicity
testing) for potential hazardous algae blooms (HAB) that pose heatth risks to humans, pets, and livestock.
The foliowing year, The Wasl�ington Department of Health (DOH) deve(oped statewide recreational
guidelines for b(ue-green algae toxins (Washington State Recreational Guidance for Microcystin and
Anatoxin-A) that SWM began using as a decision-making document concerning public notification and
the posting of health advisories.
The foitowing summarizes significant blue-green algae blooms occurring on Steet Lake which have been
investigated under the Algae Control Program:
• In 2009, SWM responded to two separate atgae blooms: one on April 20 and one on June 3.
Samples indicated the presence of blue-green algae. Microcystin toxins were detected above
action levels during the April event which required the posting of Warning signs at the public
swimming beach. SWM followed through with public notifications (sign postings and emait
notices) to both the LMD and the public until each bloom dissipated per DOH guidance.
� In 2010, SWM staff responded to a large bloom on September 14 that was reported by numerous
residents and lake users. Although the presence of blue-green algae was documented, further
follow-up laboratory anaiysis showed that toxin levels were below the DOH action level. Per
DOH guidance, proper sign posting ar►d notifications were Qrovided until the bloom dissipated.
• In 2011, SWM was awarded a four-year Freshwater Algae Control Program Grant from the
Departmer�t of Ecology for the management of algal blooms occurring in City of Federal Way
freshwater lakes (inc�uding Steel Lake). The grant improved and enhanced the Lake Management
Disttict's algal bloom management efforts, and assisted in our response to HAB reports, early
de#ection investigations, water quality sampling, sample deiivery/analyses, public notification,
data reporting, and community outreach. In 2011, there were two separate blue-green algae
b(ooms: June 20 and September 14. Water samples for both blooms were not toxic per the DOH
guidance, but caution signs were posted at the public swimming beach until the bloom dissipated.
• Since 2008, there have been five major HAB events resulting in a total of thirty nine (39) days of
beach health advisories (both warning and caution) posted at the Steel Lake public swimming
beach.
The SLMDP, depending on the annual budget and work plan developed by tfie Steel Lake Advisory
Committee {SLAC), will ensure that blue-green algae blooms will be competently identified when they
occur, and Washington Department of Health guidelines regarding public notifications, health
advisories and recreational waters closure will continue to be implemented.
Through June 2014, algae management efforts will be partialty funded by a Washington Department of
Ecology (Ecology) Freshwater A►gae Grant obtained by SWM. Additionally, Ecology has advised
SWM that the blue-green algae toxicity testing component (a high priority program totally funded by
36 C1TY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
the department), will continue in perQetuity as the sunset date was removed from the legislative record
(Hamel, 2012, personal communication).
10.0 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
The King County Lake Stewardship Program Volunteer Monitoring Program for Steel Lake began in the
1980s and continued for several decades unti( budget cuts ended the program in 2005. Although the most
recent data generated by this program (six years prior to the date of this report) indicates that Stee1 Lake
had been relativeiy low in primary productivity (borderiine oligotrophic to mesotrophic) with very good
water quality, a significac►t data gap exists.
The intent of a newly established water quality monitoring program will be to provide residents,
scientists, lake managers, and interested individuals with current information on the water quality and
physical conditions for Steel Lake. The SLAC recognizes that these data may represent the only retiabie
source of information for assessing current water quality, and can be used to address questions regarding
the characteristics and ecoiogy of Steei Lake.
The objective of the Steel Lake Management District �ater Quality Monitoring Program inciudes: (1)
continuation of the gathering of baseline data with the intent of assessing long-term trends; (2) defining
seasonal and water column variability; (3) identifying potential problems, proposing possible
management solutions when feasib(e, or pinpointing additional studies to be made; and {4) educating lake
residents, lake users, and policy makers regarding lake water quality.
Water chemistry and physical characteristics in lakes vary seasonally as well as by depth over the course
of a year. The most dynamic period for lakes is during the "growing season" of mid-spring tfirough ear(y
autumn when lake dwelling organisms are most active. To maximize information obtained for this effort,
the Steel Laice Water Quality Monitoring Program will invoive the coilection of data all year on
precipitation, lake level, surface water temperature, and water clarity (with an emphasis on the
hydrological balance between the lake and its watershed, as well as temperature ranges and the impacts
of inputs on water clarity). Additionally, samples for water chemistry will be coltected from May through
October the second err►phasis being an effort on nutrient balances coinciding with much of the primary
recreational period for lakes in the Pacific Northwest (which is the chief beneficial use of most of the
regional lakes from the human standpoint).
If part of an annual work plan approved by the SLAC, Surface Water Management staff wiit collect,
analyze and manage the data. During the summer, water chemistry and temperature vary with depth in
Steei Lake. On each sampling trip, samples will be coilected from a depth of one meter. In early summer
and again in late summer, samples witl be collected from the surface (1 m), middle, and one meter above
the bottom from the deepest part of the take to define changes found in the vertical profiles of the
parameters. Ideaily, lake level and precipitation witl be recorded daily by lake volunteers, however, the
actuai scope of the water quality monitoring program will be developed and authorized by the SLAC on
an annua! basis.
37 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL IAKE
MANAGEMENT OISTRICT PLAN
11.0 LAKE OUTLET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
If part of an annual work plan approved by the SLAC, the following action items will be implemented to
prevent future lake outlet blockages:
• Perform periodic maintenance to re(ieve flow congestion due to fallen trees, woody debris,
invasive vegetation, and trash (iarge appliances, shopping carts, plastic, etc.) between the lake
outiet and the South 304�' Street culvert crossing.
• Perform hand work to better define outlet channei at northwest corner of lake.
City staff has discussed establishing a long term maintenance agreement with various outlet channel
property owners to ensure that this drainage system continues to be properly maintained in the future.
Most of the outlet channel owners have indicated that they aze willing to a[low voiunteers or city staff to
access their property to perform channel maintenance activities as iong as the work is sponsored and
administered by either the City or Lake Management District and evidence of tiability insurance is
provided. All outlet maintenance activity will comply with all required and appropriate permitting
requirements.
�: i
12.0 CANADA GEESE MANAGEMENT PRO►GRAM
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are among the most familiar birds in Washington. They are a source
of recreation for bird watchers and hunters and symbolize nature for many people. But unfortunately,
populations of resident Canada geese have dramatically increased over the past 25 years, particularly in
urban areas in and around Steel Lake. These environments have few predators, no hunting prohibitions,
and a dependable year-round supply of food and water.
Canada geese are extremely adaptable. They use food and other resources present in urban landscapes for
nesting, raising young, molting, feeding, and resting. In parks and shorelines with short grass, lazge
tlocks of geese can denude areas of vegetation and titter them with their droppings and feathers.
Although Canada geese are not normally considered to be a significant source of infectious diseases that
are transmittable to humans or domestic animals, their droppings are increasingly cited as a cause for
water quality concerns in municipai iakes and ponds.
Waterfowl feces contain iarge amounts of E. coliform, a bacterium that is strongly conelated with the
presence of pathogens and a common cause of gastrointestinal illness contracted by swimmers who
ingest lake water. Fecal matter produced by waterfowi has been demonstrated to elevate bacteria within
takes to levels which may be sufficient to cause water-quality standard vioiations. High bacteria levels
have been known to resu(t in swimming beach closures. "Swimmers Itch" (schistosome or cercarial
dermatitis) is caused by a parasite that can be spread by goose droppings. Furthermore, waterfow( feces
contain natrients that can cause hazardous algae blooms (see Section 9.0}. Elevated nutrients in a lake
can atso exacerbate non-native aquatic weed growth.
Public health concerns presented by popu(ations of resident Canada geese have been demonstrated by a
water-quality monitoring effort conducted at Collins Lake (a 60-acre urban lake in New York). in the late
38 CITY OF fEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEI LAKE
MANAGEMENT OiSTRtCT PLAN
1970s and throughout the 1990s, the New York State Department of Environmentai Conservation
documented a dramatic increase in nutrient and algae ievels directly attributable to increases in waterfowl
populations over the monitoring period (Tobissen and VVheat, 2000).
The Steet Lake LMD, through public education efforts, has attempted to reduce waterfowl poputations
through the implementation of a public education campaign. "Stop Feeding the Geese" signs have been
posted at the public swimming beach. Lake residents have been informed regarding waterfowl control
practices and physicaI installations that may be established on their property including, plant barriers and
fences. information regarding residential harassment and scare tactics (flags, streamers and scarecrows)
has atso been disseminated by tt►e LMD. Although it is di�cult to gauge whether public education
efforts have been effective, there have been five major hazardous aigae bloom events at the Steel Lake
pubiic swimming beach since 200$ (See Section 9.0) that have resulted in a total of 39 days of posted
beach advisories.
In public areas with favorable habitat, it is rarely desirable (or possible), to eliminate geese entirely.
Ideally, management programs should strive to reduce goose numbers and related problems to a level that
a community can tolerate. No single, quick-fix solution is likely to solve conflicts with geese. An
integrated approach using several techniques in combination will be required for Steel Lake.
Canada geese are protected under federal and state law. Therefore, if a Canada geese management
program, a Coopetative Service Agreement will be established between the Waterfowl Management ^
Committee and the United States De{s�rtment of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Heatth
Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS). The contract will set forth the objectives, activities
and budget of the wildlife control activities for a specified period.
If part of an annual work plan approved by the SLAC, the Canada geese management program will be
designed to reduce/alleviate praperty damage and human health and safety concerns, including reducing
the contamination of Steel Lake's recreationat waters. A Canada geese management program will include
technical assistance, population monitoring, and population control (reduction in the number of geese
utilizing certain areas). The objectives of a Canada geese management program may include:
Technical assistance upon request, including on-site evaivation of problem areas.
Monthly surveys of Canada geese.
A direct control program (egg addling and lethal control) if needed to reduce damage in
designated areas as requested.
13.0 COMMUNITY EDUCATlON AND INVOLVEMENT
PROGRAM
Since 2004, SWM has implemented an effective public education and involvement program associated
with the Steel Lake Management District. Using this model, the community education and involvement
program designed per the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP) will include the
foliowing e(ements:
• Quacterly SLAC meetings (or as needed) to discuss annual work plan and budget.
39 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DIS7RlCT PLAN
• Production of SLAC written minutes.
• Quarterly LakeYiew publication.
• Annual Stee! Lake LMD Report.
• Distribution of necessary ernail notifications to lake resident subscribers concerning lake
management activities, events and public health notices.
• Production and distribution of necessary educational materials concerning the
prevention/introduction of noxious weeds, nuisance plants and non-native animal species to the
lake; nutrient reduction and impacts of toxic blue-green algae; lake watershed stewardship and
stormwater po(lution prevention; natural yard care; efforts to controi non-native animal species
and Canada geese
14.0 LMD ANNUAL COSTS AND COMMITTEE
QUTHORIZATION
The following priorities have been established for the 2014-2023 Steel Lake Managemeni District Plan
{SLMDP). These are based upon lake improvement and maintenance activities which may be implemented
over the LMD's ten-year period: e
1. Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation
2. Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat
3. IVlanagement of hazardous algae blooms
4. Water quatity monitoring
5. Maintenance of lake outlet channel
6. Management of Canada geese
14.1 Primary LMD Management Goal
It is projected that each annual work plan witl include the primary LMD goal of controlling or removing
non-native aquatic plants and vegetation through contracted aquatic plant management activities. The
scope, RCW reference, description and estimated annual cost for this effort is described below in Table
8:
40 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRIGT PLAN
Tabie 8, Frimary �MD Management Goai: Description and Costs for Management of Non-Native
Aquatic Plants and Vegetation
Estimated
Scope Item Re erence �cription Annuai
Cost
Development of 36.fi1.020 {8) Estimate 30 SWM how�s at a50fiour. One time cost of a1.500 $�� �
lMD spread out over ten-year IMD.
Contracted 8� �Pon AquaTechnex 2012-2015 conVad and e�ected
Aquatic Piant 36.51 A20 (1) scope, including public educaGon materials, an�ual pertnitting, ag �� �
Management and IGng Courrty assessmer►t cohection fees (see Table 9 for
detail).
SWM Estimate 50 SWM man hours pe� year at S50/hax. Mdudes:
ImplemeMed development of annual work plan, management and oversight of
36.61.020 (1) E2,500.00
Aquatic Pia�t co�trador(s), finance budgeting, pubiic educaGon, coorGination
Management of SLAC meefings, notifications, and final repat.
PRIMARY LMD MANAGEMENT GOAL-70TAL ANNUAL COST 572,440.00
The estimated annual cost for impiementing a contracted aquatic plant management prograrn was derived
from a review of recent Steel Lake Work Plans, including the 2012 LMD budget. See Table 9 for a
detailed itemization of the expected tasks and associated costs for this effort.
Tabte 9, Estimated Annual Cost for Contracted Aquatic Plant Management Program
TASK ESTIMATED ANNlJAL
COST
Annual permit fee $500
Initial systematic survey $1,480
Treatment notifica6ons $725
Glyphosate treatments $1,800
Milfoil Veatments $i,700
Second systematic survey $i,480
Annualreport $500
Public education $500
Native plani control (i.acre) $400
KC assessment fee $430
Contractor meeti�gs $275
TOTAI. $9,790
41 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
14.2 Optionai LMD Man�gement Goals
The balance of the la[ce improvement and maintenance activities that may also be performed over the
LMD's ten-year period (2014-202�j a�-e considered optional and will be implerr►ented on an as-needed
basis when funds are available based upon Steel Lake Advisory Committee (SLAC) review and approval.
T'he SLAC must formatly authorize the implementation of these optional activities (see section 143).
The scope, RCW reference, description and estimated annual cost of these goals are described below in
Tabie 10:
Table 10. O tionai LMD Mana fnent Goals
Scope hem Re erevnce �scription An ua Cost
I�troduction ofi native plantings when warrarrted by
Pres�vation of Native ��C. Cost is based upon priang provided in
Vegetation and Aquatic �•61.020 (1) AquaTechnex 2012 contracL Mdudes labor, t300-00
Habitat mobilization, and materials. (One time cost of
$3,000.00).
Hazardous Algae Bioom (HAB) inspedions and
investigations_ Partially funded by a DepaRmenfi of
Managemerrt of 36.61.020 {2), Ecology grant through 2014. EsGmates based on two
Hazardous Algae Blooms (6) �2) biooms per year sampling, defivery, notifications, a�0
and follow-up. EsGmate ten (10) SWi�A man hours af
$50/hour annuaNy. Estimate that lab costs ar�e covered
through Ecotogy Freshwater Algae Control Program.
Es6mate based o� existing North Lake LMD WQ
volunteer program. Estimate six (6) annual oMake
SWM impiemeMed mordioring events and travel time: 94 SWM man hours
Water �uality Mwatwing 36.61.020 (6) at $50/hou�. Estimate six (6) rounds of lab sam�e g3,540
pfogrem analysis per year. EsHmate six (6) man hours of data
management per year at aSU/hour. Purohase of one
YSi ODO probe ($1,200) and one lake water sampier
lasoo�.
Mnuapy remove sediment in charmel. Mnually
Mai�tenance of Lake perform periodic maintenance remove
OuUet Channei 36.61.020 {7) � ��tiOA a� s480
trash). Ann�ai hand work to define channeL Estimate
16 SWM man hours per year at S30lhour
Contrad with USDANVildlife Services to impleme�t
Management of Canada 36.61.020 (6) annual Canada geese control adivities (technicai yy,200
Geese assistance, population monitoring, and popula6on
cont�ol)
42 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRtCT PLAN
14.3 Si.AC ResponsibilitiesiAuthority
The Steel Lake Advisory Committee (S�,AC) will be created to represent the property owners of Steel
Lake and to advise City Council during ihe renewed Steei Lake LIVfD, set to become effective the
beginning of 2014. Members of the SLAC shali be appointed by the City Councit following an open
recruitment process approved by the City Councii. Members of the SLAC shall be seiected from
individuals who own property or represent government bodies that own property within the LMD. Intent
of the selection process shalt be to proportionally represent the various property types identitied in the
district assessment roll. A Resolution o, f the City Council of the Ciry of Federal Way Creating a Lake
Management District Advisory Committee for Steel Lake wi(1 clearly establish the duties and authority of
the Committee
14.4 Petition to Create LMD
Per RCW 36.b1.030, a lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resoiution
of intention by a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the
owners of at least fifteen percent of the acreage contained within the proposed take management district,
whichever is greater. A petition or resolution of intention shall set forth: (1) The nature of the lake
improvement or maintenance activities proposed to be financed; (2) the amount of money proposed to be
raised by special assessments or rates and charges; (3) if special assessments are to be imposed, whether
the special assessments will be imposed annually for�the duration of the lake management district, or
the full speciai assessments will be imposed at one time, with the possibility of installments being made
to finance the issuance of lake management district bonds, or both methods; (4) if rates and charges are to
be imposed, the annuat amount of revenue proposed to be collected and whether revenue bonds payabte
from the rates and charges are proposed to be issued; (Sj the number of yeais proposed for the duration of
the lake management district; and (6) the proposed boundaries of the lake management district.
On November 11, 2012, a public meeting was held to discuss and hear comments regarding the SLMP.
Afterwards, the Steel Lake Advisory Committee submitted a signed petition (Appendix A) to the City
Clerk which met the criteria set forth in RCW 36.61.030:
The petition contained a total of thirty seven (37) signatures from landowners within the
proposed district; and,
The petition contained a total of twenty percent (20%) of the acreage contained within the
proposed district.
The estimated assessment rates imposed on each parcel in the pro�sed Steel Lake LMD is included in
Appendix B.
43 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
15.0 REFERENCES
AquaTechrtex, LLC. 2010. Steel Lake Bathymetry Mapping Report.
AquaTecht►ex, LLC. 2012. Steel Lake Discharge Management Plan.
Carlson, Robert. E. 1977. A Trophic State Index for Lakes, Limnological Research Center, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis.
City of Federai Way, Washington. 2003. An Ordinance (03-452) of the City Council of the City of
Federal Way, Washington, creating Lake Management District Number i for Steel Lake and setting a
public hearing on the assessment roll for the district.
City of Federa! Way, Washington. 2003. A Reso(ution (03-397j of the City Counci( of the City of
Federal Way, Washington, creating a Lake Management District Advisory Committee for Steel Lake and
establishing the duties thereof.
City of Federal Way, Washington. 2003. Steel Lake Integrated Aquaiic i�egetation Management Plan.
City of Federal Way, Washington. 20 i 2. ,An Ordinance ( i 2-715) of the City Council of the City of
Federal Way, Washington, relating to boats and watercraft; amending FWRC 7.03A 10 and FWRC
7.03.040.
Envirovision, Inc. 1994. Steel Lake Integrated Aquatic Vegetation Manageme»t Plan.
Hamel, Kathy. 2012. Washington Department of Ecotogy, Aquatic Plants, Aigae & Lakes Program.
Personal communication.
Moore, Schindler, Scheueretl, Smith and Frodge. 2003. Lake Eutrophication at the Urban Fringe, Seattle
Region. Vol. 32 No. 1, Feb. 2003� Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Sheldon and .4ssociates. 1999. City of Federal Way Wetland Inventory Report.
Tobissen, P. and E. Wheai. 20U0. Long and Short-Term Effects on Waterfowl on Collins Lake, An Urban
Lake in Upstate Netiv York.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2000. Herbicide Risk Assessmenl for the Aquatic Plant
Managemeni Final Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 201 l. Aquatic Plant and Algae General Permit, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge Genera! Permit.
Washington State Departrnent of Ecology. 2012. On-Line Aquatic Piant and Algae Identification.
http•//www ecy wa gov/programs/wq/plants/ptantalgaeid htm(
44 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
2014-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT OISTRICT PLAN
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. Fact Sheet for the State of Washington Aquatic Noxious
Weed Management General Permit.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. On-Line Statewide water rights web map.
htt,p://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wr/info/webmap.html
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1998. Aquatic Plants and Fish. Pubtication #APF-
1-98.
Washington State Department of Health (DOH). 2010. Washington State Recreational Guidance for
Microcystin and Anatoxin A.
�
45 CITY OF FEDERAI WAY
2094-2023 STEEL LAKE
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN
Qppendix A
Signed Petition
Petit�on to the Federal Way City Council ta Renew the
Lake Mar�agement District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 20143023
We, the undersigned Steel Lake :property owners, request that the Federal Way City Council renew the
Laice Management District (L�vID) IVumber 1 for Steei Lake pvrsuant to RCW 36.61that wilt otherwise
expire in 2013. The LMD funds will finar�ce efforts to protect and enhance Stee( Lake in terms of water
quality, recreational and aesthetic value.
l. Purpose of the Lake Management District may include the foliowing activities:
a) Management of non-na#ive aquatic plants and vegetation
b) Preservation of native vegetafion and aquatic habitat
c) Management of hazardous algae blooms
d) Water quality monitoring
e) Maintenance of lake outle# channel
fl Management of Canada gcese
g) Community Education a�d Public Involvement
It is expecied that ail management district lake improvement and maintenance activities described
in RCW 36.61A20 may be considered as LMD funding al�ows. The atiached 2014-2023 Steel
Lake Management District Plata (SLMDP) provides additional detail regarding the basis for the
acu�ual LMD work plan, managetnent goals and budget.
2. IIoundary
The proposed boundary of the L1VID would inciude all the property with lakefront on Steel Lake.
See attached map of proposed properties within the district.
3. Duration
The proposed duration of the LMD renewai is 10 years.
4. Charges to property:
Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activities. The following is
the formula of rates and charges proposed for establishtnent of the assessment role for the I,MD:
Steet Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petition
Page 1 of 4
It is proposed that unallocated funds in the current LMD (estimated at $ I5,000) roll over into the
Lake Management District (LMD) Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023.
The estimated amount tha# is proposed to be coltected for the LMD per year is $i5,232. Issuance
of revenue bonds is not proposed.
'The LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote af#er the
city council adopts a resolution to renew the LNID. Once approved by the public and city council,
the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another pubiic vo#e and city council
apProvat.
5. Steel Laice Management District Advisory Committee
The volunteer Steet Lake Manageme�t District Advisory Committee (SLAC) is proposed to
represent the interests of LNID property owners. City staff wili work with the SLAC to develop
the annual work plan. The annual LMD work plan and budget will be forwarded by the SLAC for
implementation by the City's surface water utility. The SL�C will track and review activities and
expenditwes by the City as well as ou#side contractors. City stafi will provide SLAC support
including quarterly financiai reports.
�
Stee1 Lake LMB 2014-2423 Petition
Page 2 of 4
Petition to the Federal Way.City Council to Renew the
Lake iVlanagement District Number 1 for Steei lake, 2014-2023
RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management distrid may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by
a couniy legislative autFwrity or the fiting of a petition signed by ten IandaNners or the owners of at least fifteen
perceni of the acreage contained within the proposed lake manageme�t distrid, whichever is greater.
Stee! i,atce LMD 2014-2023 Petition
Page 3 of�t�
}
�-
�`�
�)
Petition to the Federal Way City Councit to Renew the
Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of inten6on by
a cainty legisla6ve authority w the filing of a petitio� signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen
percen! of the acxeage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater.
Stee3 Lake LMD 20 t4-2023 Petition
Page 4 of 4
:s�
�a
�
W
�
�
�
Clty Of
�- -'- --� �w�—
Steei Lake
r--r-a:-� � -•-� i �__ ■i_�
Map Dafe: November 20
City of Federal V1fay
33325 6th Ave S
Faderal Way, WA 98003
Land Use Category Open Space' Single Family 0 250 500 � u*ro�
�;w " Multi-Family Park Vacant l���� 'L■�w� Feet
��� Fe�eral W�y
v
x
E
°�
�
�
�
�
J
�
NQ,
Sf{1
9
�
Y
�
J
�
.3
�
C
d
�
W
�
Appendix B
Assessment Rates by Parcel
,
�
3
4
5
6
7
B
8
1D
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1B
18
ao
s�
zz
23
24
�5
28
27
7B
3B
JO
J1
�2
J�
74
35
78
77
78
�B
40
a�
n
u
�a
�5
�a
a
+e
<9
SO
51
52
53
Steel Lake LMD 201A-2023, Assessment Roll
Steal Leke LMO 201 �8014
As�sssim�nt RoA
G�9e 1
s.
ss
58
57
SB
5B
BO
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
BB
69
70
77
72
)3
�a
�s
76
77
78
79
80
B1
82
83
8�
BS
BB
B7
BB
BB
Steei Lake LMO 2014-2023, Assessment Roll
Sba1 Lak� LAAD 2014-2024
Astwssmenl RoN
P�y� 2
�
Steei Lake LMD 2014-2023, Assessment Roli
MuRifam�ly (Apartrhent Complex, 30602 Paeiftc H S)
. TAXiA�BR NAM! ADDREE6 LIN! W AODRlt1lINE r] PARCEL NO. RATE UNDUSE 20NINOCD
1 LMREC 11 R60 III INC B39iY0 106l0 WILSHIRE BlVO x7760 �08 ANOELES CA 9004� OB21019124 3306.00 MULTI FAtA1lV RMtE00
Park (Steel Lake Park)
TAXPAYER NAME AODRBSS I.INE It ADDREfs LINE �t VARCEL NO. � RATE LANDUfE ZONMiOCD
1 GTV OF fEDERAI. WAY 092104 9028 52,278.00 PARK RS7.2
Open Space (WOP1N Pubfle 9oat Launeh)
TAXPAYER NAME AUDRE88 LWE M � ADDRE58 LNJE �t al�RCEL NO. RATE LANIIUBE 20NUIGCD
1� BtATE OF WABHINOTON b0T REAL ESTATE 6ERVICES, �YMPW WA BB6W 796440 0270 53,89bA0 � OPEN SPACE . R$B9
PO BOX 1733B
L�
I. , . .. ...... � ., .�r .. . .. . . . .
6tn1 Wke LMD 2014•77t4
Ascaeument Rall
Pspe 3
�x��s� �
Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the
Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
We, the undersigned Steel Lake property owners, request that the Federal Way City Council renew the
Lake Management District (LMD) Number 1 for Steel Lake pursuant to RCW 36.61that will otherwise
expire in 2013. The LMD funds will finance efforts to protect and enhance Steel Lake in terms of water
quality, recreational and aesthetic value.
1. Purpose of the Lake Management District may include the following activities:
a) Management of non-native aquatic plants and vegetation
b) Preservation of native vegetation and aquatic habitat
c) Management of hazardous algae blooms
d) Water quality monitoring
e) Maintenance of lake outlet channel
fl Management of Canada geese
g) Community Education and Public Involvement
It is expected that all management district lake improvement and maintenance activities described
in RCW 36.61.020 may be considered as LMD funding allows. The attached 2014-2023 Steel
Lake Management District Plan (SLMDP) provides additional detail regarding the basis for the
annual LMD work plan, management goals and budget.
2. Boundary
The proposed boundary of the LMD would include all the property with lakefront on Steel Lake.
See attached map of proposed properties within the district.
3. Duration
The proposed duration of the LMD renewal is 10 years.
4. Charges to property:
Annual rates and charges will be used to raise funds to support LMD activities. T'he following is
the formula of rates and charges proposed for establishment of the assessment role for the LMD:
ASSESSMENT CA7EGORY RATE REVENUE (S)
Single Family ResidenUal Zone R39.6, Lakefront
Developed property (89 units) X 395 per unit $8,455.00
Vacant property (9 units) X$33.00 per unit $279.00
City Park (1 unit) X $2,279.00 $2,279.00
WDFW Public Boat Launch (1 unit) X$3,895.00 $3,895.00
Multi-Family Residentfal Zone (RM 1800), Lakefront
Village at the Lake Apartments (1 unit) X$306,00 $308.00
TOTAL ANNUAL A3SESSMENT s15,232.00
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petition
Page 1 of 4
It is proposed that unallocated funds in the current LMD (estimated at $15,000) roll over into the
Lake Management District (LNID) Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023.
The estimated amount that is proposed to be collected for the LMD per year is $15,232. Issuance
of revenue bonds is not proposed.
The LMD budget and rates will be approved through a public hearing and a public vote after the
city council adopts a resolution to renew the LNID. Once approved by the public and city council,
the annual rates and charges may not be altered without another public vote and city council
approvaL
Steel Lake Management District Advisory Committee
The voltwteer Steel Lake Managernent District Advisory Committee (SLAC) is proposed to
represent the interests of LMD property owners. City staff will work with the SLAC to develop
the annual work plan. The annual LMD work plan and budget will be forwarded by the SLAC for
implementation by the City's surface water utility. The SLAC will track and review activities and
expenditures by the City as well as outside contractors. City staff will provide SLAC support
including quarterly financial reports.
Steel Lake LMD 2014-2023 Petidon
Page 2 of 4
�����
� �ii�
�I RI � ��r W � r►\, � �
����� ���.,`.. _ ,�� �. �
' �'��r'�'"�i�'��� , � �:�►.�.���;�.��-� -�,u,��.��
0� �f..�.�� ,.��� � -� . , -.��,
� �'� , + : ��
� " � _ _,.- I ��l�/� �,_= -, . , � � ''T_. _-':��I�'`
� �. ~` \. . � I'�
������ :rLl4L� !�/. .�li'.='1,�;:��
�.;�,�.�
�.,� �_=- - -.,r» , , � �,
1�..:� ����� �'-:—�;,►\�_��,,i,�,�.
��►� __. ... �_ �f _::�!;!l�.�!!�� "
� �✓��
��r
�
�
. ,�
��
' a -�-C. p � ✓ o�
,�� �� � a53 7ov o Z t cl
� ' � I
� �r�t �
� �� � ��S
� O
�r- � � � �
�.. '� ��
�� �- � �
�:..�a�'��' �
� iL... C' , . _.. _ ...iG�s a-�
,
�
,��
�
�,_
��
� Petition to the Federal Way City Council to Renew the
Lake Management District Number 1 for Steel Lake, 2014-2023
RCW 36.61.030 — A lake management district may be initiated upon either the adoption of a resolution of intention by
a county legislative authority or the filing of a petition signed by ten landowners or the owners of at least fifteen
percent of the acreage contained within the proposed lake management district, whichever is greater.
Steel Lake LMD 20t4=2023 Petidon
Page 4 of 4
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION
ITEM #: 1 �-
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council re-appointment two members to the Arts Commission?
COMMITTEE: N/A
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
� City Council Business
STAFF REPORT BY: Carol McN
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
Clerk
MEETING DATE: N/A
❑ Public Hearing
0 Other
DEPT: Human Resources
Background:
The Arts Commission is comprised of nine voting members that serve three-year terms. Two Commissioner's
terms expired on December 31, 2012 — Fran Tanner and Mary Tynan. Both are seeking re-appointment to the
Commission.
Options Considered:
1. Re-appoint Fran Tanner and Mary Tynan to the Arts Commission for three-year terms expiring
December 3 l, 2015.
2. Direct the City Clerk to recruit for additional applicants.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION: N/A
MAYOR APPROVAL: N/A N/A DIRECTOR APPROVAL: N/A ��'C/
Committee Council Committee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move the following re-appointments to the Arts Commission... "
(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 #
COIJNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013 TTEM #:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
SUBdECT: Amendments to the King County Countywide Plauning Policies
POLICY Q(JESTiON: Should the city write a letter in support of the amendments to the Countywide Planning Poiicies?
COMMITTEE: Land Use/Transportation Committee (LLTTC)
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
❑ Resolution
� City Council Business ❑ Resolution
STAFF REPORT BY: Principal Planner Margaret Clark
MEETING DATE: Febniary 4, 2013
■
�■
Public Hearing
Other
DEPT: Community & Economic Development
Attachments: January 29, 2013 Memorandum to the City Council with Exhibit 1
Background: The City has received a request from King County to review and ratify amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit 1). On December 13, 2012, the Metropolitan King County Council
adopted Ordinances 17486 and 17487, which approved and rarified the amendments on behaif of unincorporated
King County. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified by at least 30 percent of the city and couuty
governments representing 70 percent of the population of King County. A city is deemed to have ratified the
amendments if it either sends a letter in support of the amendments or does nothing. If a City opposes the
amendments, it must take legislarive action within 90 days of adoption by King County. The 90-day deadline for
responding on this proposed amendment is March 4, 2013.
Options Cousidered: 1) Adopt the Mayor's recommendarion to write a letter in support of the amendments; 2)
Do not adopt the Mayor's recommendation by adopting a resolution opposing the amendments; 3) Adopt a
resolution which specifies which amendments aze being supported and which ones are being opposed.
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDAT[OIY: The Mayor recommends writing a letter in support of the amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies �
, �,—� — -
MAYOR APPROVAL:
D[RECTOR APPROVAI.:
�uttee
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDAT[ON: I move to adopt the Mayor's recommendation.
f--1 � \
� �
�
Bob Ceislci. Chair Jeanne BurbidQe_ Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION:
"1 move approval of Option 1 to write a[etter in support of the amendments. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYCITYCLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ AppROVED COUNCILBILL#
� DEN[ED isT reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACT[OlY Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READIiYG (ordinances onfy) ORDINANCE #
REVISED-�/VJ2010 RESOLITTION #
i:\CWPP's�2013�Agenda Bill.doc
`
CITY OF �
Federal Way
MEMORANDUM
January 29, 2013
To: City Council
vIA: Skip Priest, Mayor
FROM: Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBIECT: Amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies
MEETtNG DATE: N/A
I. BACKGROUND
The City has received a request from King County to review and ratify amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) (Exhibit 1). On December 13, 2012, the Metropolitan King
County Council adopted Ordinances 17486 and 17487, which approved and ratified the amendments
on behalf of unincorporated King County. Amendments to the CPPs become effective when ratified
by at least 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of the population
of King County. A city is deemed to have ratified the amendments if it either sends a letter in
support of the amendments or does nothing. if a City opposes the amendments, it must take
legislative action within 90 days of adoption by King County. The 94-day deadline for responding
on this proposed amendment is March 4, 2013.
II. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CPPs
Ordinances 17486 and 17487 include the following motions previously approved by the Growth
Management Planning Council (GMPC):
Motion 11-1(Approved September 21, 2011) The GMPC developed and recommended the initial
set of CPPs in the early 1990s. The CPPs were adopted in phases, with Phase 1 policies ratified in
1992. Phase II policies were completed and ratified in 1994. Since that time, the policies have been
amended from time to time; however, there has never been a systematic review of the CPPs until the
GMPC started a review process in 2010. The recommended CPPs are the product of this three-year
process. This motion approved the bulk of the 2011 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
The goal of the CPP Update was to update the policies to ensure consistency with the Multi-County
Planning Policies contained within VISION 2040 (adopted in 2008), ensure consistency with the
State Growth Management Act, reflect current terminology and relevant references, and establish the
policy framework for advancing the Regional Growth Strategy.
The CPPs are organized similarly to ViSION 2040 with the following chapters:
l. Vision and Framework
2. Environment
3. Development Pattern
4. Housing
5. Economy
6. Transportation
7. Public Services
Major changes are as follows:
• The number of policies has been reduced. Policies that have been fulfilled have been
eiiminated and antiquated polices have been updated.
• A glossary of terms has been added (Pages 61-64 of Attachment A of Exhibit 1).
• The King County Jurisdiction Growth Targets 2006-2031 has replaced the previous
2001-202 i targets (Pg. 20).'
• New policy areas that have developed since the adoption of the original CPPs have been
added to Attachment A of Exhibit 1:
o Climate change2
• EN-19 & EN-21 (Pg. 15)
• DP-42 (Pg. 27)
■ PF-4 (Pg. 46)
o Reducing greenhouse gas emissions3
■ EN-2 (Pg. 11)
■ EN-16, EN-17, & EN-18 (Pg. 14)
■ DP-5 {Pg. 18)
■ T-22 (Pg. 44)
o Food Access'
■ DP-8 (Pg. 18)
■ DP-58 & DP-59 (Pg. 30)
■ H-12 (Pg. 34)
■ EC-10 (Pg. 37)
■ EC-16 (Pg. 39)
o Increasing active living by promoting walkable and bikable communities
■ DP-b & DP-7 (Pg. 18)
■ DP-32 (Pg. 25)
■ H-12 (Pg. 34)
1The 2006-2031 targets, which replaced the 2001-2022 targets, were ratified by King County and cities per Motion
09-2 on May 15, 2010.
Z Climate change is the variation in the earth's global climate over time. It describes changes in the variability or
average state of the atmosphere. Climate change may result from narival factors or processes, such as change in
ocean circu(ation, or human acriviries that change the ahnosphere's composition, such as burning fossil fuels or
deforestation.
3Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases.
°Food access means the availability of healthy, affordable, culturally acceptable food to residents of all
communities, e.g., community gardens, pea patches, farmers markets.
i:\CWPP's�2013�Memo to LUTC.docI:\CWPP's�2013�Memo to LLJTC.doc
■ T-21 (Pg. 44)
o Environmental justices
■ EN-5 (Pg. 12)
■ H-13 (Pg. 34)
Motion 12-1(Adopted Apri14, 20 i 2) — This motion added land on the west bank of the Duwamish
River to the City of Seattle Potential Annexation Area.
Motion 12-2 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion implemented the recommendations of the
School Siting Task Force by adding new policies and including the Report of the School Siting Task
Force as Appendix 5 to the Countywide Planning Policies. The GMPC approved the bulk of the CPP
changes in September 2011. However, at that time, it could not reach consensus on policies
governing tt�e siting of facilities and services, espe.cially whether school districts serving urban and
rural students should site schools in Rural Areas and whether such facilities should be served by
sewers. The GMPC formed a task force made up of representatives of jurisdictions, affected public
school districts, and citizens. The Task Force issued a final report on March 31, 2012, in which it
concluded that future schools could be sited in the Urban Growth area or in rural towns. The Task
Force also made recommendations as to the disposition of 18 undeveloped school sites located in the
Rural Area.
Motion 12-3 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion added a new Housing Chapter and revised
Housing Appendix to the Countywide Planning Policies (Pages 55-58 of Attachment A of Exhibit
1). The new Housing Chapter takes a different approach to the previous CPPs. The proposed housing
policies:
• Establish upfront a countywide need for affordable housing
• Eliminate assigned affordable housing targets to each jurisdiction
• Focus on implementation strategies to meet the countywide need
• Establish four steps for jurisdictions to accomplish this approach:
1. Conduct a housing supply inventory and needs assessment
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs
3. Measure results
4. Respond to results with reassessment and adjustment of strategies
This approach recognizes that a"one size fits all" solution does not work for every jurisdiction, and
a variety of approaches may be appropriate. The Housing Chapter also recognizes that meeting the
need of the very low income [those at 30 percent or below of average median income (AM�] should
be the focus of every jurisdiction, but actually meeting the need will depend on interjurisdictional
cooperation and public subsidies.
Motion 12-4 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion added land on the west side of 216`� Ave SE to
the City of Black Diamond Potential Annexation Area.
Motion 12-5 (Adopted June 6, 2012) — This motion amended the Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) as
follows:
• Attachment 1: Sammamish Soaring Eagle — This action added a 29.9 acre portion of
Soaring Eagle Park to the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) of the City of Sammamish
5 Environmentai justice is the fair distribution of costs and benefits, based on a consideration for social equity.
Environmental justice is concerned with the right of people to enjoy a safe, clean, and healthy environment and with
fairness across income, ethnic, and racial groups in the siting and operation of in&astructure, faciliries, or other large
land uses.
L•\CWPP's�20t3uViemo to LUTC.docI:\CWPP's�2013�iVtemo to LUTC.doc
and changed its designation from Rural to Urban in order to allow the City of
Sammamish to annex the subject property and develop it as an as active recreation city
park.
• Attachment 2: Snoqualmie — Mining Site — T'his action changed the designations of
certain parcels containing long-term mining operation from Urban to Rural to comply
with Countywide Planning Policies R-510 and R-676 that state that areas designated as
mining sites are by defuution Rural and not Urban.
• Attachment 3: Auburn —148`"' Ave SE technical correction
• Attachment 4: Black Diamond —212`" Ave SE technical correction
• Attachment S: Redmond — NE Union Hill Road/196`� Ave NE technical correction
• Attachment 6: Black Diamond — Lake Sawyer Road SE technical correction
• Attachment 7: Renlon — SE Old Petrovitski Road technical correction
• Attachment 8: Maple Yalley — SE 281 � Way technica! correction
• Attachment 9: Maple ilalley — SE 288`h St technical correction
• Attachment 10: Enumclaw — SE 440`" St technica! correction
• Attachment 11: North Bend — SE 142"� St technical correction
• Attachment 12: North Bend — SE 1 SO`k St technical correction
• Attachment 13: Auburn — SE Green Yalley Road technical correction
• Attachment 14: Duvall —SR203/NE 14d�' St technica! correction
Attachments 3 through 14 are all redesignations of portions of rights-of-way adjacent to cities
to either include or exclude that portion from the specific city's UGA based on a
recommendation from the King County Department of Transportation for the purpose of
efficient future road maintenance.
• Attachment 1 S: Maple Yalley split parcel — Ttus action moved a portion of the Urban
Growth Boundary which had previously split a developed parcel within a Maple Valley
subdivision, resulting in the entire parcel now being completely within the Urban Area.
III. COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council has the following options:
1: Do nothing
2. Write a letter in support of the amendments
3. Adopt an ordinance or resolution opposing the amendments
4. Support some and oppose others
Options 1 and 2 are deemed to be ratification of the amendments and Option 3 is non-ratification.
Option 4 is a combination.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Option 2; write a letter in support of the amendments.
I:\CWPP's�20i3�Memo to LUTC.docI:\CWPP's�2413�Ivlemo to LLTTC.doc 4
�
,�
. .
DEC242012
C C'. C bu.r-�c�-C.�
Pa,;�-riGl� �D
"8rt� � -
December 22, 2012 �1le C -
The Honorable Skip Priest
City of Federal Way
33325 8th Ave. South
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98003
Dear Mayor Priest:
We are pleased to forward #or your consideration and ratification the enclosed
amendments to the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPP).
On December 3, 2012, the Metropolitan King County Council approved and
ratified the amendments on behalf of unincorporated King County. The two
ordinances will become effective December 23, 2012. Copies of the King County
Council staff reports, ordinances and Growth Management Planning Council
motion are enclosed to assist you in your review of these amendments.
In accordance with the Countywide Planning Policies, FW 9, Step 9,
amendments become effective when �atified by ordinance or resolution by at
leas# 30 percent of the city and county governments representing 70 percent of
the population of King County according to the interlocal agreement. A city will
be deemed to have ratified the CPP and amendments unless, within 90 days o#
adoption by King County, the city takes legislative action to disapprove the
amendments. Please note that the 90-day deadline for this amendment is
Monday, March 4, 2013.
if you adopt any legislation concerning this action, please send a copy of the
iegislation by the close of business, Monday, March 4, 2013, to Anne Noris, Clerk
of the Council, Room 1200, King County Courthouse, 516 Third Avenue, Seattle,
WA 98104.
If you have any questions about the amendments or ratification process, please
contact Paul Reitenbach, Project/Program Manager IV, King County Department
o# Permitting and Environmental Review, at 206-477-0345, or Rick Bautista,
Me#ropolitan King County Council Staff, at 206-296-0329.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
a�,
����
Larry Gossett, Chair
Metropolitan King County Council
Enclosures
��•, �,�, •
Dow Constan#ine
King County Executive
cc: King County City Planning Directors
Suburban Cities Association
John Starbard, Director, Department of Permitting and Environment Review
{DPER)
Paui Reitenbach, Projeet/Program Manager !V, DPER
Rick Bautista, Council Staff, Transportation, Environment and Economy
Committee (TREE)
�
i
2
3
4
5
�
..�
��:t� .
K1NG COUNTY
Signature Report
December 4, 2012
Ordinance� 17486
1200 King Cow�ty Courthouse
516 Third Ava►ue
Seaulq WA 98104
Propos�l No. 2012-Q282.3 Sponsors Phillips
AN ORDINANCE relating to adoption and ratification of
the King County Countywide Planning Policies; adding a
new section to K.C.C. chapter 20.10, decodifying K.C.C.
� 20.10.010, K.C.C. 20.10.420, K.C.C. 20.10.030, K.C.G.
20.10.040, K.G.C. 20.10.050, K.C.C. 20.10.Ob5, K.C.C.
6 20.10A75 and K.C.C. 20.10.076 and repealing Ordinance
7 10450, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.060.
S � STATEMENT OF FACTS:
9 1. The Countywide Planning Policies ("CPPs") are adopted in accorda.nce
10 with the state Growth Management Act, under 36.70A.210 RCW.
11 2. The Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC") was formed in
_ - :_-�2 _ _,_- . - :�99��t€�g�de=tk�d��l�pm�u�-����PP�: �-'Fh�-���-is � ____ .
13 representafive body of elected officials from King County, the city of
14 Seaitle, the city of Bellevue and the Suburban Cities Association.
15 Representa.tives of-the special districts serve as ex officio members.
16 3. The CPPs establish a fraznework for guiding development in all King
17 County jurisdictions.
1
Ordinance 47486
is 4. The CPPs are deemed adopted when ratified by King County and the
19 requisite number of cities and satisfying the required population
20 percentage.
21 5. The GMPC recommends CPP amendments to the King Counfy- counci�
22 for conside�ation, possibie revision and ratification.
23 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE EOUNCIL OF KING COUN'I'Y:
24 SECTION 1. I+yndings: .
25 A. On September 21, 201 l, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted
26 Motion 11-1 approving the 2011 King County Countywide Planning Policies.
27 B. On March 3I, 2012, the school siting task ferce issued a final report.
28 C. On Apri14, 2012, the Growth Management'Planning Council adopt�d Motion
29 12-1 adding land on the west bank of the Duwamish river to the city of Seattle Potential
30 Annexation Area. .
31 D. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
32 12-2 implementing the recommenc�ations of the school siting task force by adding new
33 policies aad the Report of th� School �iting Task Force as �ppendix 5 to the Countyvvide
34 Planning Policies. ' .
35 E. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
36 12-3 adding a new housing chapter and'revised housing appendix to the Countywide
37 Planning Policies.
38 F. On June 6, 2012, the Growth Management Planning Council adopted Motion
39 12-4 adding land on the west side of 216th Ave SE to the cifiy of Black Diamond
40 Potential Annexation Area.
r]
Ordinance 17486
41 G. Attachment A to this ordinance incorporates Motions 11-1, i2-1, 12-2, 12-3
42 and 12-4 into the 2012 King County Coun#ywide Planning Policies.
43 SECTION 2. The amendments to the King County Gountywide Planning
44 Policies, and renamed the 2012 King County Planning Policies, as showu in Attachment
45 A to this ordinance, are hereby adopted and ratified on behalf of the population of
46 unincorporated King County.
47 NEW SECTiON. SECTION 3. There is hereby added to K.C.C. chapter 20. i0 a
48 new section to read as follows:
49 • A. After the Growth Mariagement Planning Council approves or amends the
50 Countywide Planning Policies, the executive, as its cha.ir, shall timely transmit to the
51 King County council an ordinance adopting the Couatywide Planning Palicies or
52 amendments thereto.
53 B. The King County council sha11 refer #he proposed ordinance transmitted by the
54 executive under subsection A. of this seetion to the committee on transportation,
55 economy and environment or its successor for review and consideration. If the King
::,,--
- _,.- , _ _
.. _:_-__ _._ _ -
_-_ , _ _-_
56 County council recommends sabstantive revisions to tfie Countywide�'Tanning Fo�cies -'" ---'
57 or amendments approved by the Growth Management Planning Council, the King County
58 council may refer the proposed revisions to the Growth Management Planning Council
59 for its considera.tion and response.
60 C. Within ten da.ys after the ordinance transmitted by the executive under
61 subsection A. of this section, as amended by the council, is effective, the clerk of the
62 King County council sha11 send the notice of enactment and the Countywide Planning
63 Policies and amendments to each city and town in King County for ratification as
3
Ordinance 17486
64 provided for in the Countywide.Planning Policies. Each city and town must take action
65 to ratify or reject the proposed Countywide Planning Policies or amendments as approved
b6 by the King Coun�y council within ninefiy days af�er the date the ordinance approving the
67 Countywide Plann�g Policies or amendmen�s was enacted. Failure of a city or town to
68 take action and notify the c1Erk of the King County council within ninety days shall be
69 deemed to be approval by that city or town The notice shall include the clate.by which
70 eaeh city or town must respond with its response to ratify or rej�t the proposed
71 Countywide Planning Policies or amendments and where the response should be directed.
72 D. Countywide Planning Policies or amendments are ratified if approved by the
73 county, cities and towns representing at least seventy percent of the county's population
74 and thiriy percent of the jurisdictions. For ratification purposes, Ki.ng County is the
75 jurisdiction representing �he population in the unincorporated areas of the county.
76 . E. Within ten days, after the date foF response established by the clerk of the King
77 County council und�r subsection C. of this sectian, the clerk of the King County council
78 shall notify the executi�►e, as chair of the Growth Man�agement Planning Council, of the
79 de�ision to ratify ar. not tc�>ratifythe Countywide Plauning Policies or amendments.
8o SECTION 4: ;K..C.C. 20.14.410, K.C.C. 20.10A2Q, K.C.C. 20.10.030,.�.C.C..
81 20.10.U40, K.C.C. 20:10.050, K.C.C. 20.10.065, K.C.C. 20.10.075 and K.C.C. 20.10.076
82 are each hereby decodified.
4
83
E:�l
85
Ordinance 17486
SECTlON 5. Ordinance 10450, Section 6, as amended, and K.C.C. 20.10.060 are
each hereby repealed.
Ordinance 17486 was introduced on 8/20/2012 and passed as amended by the
Metropolitaa King County Council on 12/3/2012, by the following vote:
ATTEST:
Yes: 9- Mr. Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Ms. Patterson, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dunn and Mr.
McDermott '
No: 0
Excused: 0
V
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
K1NG COUNTY, WASHINGTON
I.arry Gossett, Chair
__- _ ._ _- _ : __, _ - , _:_ _._. _ _,_ _. . --.:. :
- _ ._
Anne Noris, Clerk of �e Council
APPROVED this �� day of � �, 2012.
�,T,
-r i.`'
;� �
:�:
�- .�
.�
r; ....
`•rr �
.
.
_ ��' �.
� �
� ..
� W
c� �
� � '' �-� -
Dow Constantine, County Executive
Attachments: A. 2012 King County Couutywide Planning Policies, dated Dec$mber 3, 2012
G�
_�
;i�
.�
;_ ;
,°'.
_:_-
�
�w
r�_. _:__.__ :_.
t:.�
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT A
2012 King County
Countywide Planning Policies
November, 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
CONTENI'S .......................................................................................................•..........................................................2
VISION2040 STA'i'EMENT ........................................................................................................................................4
VISION& FRAIIREWORK ...............................................................................................................••••........................5
Vision for King County 2030 ....................•--•...............
.....• .......................................................................................5
Fra►neworic ...................•••--................---•...........-•---........................._..........................•••.............._.......•--.....................7
FrameworkPoiicie.s ...............................................................................................................................................9
ENVIItONMENT........................................................................................................................................................ l l
Environmental Sustaic�abiiity .........................................................................
Earthand Habitat ...........................................................................................
FloodHazards ................................................................................................
WaterResources ............................................................••..............................
Air Quaiity and Climate Change ...................................................................
DEVELOPMENT PA"I'TERNS .........................................................................
UrbanGrowth Area .......................................................................................
...............................................11
......................... .................12
...............................................13
...............................................13
...............................................14
...............................................16
...............................................16
UrbanLands ........................................................................................................................................................17
GrowthTazgets ....................................................................................................................................................18
Amendments to the Urban Growth Area.......--••-• ........................................•••.....................................................21
Reviewand Evaluation Program .........................................................................................................................22
JointPlanning and Anneacation ............................................................................................................................23
Centers.....................................................................................................................................................................24
UrbanCenters ......................................................................................................................................................24
Manufachuing/ Industrial Centers ..................................................................................................•-•••--•-••-.........25
LocalCenters ............................................................................................................................••---......................26
Urban Design and Historic Preservation .................................................................................................................27
RuralArea and Resource Lands ...............................................•---...........................................................................27
RuralArea ........................................................•--•--.....................................................................---.....................28
ResourceLands .............................................................................•......................................................................29
HOUSING................................................................................................
Housing Inventory and Needs Analysis .................................................
.................................................. 31
.................................................32
Strateg�es to Meet Housing Needs ...............................................................................................•-•.......................32
RegionatCooperation ..............................................................................................................................................34 �
MeasuringResults ...................................................................................................................................................34 W
Fy
ECONOMY...................................................................................... 36 z
...........................................................••..............
BusinessDevelopment ............................................................................................................................................37 �
Peopie...........................................................................................................................•-•......----.............................38 �
�
Places.....................................................................••-••--•-•........................................................................................38 �
�
U
2
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
TRANSPORTATiON.................................................................................................................................................40
Supportu►g Growth ..................................................................................................................................................40
Mobility...................................................................................................................................................................42
SystemOperations ...................................................................................................................................................43
PUBLIC FACII.TTiES AND SERVICES ...................................................................................................................45
Urbanand Rural I.evets of Service ..........................................................................................................................45
CoilaborationAmong Jurisdictions .........................................................................................................................45
Utiliti� .................................•.........................................................................................-•---....................................46
WaterSupp(y .......................................................................................................................................................46
SewageTreatment and Disposa( ................................................................................•-.....�..._.............................47
SolidWaste ..........................................................................................................................................................47
Energy..................................................................................................................................................................48
Te(ecommunications ............................................................................................................................................48
Humanand Community Services ...........................................................••-•••-.............••-••--..................._..._..........48
SitingPublic Capital Facilities ............................................•••.............................................................................49
APPENDIX1: LAND USE MAP ..............................................................................................................................50
APPENDIX 2: PO"I'ENTIAI., ANNEXA'ITON AREAS MAP ...................................................................................51
APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS .......................................................................................................52
APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECI-Il�iICAL APPENDIX .............................................................................................55
APPENDIX 5: KING COUNTY SCHOOL STTING TASK FORCE REPORT ........................................................59
GLOSSARY .................................................................... ............ ................................................................................61
�
�
W
E-�
z
0
U
�
a�
.,
a
c�
�
U
3 I
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
VISION 2040 STATEMENT
The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies were prepared to address changes to the
Growth Management Ad, take into account the passage of 20 years since their initial adop#ion,
and to speci�cally reflect the regional direction established in VISION 2040.
�sion 2040 is the product of the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), an association of cities,
towns, counties, ports, tribes, and state agencies that serves as a forurn for developing poiicies
and making decisions about regional growth rnanagement, environmental, economit, and
transportation issues in the four-county central Puget Sound region of Washington state (Ki�g,
�tsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties). Vision 2040's Regional Growth Strategy outli�es how
the four-county Puget Sound region should plan for additional population and employment
growth.
As made clear in the Regional Growth Strategy, all jurisdictions in King County have a role in
accommodating growth, using sustainable and environmentaUy responsible development
practices. The 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies support this strategy and
provide direction at the county and jurisdiction level with appropriate specificity and detail
needed to guide consistent and useable local comprehensive plans and regulations.
While VIS10N 204U is consistent with the overall growth management strategy of the 1992 King
County Countywide Planning Policies, restructuring the Countywide Planning Policies—into the
six chapters of Environment, Development Patterns, Housing, Economy, Transportation, and
Public Facilities and Services—was done to match the st�ucture of VISION 2040.
Ey
z
w
�
w
H
¢
H
�
0
�r
0
N
z
0
�
�
�
>
�;
�
�
�,
�
�
U
i�
2012 Kng County Countywide Planning Policies
Novem6er 2012
Amended Decernber 3, 2012
VISION � FRAMEWORK
Vision for King County 2030
It is the year 2030 and our county has changed significantly in the roughly 40 years that have
elapsed since the first Countywide Planning Policies were adopted in 1992. In many ways this is
a result of the successful public-private partnership that has supported a diversified,
sustainable regional economy and has managed and accommodated grawth while maintaining
the quality of iife and the naturai environment throughout King County.
King County in 2030 is cfiaracterized by:
• Protected Criticai Areas. Effedive stewardship of tfie environment has preserved
and protected the critical areas in the County, i�cluding wetiands, aquifer recharge
areas, and fish and wildlife conservation areas.
These critical areas continue to provide beneficial functions and values for
reducing flooding, protecting water quality, supporting biodiversity, and
enriching our quality of life for future generations as the as the region's
population continues to grow.
�able Rura1 Area. The Rural Area, established in 1992, is permanently protected
with a ciear boundary between Rural and Urban Areas.
The successful protection of these lands is due in large part to continued
innovation within the Urban Growth Area to create new ways to use land
efficientiy and sustainably. In this way, there is minimal pressure to convert rural
lands. The Rural Area is a viable option for those seeking a lifestyle contrast to
the Urban Growth Area. The pressure to urbanize the Rural Area has also been
lessened by market pressures to use the land for agriculture.
• Bountiful Agricultural Areas a�d Productive Forest Lands.
More peopie are farming and a greater number of residents are bene�ting from
King County agricultural products, which can be purchased through a network of
farmers markets and farm stands throughout the county. Since 2010, the
increase in productive farming in the Agricultural Production District and in the
Rural Area has accelerated as more residents seek locally grown food. Thriving
markets now exist th�oughout the county for these products. The forests of the
Pacific Northwest remain as some of the most p�oductive in the world with large
scale commercial forestry prevalent in the eastern half of the county.
• Vib�ant, diverse and compact urban communities.
Within the Urban Growth Area little undeveloped land now exists and urban
infrastructure has been extended to fully serve the entire Urban Growth Area.
�
O
3
w
�
�
w
z
O
�
>
�
�
�.
.�
U
5
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Development activiry is focused on redevelopment to c�eate vibrant
neighborhoods wfiere residents can walk, bicycle o� use public iransit for most of
thei� needs. Improvements to the infrastructure now focus on maintaining
existing capacity as opposed to extending the infrastructure into previously
unserved areas. Because of the innovations developed in public and private
partnerships, there is still ample capacity to accommodate the planned
population and employment growth targets within the Urban Growth A�ea.
Much of the growth in employment and new housing occurs in the Urban Centers. These
centers successfuily provide a mixture of living, wo�king, cultural, and recreational activities for
all members of the community. All the centers are linked together by a high-capacity transit
system, including light rail and high capacity bus transit. Transit stations and hubs are within
walking distance to all parts of the cente� and the high capacity transit system facilitates people
moving easily from one center to another. Within the coNection of Urban Centers there is
balance between jobs and housing. Each center has developed its own successful urban
character and ail are noted for their livability, vibrancy, healthy environment, design, and
pedestrian #ocus.
SmaNer concentrations of businesses are distributed throughout the Urban Growth Area to
provide goods and services to surrounding residential areas. Most residents are within walking
distance of commercial areas, fostering a healthy community through physical exercise and a
sense of neighborhood. locaf transit systems provide convenient connections #o the Urban
Cente�s and elsewhere within the Urban Growth Area.
Manufacturing/ lndustrial Centers continue to thrive and function as important hubs of the
regional economy. These areas too are well served by transportation systems that emphasize
the efficient movement of people, goods and information to and within ManufacturingJ
Industria) Centers as well as connecting to other regions.
The entire Urban Growth Area is characterized by superior urban design with an open space
network that defines and separates, yet links, the various jurisdictions and central places.
Countywide and regional facilities have been equitabiy dispersed—located where needed, sited
unobtrusively—and have provided appropriate incentives and amenities to the su�rounding
neighborhoods.
Rural Cities have created unique urban environments within the Rural Area and provide
commercial services and employment opportunities for their residents. These include retail,
business, educational and social services for residents both of cities and the surrounding Rural
Area while protecting and supporting the surrounding Rural Area and Resource Lands.
Federal, state and regional funds have been used to further this land use plan and to fund
needed regional facilities while local resources focus on funding local and neighborhood
facilities. The sharing of resources to accomplish common goals is done so that the regional
plan can succeed and all can benefit.
�
Q
3
w
�
AC
w
�
z
O
�
�
�
>
�
�
�
�
U
6
2012 King County County�vide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
The economy is vibrant, vital, and sustainabie, and emphasizes dive�sity in the range of goods
and information produced and the services provided. Regional cooperation has focused on
economic deveiopment activities that have retained and expanded key industries such as
aerospace, software, and biotechnology while using the resources of the region to attract new
business clusters such as in renewable energy. Businesses continue to locate in our county
because of the fiigh quality of 1ife; the preservation of the natural environment; the emphasis
on providing a superior education; the predictability brought about by the management of
growtfi and the effectiveness of public-private partnerships supporting these attributes.
Housing opportunities for all incomes and lifestyles exist throughout the county and with the
balanced transportation system access to employment is convenient and reliable. Innovation in
the development of a diverse range of housing types has been fundamental in accommodating
population growth. The diversity of housing types has allowed residents to stay within thei�
community as their housing needs change.
Kin� County communities are extraordinarily diverse cul#urally and this has been embraced and
celebrated by the residents of King County. The needs of residents are attended to by a social
service system that emphasizes prevention but stands ready to respond to direct needs as well.
Tfiere is a sense of social equity within our communities and all share equitabty in the
distribution of and access to parks, open space, and vibrant neighborhood centers.
The Urban G�owth Area is completely focated within cities, which are the primary providers of
urban services. Where appropriate, sub-regional consortia have been created for certain
services, and King County government is recognized as a significant provider of regional services
as well as the coordinator of local services to the Rural Area and Resource Lands.
Residents and businesses have recognized that, over time, through clear and �easonable
timelines and financing commitments, issues wiil be addressed. Residents and businesses trust
in their local governments because the plans and promises made to manage growth starting in
1992 have been foilowed. Change is accepted and proceeds in an orderly fashion based on the
locally adopted and embraced growth management plans.
Framework
The year 1991 was one of tremendous change for the management of growtfi in King County
and this environment of change gave rise to the distinctive character of the 1992 Countywide
Planning Policies. While the Countywide Planning Policies have been amended periodically to
address specific issues or revisions required by the Growth Management Act, the first thorough
update o# the Countywide Planning Policies was completed in 2012 to ensure that the
Countywide Planning Policies are consistent with VISION 2040, the Growth Management Act
and changes that had occurred in the previous twenty years within King County. In addition for
the 2012 update, the Growth Management Planning Council directed that the revised policies
�
O
3
�
a�
w
�
z
O
�
>
�
°�,'
s�,
�
U
%
2D12 King County Countywide Planning Polides
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
include countywide direction on three new policy areas: climate change, healthy communities
and social equity. Understanding the history of the 1992 policies is important in order to
establish the context for the revised policies.
In 1991 five major conditions gave rise to the first Countywide Planning Policies and the process
used in their development and adoption:
1. In 1985, the King County Council adopted a Comprehensive Plan that for the
first time established a clear boundary between Urban and Rural Areas and set
forth standards to delineate a clear development character for each.
2. In 1991, the adoption of the Growth Management Act transformed the way
that local jurisdictions looked at land use planning as well as how they
interatted with neighboring jurisdictions.
A fundamenta) requirement of the Growth Management Act was
coordination between a shared countywide vision on how growth would be
planned for and accommodated and how this would be implemented by iocal
jurisdictions. In 1991, the Growth Management Act was amended to include
the requirement that Countywide Planning Policies be adopted to describe
this vision and how these relationships would be created. These provisions
gave rise to tfie creation of the Growth Management Planning Council — an
advisory group of elected officials from jurisdictions throughout the county
charged with overseeing the preparation of the Countywide Planni�g Poticies.
Since the Growth Management Act was new and many jurisdictions had not
created a comprehensive plan before, the Countywide Planning Policies
became a guide for jurisdictions to foilow in complying with the Growth
Management Act in areas as diverse as critical area regulation to local growth
targets.
3. In 1991, the Puget Sound Council of Governments was dissolved and replaced
with the Puget Sound Regional Council that initially had sign�cantly reduced
responsibilities for regional land use planning and coordination.
Without an effective regional body for land use planning, it was necessary for
the Puget Sound counties to identify their own process and organization for
developing the Countywide Planning Policies. In the case of King County, this
was the Growth Management Planning Council. Subsequently, as its
responsibilities were expanded over time, the Puget Sound Regional Council
devetoped VISION 2040, the multi-county vision and planning policies that set
the structure for these revised Countywide Ptanning Policies.
4. By 1991, the Suburban Cities Association had changed from a loose coalition of
cities outside of Seattle to a formal organization with the ability to represent
constituent jurisdictions in regionat forums.
�
O
3
�
�
w
�
z
O
�
�
>
�
a�
p,
�
U
�
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
5. Prior to the development of the Countywide Planning Policies, King County and
METRO attempted and failed to win electorai support for merger.
This defeat left jurisdictions with concerns about the relationship between
city and county governments, and further confusion about the roles of
governments in the Urban Growth Area.
Because of these conditions and the environment they fostered, jurisdictions in King County
decided #o go further than just meeting the specific statutory requi�ements for such policies.
The 1992 King County Countywide Planning Policies provided direction for many issues related
to growth management and established a policy structure for subsequent issue resolution.
Since their adoption, many of the initial Countywide Planning Policies have been codified into
locaf regulaiions or carried out in regional or statewide arenas and no longer need to be
included in them. Through amendments to #he King County Charter and interlocal agreements,
the relationship between county and city governments has been clearly defined and
annexations and incorporations have brought most of the unincorporated urban area into the
cities.
Other key actions that were required by the 1992 Countywide Planning Policies along with their
current status are described below:
• Complete a fiscal and environmental review of the 1992 Countywide Planning
Poiicies — completed and adopted in 1994;
• Establish housing and employment targets for each jurisdiction — completed in 1994
and periodically updated pursuant to the Countywide Planning Policies;
• Adopt local comprehensive plans pursuant to the Growth Management Act and
Countywide Planning Policies — each jurisdiction within King County has an adopted
plan that is periodically updated;
• Develop land use capacity and urban density evaluation program — developed and
then superseded by the King County Buildable Lands Program as required by the
Growth Management Act;
• Develop a growth management monitoring program — King County Benchmarks
program established in 1994 and annually updated as described in poiicy G-2; and
• Evaluate the need to change the Urban Growth Boundary and work to maintain a
permanent Rura1 Area — established in 1994 and periodicaNy reviewed as described
in the Development Patterns chapter.
General Policies
Unless otherwise noted, the Countywide Planning Policies apply to the Growth Management
Planning Council, King County, and ail of the cities within King County.
�
3
w
�
�
w
�
z
O
�
�
>
�
a�
p,
�
�
U
�J
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Amendments. While much has been accomplished, the Countywide Planning Poiicies were
never intended to be static and wil! require amendment over time to �eflect changed
conditions. While the formal policy deveiopment is done by the Growth Management Planning
Council, ideas for new policies begin in a variety of areas including individua! jurisdictions. Policy
G-1 below describes the process for amending the Countywide Planning Policies:
G-1 Maintain the currency of the Countywide Pianning Policies through periodic review and
amendment. Initiate and review all amendments at the Growth Management Planning Council
through tfie process described belaw:
a) Only the Growth Management Planning Council may propose amendments to the
Countywide Planning Policies excep# for amendments to the Urban Growth Area
that may also be proposed by King County in accordance with policies DP-15 and OP-
16;
b) Growth Managemen# Planning Council recommends amendments to the King
County Councii for consideration, possible revision, and approval; proposed
revisions by the King County Council that a�e of a substantive nature may be sent to
the Growth Management Planning Council for their consideration and revised
recommendation based on the proposed revision;
cj A majority vote of the King County Council both consti#utes approval o# the
amendments and ratification on befialf of the residents of Unincorporated King
County.;
d) After approval and ratification by the King County Council, amendments are
forwarded to each city and town for ratification. Amendments cannot be modi�ed
during the city ratification process; and
e) Amendments must be ratified within 90 days of King County approvat and require
affirmation by the county and cities and towns representing at least 70 percent of
the county population and 30 percent of those jurisdictions. Ratification is either by
an a�rmative vote of the city's or town's council or by no action being taken within
the ratification period.
Mon�itoring. Periodically evaluating the effectiveness of the Countywide Planning Policies is key
to continuing their value to the region and local jurisdictions. In 1994 King County and cities
established the current Benchmarks prog�am to monitor and evaluate key regional indicators.
G-2 Monitor and benchmark the progress of the Countywide Planning Policies towards
achieving the Regional Growth Strategy inclusive of the environment, development patterns,
housing, the economy, transportation and the provision o# public services. Identify corrective
actions to be taken if progress toward benchmarks is not being achieved.
lnvestment. Key to ensuring the success of the Countywide Planning Policies is investment in
regionai infrastructure and programs. Baiancing the use of limited available #unds between
regional and local needs is ext�emely complex.
�
3
�
�
w
�
z
O
�
�
>
�
�
�
�
�
U
1
0
2012 King County Countyw+de Planning Policies
Novemher 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
G-3 Work collaboratively to identify and seek regional, state, and federal funding sources to
invest in infrastructure, strategies, and programs to enabie the fuU impiementation of the
Countywide Planning Policies. Balance needed regional investments with local needs when
making funding determinations.
Consistency. The Countywide Planning Poiicies provide a common framework for local planning
and each ju�isdiction is required to update its comprehensive plans to be consistent with the
Countywide Planning Policies. The full body of the Countywide Planning Policies is to be
considered for decision-making.
G-4 Adopt comprehensive plans that are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies as
required by the Growth Management Act.
ENVIRONMENT
Overarching Goal: The quality of rhe natural environment in King County is restored and
protected for future qenerations.
Environmental Sustainability
local governments have a key role in shaping sustainable communities by integrating
sustainable development and business practices with ecological, social, and economic concerns.
local governments also play a pivotal role in ensuring environmental justice by addressing
environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations and by pursuing fairness in the
application of policies and regulations.
EN-1 Incorporate environmental protection and restoration efforts into loca! comprehensive
pfans to ensure that the quality of the natural environment and its contributions to human
health and vitality are sustained now and for #uture generations.
EIV-2 Encourage low impact development approaches for managing stormwater, protecting
water quality, minimizing flooding and erosion, protecting habitat, and reducing g�eenhouse
gas emissions.
EN-3 Encourage the transition to a sustainable energy future by reducing demand through
planning for e�ciency and conservation and by meeting reduced needs from sustainable
sources.
EN-4 Identify and preserve regionally significant open space networks in both Urban and
Rural Areas. Develop strategies and funding to protect lands that provide the following valuable
functions:
�
w
�
z
O
a
..
z
w
�
�
..
�
�
�
U
1
1
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
• Physical or visual sepa�ation delineating growth boundaries or providing buffers
between incompatible uses;
• Active and passive outdoor recreation opportunities;
•�idlife habitat and migration corridors that preserve and enhance ecosystem
resiliency in the face of urbanization and climate change;
• Preservation of ecologicatly sensitive, scenic or cultural resources;
• Urban green space, habitats, and ecosystems;
• Forest resources; and
• Food production potential.
EN-5 Identify and mitigate unavoidable negative impacts of public actions that
disproportionately affect people of color and low-income populations.
Farth and Hobitat
Healthy ecosystems and environments are vital to the sustainabifity of all plant and animal life,
including humans. Protection of biodiversity in all its forms and ac�oss all landscapes is critical
to continued prosperity and high quality of life in King County. The value of biodiversity to
sustaining long-term productivity and both economic and ecological benefits is evident in
fisheries, forestry, and agricul#ure. For ecosystems to be healthy and provide healthful benefits
to people, local governments must prevent negative human impacts and work to ensure that
this ecosystem remain diverse and productive over time. With the impending effects of climate
change, maintaining biodiversity becomes even more criticai to the preservation and resilience
of resource-based activities and to many social and ecological systems. Protection of individual
species, including Chinook salmon, also plays an important role in sustaining biodiversity and
quality of life within the county. Since 2000, local governments, citizens, tribes, conservation
districts, non-profit groups, and federal and state fisheries managers have cooperated to
develflp and implement watershed-based salmon conservation plans, known as Water
Resource Inventory Area plans, to conserve and restore habitat for Chinook salmon today and
for future generations.
EN-6 Coordinate approaches and standards for defining and protec#ing critical areas
especially where such areas and impacts to them cross jurisdictional boundaries.
EN-7 Encourage basin-wide approaches to wetland protection, emphasizing preservation and
enhancement of the highest quality wetlands and wetland systems.
EN-8 Develop an integrated and comprehensive approach to managing fish and wildlife
habitat conservation, especiaily protecting endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.
EN•9 Implement salmon habitat protection and restoration priorities in approved Water
Resource Inventory Area plans.
�
�
�
>
z
w
s.:
�
�
�
�
U
1
2
2012 King County Countywir�e Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Fiood Hazards
Fiooding is a naturai process that affects human communities and natural environments in King
County. Managing floodplain development and conserving aquatic habitats are the main
challenges for areas affected by flooding. The King County Flood Control District exists to
protect pubtic health and safety, regional economic centers, public and private property and
transportation corridors. tocal governments also have responsibility for flood control within
their boundaries.
EN-10 Coordinate and fund flood hazard management efforts through the King County Flood
Control District.
EN-11 Work cooperatively to meet regulatory standards for floodplain development as these
standards are updated for consistency with relevant federai requirements including those
related to the Endangered Species Act.
EN-12 Work cooperatively with the federal, state, and regional agencies and forums to develop
regional levee maintenance standards that ensure pubiic safety and protect habitat.
Water Resources
The flow and quality of water is impacted by water withdrawals, land development, stormwater
management, and climate change. Since surface and ground waters do not respect political
bounda�ies, cross-jurisdictional coordination of water is required to ensure its functions and
uses are protected and sustained. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by the
Washington State Legislature as the state agency with the responsibility for assuring the
preservation and recovery of Puget Sound and the freshwater systems flowing into the Sound.
King County plays a key role in these efforts because of its large population and its location in
Central Puget Sound.
EN-13 Collaborate with the Puget Sound Partnership to implement the Puget Sound Action
Agenda and to coordinate land use and transportation pians and adions for the benefit of
Puget Sound and its watersheds.
EN-14 Manage na#ural drainage systems to improve water quality and habitat functions,
minimize erosion and sedimentation, protect public health, reduce flood risks, and mode�ate
peak storm water runoff rates. Work cooperatively among local, regional, state, national and
tribal jurisdictions to establish, monitor and enforce consistent standards for managing streams
and wetlands throughout drainage basins.
E�
z
�
z
0
a
�
>
w
�
a�
�
�
U
�
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EN-15 Establish a multi-jurisdictional approach for funding and monitoring water quality,
quantity, biological conditions, and outcome measures and for improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of monitoring efforts.
Air Quality and Climate Change
Greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in a changing and increasingly variable climate. King
County's snow-fed water supply is especially vulnerable to a changing climate. Additionally, the
patterns of storm events and river and stream flow patterns are changing and our shorelines
are susceptible to rising sea levels. Carbon dioxide reacts with seawater and reduces the
water's pH, threatening the food web in Puget Sound. While local governments can individually
work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, more signi�cant emission reductions can only be
accomplished through countywide coordination of land use patterns and promotion of
transportation systems that p�ovide practical alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
Efficient energy consumption is both a mitigation and an adaptation strategy. Local
governments can improve energy efficiency through the development of new infrastructure as
well as the maintenance and updating of existing infrastructure.
EN-16 Plan for land use patterns and transportation systems that minimize air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, including:
• Maintaining or exceeding existing standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, and
particulates;
• Directing growth to Urban Centers and other mixed use/ high density locations that
support mass transit, encourage non-motorized modes of travel and reduce trip
lengths;
• Facilitating modes of travel other than single occupancy vehicles including transit,
walking, bicycling, and carpooling;
• lncorporating energy-saving strategies in infrastructure plant�ing and design;
• Encouraging new development to use low emission construction practices, low or
zero net lifetime energy requirements and "green" building techniques; and
• Increasing the use of low emission vehicles, such as efficient electric-powered
vehicles.
EN-17 Establish a countywide greenhouse gas reduction target that meets or exceeds the
statewide reduction requirement that is stated as the 2050 goal of a 50 percent reduction
below 1990 levels.
EN-18 Establish a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and measurement framework for use
by all King County jurisdictions to efficiently and effectively measure progress toward
countywide targets established pursuant to policy EN-17.
z
w
�
z
a
>
z
w
�
i�,
�
�
U
�
.�
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EN•19 Promote energy efficiency, conservation methods and sustainable energy sources to
support climate change reduction goals.
EN-ZO Plan and implement land use, transportation, and building practices that will greatiy
reduce consumption of fossil fuels.
EN-21 Formulaie and impiement climate change adaptation strategies that address the
impacts of climate change to pubtic health and safety, the economy, public and private
infrastructure, water resources, and habitat.
Ey
z
w
�
z
0
x
�
�
w
�
�
�
a
�
�
U
�
5
2012 King County Cauntywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
'The policies in this chapter address the location, types, design and intensity of tand uses that
are desired in King Cou�ty and its cities. They guide implementation of the vision for physical
development within the county. The policies also provide a framework for how to focus
improvements to transportation, public services, the environme�t, and affordable housing, as
weti as how to inco�porate concerns about ciimate change and public health into planning for
new growth. Development patterns policies are at the core of growth management efforts in
King County; they further the goals of VISfON 2040, and recognize tfie variety of locai
communities that wiil be taking action to achieve those goals.
Overarching GoaL• Growth in King County occurs in a compact, centers focused pattern that
uses land and infrastructure e�ciently and that prorects Rural and Resource Lands.
The Countywide Planning Policies designate land as U�ban, Rural, or Resource. The Land Use
Map in Appendix 1 shows the Urban Growth Area boundary and Urban, Rural, and Resource
Lands within King County. Further sections of this chapter provide more detailed descriptions
a�d guidance for planning within each of the three designations.
DP-1 All lands within King County are designated as:
• Urban land within the Urban Growth Area, where new growtfi is focused and
accommodated;
• Rural land, where farming, forestry, and other resource uses are protected, and very
iow-density residential uses, and small-scale non-residential uses are allowed; or
• Resource land, where permanent regionally significant agricultural, forestry, and
mining lands are presenred.
�z
a
Urban Growth Area �
¢
The Urban Growth Area encompasses all of the urban designated lands within King County. �,
These lands include all cities as well as a portion of unincorporated King Counry. Consistent �
with the Growth Management Act and VISION 2040, urban lands are intended to be the focus
of future growth that is compact, includes a mix of uses, and is well-served by public p
infrastructure. Urban lands also include a network of open space where ongoing maintenance is W
a locat as well as a regional concern. W
A
The pattern of growth within the Urban Growth Area implements the Regional Growtfi Strategy i
through allocation of targets to local jurisdictions. The targets create an obligation to plan and �
provide zoning for future potential growth, but do not obligate a jurisdiction to guarantee that U
a given number of housing units will be built or jobs added during the planning period. -
1
6
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Several additional elements in the Devetopment Patterns chap#er reinforce the vision and
targeted growth pattern for the Urban Growth Area. Procedures and criteria for amending the
Urban Growth Area boundary address a range of objectives and ensure that changes balance
the needs for land to accommodate growth with the overarching goal of preventing sprawl
within the county. A review and evaluation program provides feedback for the cou�ty and cities
on the effectiveness of their efforts to accommodate and achieve the desired land use pattern.
Joint planning facilitates the transition of governance of the U�ban Growth Area #rom the
county to cities, consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Urban form and deveiopment within the Urban Growth Area are important settings to provide
people with choices to engage in more physical activity, eat healthy food, and minimize
exposure to harmful environments and substances. In particular, the quality and safety of
waiking and biking routes children use to reach school is known to affect their health.
Goa/ Statement: The Urban Growth Area accommodates growth consistent with the Reqional
Growth Strategy and growth targets through land use patterns and practices that create
vibrant, healthy, and sustarnable communities.
Urban Lands
DP-2 Promote a pattern of compact development within the Urban Growth Area that includes
housing at a range of urban densities, commercial and industrial development, and other urban
faci�ities, including medical, governmental, institutional, and educational uses and parks and
open space. The Urban Growth Area will include a mix of uses that are convenient to and
support public transportation in order to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle travel for
most daily activities.
DP•3 Efficiently develop and use residential, commercial, and manufacturing land in the Urban
Growth Area to create healthy and vibrant urban communities with a full range of urban
services, and to protect the long-term viabiiity of the Rural Area and Resource Lands. Promote
the efficient use of land within the Urban Growth Area by using methods such as:
• Directing concentrations of housing and employment growth to designated centers;
• Encouraging compact development with a mix of compatible residential,
commercial, and community activities;
• Maximizing the use of the existing capacity for housing and employment; and
• Coordinating plans for land use, transportation, capitai facilities and services.
DP-4 Concentrate housing and employment growth within the designated Urban Growth Area.
Focus housing growth within countywide designated Urban Centers and locally designated local
centers. Focus employment growth within countywide designated Urban and
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers and within locally designated local centers.
�
�
w
¢
a
E�
z
w
�
a
O
�
w
>
w
A
�
�.
�
U
1
7
2012 Kinq County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
OP-5 Decrease greenhouse gas emissions through land use strategies that promote a mix of
housing, empioyment, and services at densities sufficient to promote walking, bitycling, transit,
and other aite�natives to auto travei.
DP-6 Pian for deveiopment patterns that promote public health by providing ali residents with
opportunities for safe and convenient daily physical activity, social connectivity, and protection
from exposure to harmful substances and environments.
OP 7 Plan for development patterns that promote safe and fiealthy routes to and from public
schoois.
DP-8 Increase access to healthy food in communities throughout the Urban Growth Area by
encouraging the location of healthy food purveyo�s, such as grocery stores and farmers
markets, and community food gardens in proximity to residential uses and transit facilities.
DP-9 �esignate Urban Separators as permanent low-density incorporated and ur�incorporated
areas within the Urban Growth Area. Urban Separators are intended to protect Resource Lands,
the Rural Area, and environmentally sensitive areas, and create open space and wildlife
corridors within and between communities while also providing public health, environmental,
visual, and recreational bene�its. Changes to Urban Separators are made pursuant ta the
Countywide Planning Policies amendment process described in policy G-1. Designated Urban
Separators within cities and unincorporated areas are shown in the Urban Separators Map in
Appendix 3.
DP 10 Discourage incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to general aviation airports
throughout the county.
Growth Targets
DP-11 GMPC shall allocate �esidential and employment growth to each city and
unincorporated urban area in the county. This allocation is predicated on:
• Accommodating the most recent 20-year population projection from the state Office
of Financial Management and the most recent 20-year regional employment
forecast from the Puget Sound Regional Council;
• Planning for a pattern of growth that is consistent with the Regional Growth
Strategy including focused growth within cities with countywide designated centers
and within other larger cities, limited development in the Rural Area, and protection
of designa#ed Resource lands;
• Efficiently using existing zoned and future planned development capacity as well as
the capacity of existing and ptanned infrastructure, including sewer and water
systems;
�
�
w
F
E�
Q
a
H
z
�
a
O
a
w
w
A
�
�
¢.
.�
U
•
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
• Promoting a land use pattern that can be served by a connected network of public
transportation services and facilities and pedestrian and bicycle inf�astructure and
amenities;
• Improving the jobs/housing balance within the region and the county;
• Promoting sufficient opportunities for housing and employment development
throughout the Urban Growth Area;
• Allocating growth to individual Potential Annexation Areas within the urban
unincorporated area proportionate to its share of unincorporated capacity for
housing and employment growth.
DP-12 GMPC shall:
• Update housing and employment targets periodically to provide jurisdictions with
up-to-date growth allocations to be incorporated in state-mandated comprehensive
plan updates;
• Adopt housing and employment growth targets in the Countywide Planning Policies
pursuant to the procedure described in policy G-1; and
• Adjust targets administratively upon annexation of unincorporated Potential
Annexation Areas by cities. Growth targets for the 2006-2031 planning period are
shown in table DP-1.
DP-13 All jurisdictions shai! plan to accommodate housing and employment targets. This
includes:
• Adopting comprehensive ptans and zoning regulations that provide capacity for
residential, commercial, and industrial uses that is sufficient to meet 20-year growth
needs and is consistent with the desired growth pattern described in VISlON 2040;
• Coordinating water, sewer, transportation and othe� infrastructure plans and
investments among agencies, including special purpose districts; and
• Transferring and accommodating unincorporated area housing and employment
targets as annexations oceur.
�
a
w
�
�
a
H
z
w
�
a
O
�
>
w
A
�
a�
�
�.
�
�
U
1
9
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Ne New Units 2006-2031 Net w Jobs 2006-2U31
Metro
M
,_ 810 200
_ 2.390 290
90 210
640
3.895 47D
Core snta� 168,340_
"nes — .
290
1,C�
350
larger
90
135
Small ------
fl. ---- — —
�
o _
u
� Bear Creek UPD 910 3,580
Undaimed Urban Uninc 65 90
Urbao Growth Area Total 233,077 428,068
2
0
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Amendments to the Urban Growth Area
The folfowing policies guide the decision-making process by both the GMPC and King County
regarding proposals to expand the Urban Growth Area.
DP-14 Review the Urban Growth Area at least every ten years. ln this review consider
monitoring reports and other avaiiable data. As a result of this review, and based on the criteria
established in policies DP-15 and DP-16, King County may propose and then the Growth
Management Planning Council may recommend amendments to the Countywide Planning
Poticies and King County Comprehensive Plan that make changes to the Urban Growth Area
boundary. �
DP-15 Allow amendment of the Urban Growth Area only when the following steps have been
satisfied:
a) The proposed expansion is under review by the County as part of an amendment
p�ocess of the King County Comprehensive Plan;
b) King Coun#y submits the proposal to the Growth Management Planning Council for
the purposes of review and recommendation to the King County Council on the
proposed amendment to the Urban Growth Area;
cj The King County Council approves or denies the proposed amendment; a�d
d) If approved by the King County Council, the proposed amendment is ratified by the
cities following the procedures set forth in policy G-1.
DP-16 Allow expansion of the Urban Growth Area only if at least one of the following criteria
is met:
aj A countywide analysis determines that the current Urban Growth Area is insufficient
in size and additional land is needed to accommodate the housing and employment
growth targets, including institutional and other non-residential uses, and there are �
no other reasonable measures, such as increasing density or rezoning existing urban �
land, that would avoid the need to expand the Urban Growth A�ea; or W
b) A proposed expansion of the Urban Growth Area is accompanied by dedication of Q
permanent open space to the King County Open Space System, where the acreage of p•
the proposed open space z
1) is at least four times the acreage of the land added to the U�ban Growth Area; �
2) is contiguous with the Urban Growth Area with at least a portion of the �
dedicated open space surrounding the proposed Urban Growth Area �a
expansion; and ,
3) Preserves high quality habitat, critical areas, or unique features that A
contribute to the band of permanent open space along tfie edge of the Urban ;
Growth Area; or �
c) The area is currently a King County park being transferred to a city to be maintained v
as a park in pe�petuity or is park land that has been owned by a city since 1994 and —
is less than thirty acres in size.
2
l
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended Decernber 3, 2012
DP-17 if expansion of the Urban Growth Area is warranted based on the criteria in DP-15(a) or
DP-16(b), add land to the U�ban Growth Area only if it meets all of the following criteria:
a) Is adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area and is no larger than necessary to
promote compact development that accommodates anticipated growth needs;
bj Can be efficientfy provided wi#h urban services and does not require supportive
facilities located in the Rural Area;
c)
d)
e)
�
Follows topographical features that form natural boundaries, such as rivers and
ridge lines and does not extend beyond natural boundaries, such as watersheds, that
impede the provision of urban services;
Is not currentiy designated as Resource Land;
1s sufficiently free of environmental constraints to be able to support urban
development without signi�icant adverse environmental impacts, unless the area is
designated as an Urban Separator by interlocal agreement between Ki�g County and
the annexing city; and
Is subject to an agreement between King County and the city or town adjacent to
the area that the area will be added to the cit�s Potential Annexation Area. Upon
ratification of the amendment, the Countywide Planning Policies will �eflect both the
Urban Growth Area change and Potential Annexation Area change.
DP-18 Allow redesignation of Urban land currently within the Urban Growth Area to Rural land
outside of the Urban Growth Area if the land is not needed to accommodate projected urban
growth, is not served by public sewers, is contiguous with the Rural Area, and:
a) Is not characterized by urban development;
b) Is currently developed with a low density lot pattern that cannot be realistically
redeveloped at an urban density; or
c) Is characterized by environmentally sensitive areas making it inapprop�iate for
higher density development.
Review and Evaluation Program
The following policies guide the decision-buildable lands program conducted by the GMPC and
King County.
DP-i9 Conduct a buildable lands program that meets or exceeds the review and evaluation
requirements of the Growth Management Act. The purposes of the buildable lands program
are:
• To coliect and analyze data on development activity, land supply, and capacity for
residential, commercial, and industriai land uses;
• To evaluate the consistency of actual development densities with current
comprehensive plans; and
• To evaluate the sufficiency of land capacity to accommodate growth for the
remainder of the planning period.
�
�
�
Q
a
H
z
�
a
O
a
w
>
w
A
;.�
�
�
�
�
U
2
2
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-20 if necessary based on the findings of a periodic buildable lands evaivation �eport, adopt
reasonable measures, other than expansio� of the Urban Growth Area, to increase land
capacity for housing and employment growth within the Urban Growth Area by making more
efficient use of urban land consistent with current plans and targets.
Joint Planning and Annezation
DP-21 Coordinate the prepa�ation of camprehensive plans among adjacent and ather affected
jurisdictions as a means to avoid or mitigate the potential cross-border impacts of urban
deveiopment.
DP-22 Designate Potentia) Annexation Areas in city comprehensive plans and adopt them in
the Countywide Planning Poiicies. Ensure that Potential Annexation Areas do not oveflap or
leave unincorporated urba� islands between cities.
DP-23 Facilitate the annexation of unincorporated a�eas within the U�ban Growth Area that
are afready urbanized and are within a city's Potential Annexation Area in order to provide
urban services to those areas. Annexation is preferred over incorporation.
DP-24 Allow cities to annex territory only within their designated Potentiat Annexation Area as
shown in the Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2. Phase annexations to coincide
with the ability of cities to coordinate the provision of a full range of urban services to areas to
be annexed.
DP-25 Within the North Highline unincorpo�ated area, where Potential Annexation Areas
overlapped prior to January 1, 2009, strive to establish alternative non-overlapping Potential
Annexation Area boundaries through a process of negotiation. Absent a negotiated resolution,
a city may file a Notice of Intent to Annex with the Boundary Review Board for King County for
territory within its designated portion of a Potential Annexation Area overiap as shown in the
Potential Annexation Areas Map in Appendix 2 and detailed in the city's comprehensive plan
after the foliowing steps have been taken:
a) The city proposing annexation has, at least 30 days prior to filing a Notice of Intent
to annex with the Boundary Review Board, contacted in writing the cities with the
PAA overlap and the county to provide notification of the city's intent to annex and
to request a meeting or formal mediation to discuss bourtdary alternatives, and;
b) The cities with the Potential Annexation Area overlap and the county have either:
i) Agreed to meet but faiied to develop a negotiated settlement to the overlap
within 60 days of receipt of the notice, or
ii) Declined to meet or failed to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of the
notice.
�
�
w
�
Q
a
E�
z
�
O
a
w
w
A
�
�
Y
�
�
U
2
3
2012 King Couni�y Counrywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-26 Develop agreements between King County and cities with Potential Annexation Areas to
apply city-compatible development standards that will guide land development p�ior to
annexation.
DP-27 Evaluate proposals to annex or incorporate unincorporated land based on the following
cflteria:
a) Conformance with Countywide Planning Policies including the Urban Growth Area
boundary;
b) The ability of the annexing or incorporating jurisdiction to provide urban services at
standards equal to or better than the current service providers; and
c) Annexation or incorporation in a manner that will avoid creating unincorporated
isiands of devetopment.
OP-28 Resoive the issue of unincorporated road islands within or between cities. Roadways
and shared streets within or between cities, but still under King County jurisdiction, should be
annexed by adjacent cities.
Centers
A centers strategy is the linchpin for King County to achieve the Regio�a! Growth Strategy as
well as a range of other objectives, particularly providing a land use framework for an efficient
and effective regional transit system. Countywide designation of Urban Centers and local
designation of locai centers provide for locations of mixed-use zoning, inf�astructure, and
concentrations of services and amenities to accommodate both housing and employment
growth. Manufacturing/lndustrial Centers preserve lands for family-wage jobs in basic
industries and t�ade and provide areas where that employment may g�ow in the future.
Goa/ Statement: King County grows in a manner that reinforces and expands upon a system of
existing and planned central places within which concentrared residential communities and
economic adivities can fJourish.
Urban Centers
DP-29 Concentrate housing and employment growth within designated Urban Centers.
DP-30 Designate Urban Centers in the Countywide Planning Policies where city-nominated
locations meet the criteria in policies DP-31 and DP-32 and where the cit�s commitments will
help ensure the success of the center. Urban Centers will be limited in number and located on
existing or planned high capacity transit corridors to provide a framework for targeted private
and public investments that support regional land use and transportation goals. The Land Use
Map in Appendix 1 shows the locations of the designated Urban Centers.
�
�
w
�
Q
a
H
z
�
O
a
w
w
A
�
�
�
�
U
2
4
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
DP-31 Allow designation of new Urban Centers where the proposed Center:
a) fncompasses an area up to one and a haif square miles; and
b) Has adopted zo�ing regulations and infrastructure plans that are adequate to
accommodate:
i) A minimum of 15,000 jobs within one-half mile of an existing or planned
high-capacity transit station;
ii) At a minimum, an average of 50 employees per gross acre within the Urban
Center; and
iii) At a minimum, an average of 15 housing units per gross acre within the
U�ban Center.
DP-32 Adopt a map and housing and employment growth targets in city comprehensive plans
for each Urban Center, and adopt policies to promote and maintain quality of life in the Center
through:
• A broad mix of land uses that foster both daytime and nighttime activities and
opportunities for social interaction;
• A range of affordable and healthy housing choices;
• Historic preservation and adaptive reuse of historic places;
• Parks and public open spaces that are accessible and beneficial to all residents in the
Urban Center;
• Strategies to increase tree canopy within the Urban Center and incorporate low-
impact development measures to minimize stormwater runoff;
• Facilities to meet human service needs;
• Superior urban design which reflects the local community vision for compact urban
development;
• Pedest�ian and bicycle mobility, transit use, and linkages between these modes;
• Planning for complete streets to provide safe and inviting access to multiple travel
modes, especially bicycie and pedestrian travel; and
• Parking management and other strategies that minimize trips made by single-
occupant vehicle, especially during peak commute periods.
DP-33 fo�m the land use foundation for a regional high-capacity transit system through the
designation of a system of Urban Centers. Urban Centers should receive high prioriry for the
location of transit service.
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers
OP-34 Concentrate manufacturing and industriai employment within countywide designated
Manufacturing/ Industriat Centers. The Land Use Map in Appendix 1 shows the locations of the
designated Manufacturing/Industrial Centers.
�
�
w
�
d
a
H
z
�
a
O
�
>
w
A
;�
�
u.
�
U
2
5
2012 King County Countywide PJanning Policies
November 2022
Amended December 3, 2032
DP-35 Adopt in city comprehensive plans a map and employment growth targets for each
Manufacturing/ Industrial Center and adopt policies and regulations for the Center to:
• Provide zoni�g and infrastructure adequate to accommodate a minimum of 10,000
jobs;
• Preserve and enhance sites that are appropriate for manufacturing or other
industrial uses;
• Strictly limit residential uses and discourage land uses that are not compatible with
manufacturing and industrial uses, such as by imposing low maximum si2e limits on
offices and retail uses that are not accessory to an industrial use;
• Facilitate the mobitity of employees by t�ansit and the movement of goods by truck,
rail, air or waterway, as app�opriate;
• Provide for capital facility improvement projects which support the movement of
goods and manufaduringJindustrial operations;
• Ensure that utilities are available to serve the center;
• Avoid conflicts with adjacent land uses to ensure the continued viability of the land
in the ManufacturingJ Industrial Center for manufacturing and industrial activities;
and
• Attract and �etain the types of businesses that will ensure economic growth and
stabiiity.
DP-36 Minimize or mitigate potential health impacts of the activities in ManufacturingJ
Industrial Centers on residential communities, schools, open space, and other public facilities.
DP-37 Designate additional ManufacturingJ Industria) Centers in the Countywide Planning
Policies pursuant to the p�ocedures described in policy G-1 based on nominations from cities
and after determining that:
a) the nominated locations meet the criteria set forth in policy DP-35 and the criteria
established by the Puget Sound Regionai Council for Regional Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers;
b) the p�oposed center's iocation will promote a countywide system of Manufacturing/
Industrial Centers with the total number of centers representing a realistic growth
strategy for the county; and
c) the cit�/s commitments will help ensure the success of the center.
Local Centers
OP-38 ldentify in comprehensive plans loca! centers, such as city or neighborhood centers,
transit station areas, or other activity nodes, where housing, employment, and services are
accommodated in a compact form and at sufficient densities to support transit service a�d to
make efficient use of urban land.
�
�
w
¢
a
H
z
�
a
O
�
w
>
w
A
�
�
�
�
�
U
2
6
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Urban Design and Historic Preservation
The countywide vision includes elements of urban desi�n and form intended to integrate urban
development into existing built and natural environments in ways that enhance both the urban
and natural settings. These elements include high quality design, context sensitive infill and
redevelopment, historic preservation, and #he interdependence of urban and rural and
agricultural lands and uses.
Goal statement: The built environment in both urban and rural settings achieves a high degree
of high quality design that recognizes and enhances, where appropriare, existing natural and
urban settings
DP-39 Develop neighborhood planning and design p�ocesses that encourage infill
development, redevelopment, and reuse of existing buildings and that, where appropriate
based on local plans, enhance the existing community character and mix of uses.
DP-40 Promote a high quality of design and site planning in pubiicly-funded and private
development throughout the Urban Growth Area.
DP-41 Preserve significant historic, archeoiogical, cultural, architectural, artistic, and
environmental features, especially where growth could place these resources at risk. Where
appropriate, designate individual features or areas for protection or restoration. Encourage
land use patterns and adopt regulations that protect historic resources and sustain historic
community character.
DP-42 Design new development to create and protect systems of green infrastructure, such as
urban forests, parks, green roofs, and natural drainage systems, in order to reduce climate-
altering pollution and increase resilience of communities to climate change impacts.
�
DP-43 Design communities, neighborhoods, and individual developments using techniques that �
reduce heat absorption, particularly in Urban Centers. �
Q
DP-44 Adopi design standards or guidelines that foster infill development that is compatible �
with the existing or desired urban character. z
w
�
a
O
Rural Area and Resource Lands �
w
The Rural Area and Resource Lands encompass all areas outside of the Urban Growth Area and A
include Vashon Island in Puget Sound and the area just east of the Urban Growth Area all the �
way to the crest of the Cascade Mountains. The Rural Area is characterized by low density �
development with a focus on activities that are dependent on the land such as smali scale V
farming and forestry. The Rural Area also provides important envi�onmental and habitat
2
7
2012 King County Countywide P�anning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
functions and is critical for salmon recovery. The location of the Rura! Area, between the Urban
Growth Area and designated Resource Lands, helps to protect commercial agriculture and
timbe� from incompatible uses. The Rural Area, outside of the Rural Cities, is to remain in
uni�corporated King County and is to be provided with a rural ievel of service.
��
Rural Area
Goal Statement: The Rura/ Area provides a va�iety of landscapes, maintains diverse low density
communities, and supports rural economic activities based on susrainable stewardship of rhe
land.
DP-45 Limit growth in tfie Rural Area to prevent spraw! and the overburdening of rural
services, reduce the need for new rural infrastructure, maintain rural character, and protect tfie
natural environment.
OP-46 Limit residential development in the Rural Area to housing at iow densities that are
compatible with rural character and comply with the following density guidelines:
a) One home per 20 acres where a pattern of large lots exists and to buffer Forest
Protection Districts and Agricultural Districts;
b) One home per 10 acres where the predominant lot size is less than 20 ac�es; or
c) One home per five acres where the predominant lot size is less than 10 acres.
d) Allow limited clustering within development sites to avoid development on
environmentally criticaf lands or on productive forest or agricultural lands, but not to
exceed the density guidelines cited in (a) through (c).
DP-47 limit the extensio� of urban infrastructure improvements through #he Rural Area to
only cases where it is necessary to serve the Urban Growth Area and where there are no other
feasible alignments. Such timited extensions may be considered only if land use controls are in
place to restrict uses appropriate for the Rural Area and only if access management controls are
in ptace to prohibit tie-ins to the extended facilities.
DP-48 Establish rural development standards to protect the natura! environment by using
seasonal and maximum clearing limits for vegetation, limits on the amount of impervious
surface, surface water management standards that preserve natural drainage systems, water
quality and groundwater recharge, and best management practices for resource-based
activities.
DP-49 Prevent or, if necessary, mitigate negative impacts of urban development to the
adjacent Rural Area.
OP-50 Except as provided in Appendix 5(March 31, 2012 Schooi Siting Task Force Report), limit
new nonresidential uses located in the Rural Area to those that are demonstrated to serve the
�
a
�
d
a
E�
z
w
�
O
w
>
w
A
�
a�
�
¢.
�
�
U
�
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November Z012
Amended December 3, 2012
Rural Area, unless the use is dependent upon a rural location. Such uses shall be of a size, scale,
and nature that is consistent with rural character.
DP-51 Allow cities that own p�operty in the Rural Area to enter into interlocal agreements with
King County to aliow the cities to provide services to the properties they own as long as the
cities agree to not annex the property or serve it with sewers or any infrastructure at an urban
leve! of service. The use of the property must be consistent with the rural land use policies in
the Countywide Planning Policies and the King County Comprehensive Plan.
Resource Lands
The Resource Lands are designated areas with long term commercial significance for
agriculture, forestry, and mining, and are depicted in the Land Use Map in Appendix 1 as Forest
Product Districts, Agricultural Production Districts, and Mineral Resource lands. The use and
designation of these la�ds are to be permanent, in accordance with the Grovirth Management
Act. King County has maintained this base of agriculture and forest lands despite the rapid
growth of the previous decades. The Resource Lands are to remain in unincorporated King
County but their benefit and significance is felt throughout the county into the cities. Within
cities, farmen markets are becoming important and sought after neighborhood amenities.
The forests of the Pacific Northwest are some of the most productive in the world and King
County has retained two-thirds of the county in forest cover. Large scale forestry is a
traditional land use in the eastern half of King County and remains a significant contributor to
the rural economy. In addition, forests provide exceptional recreational opportunities,
including downhill and cross-country skiing, mountain biking, hiking, and backpacking.
Goa/ Statement: Resource Lands are valuable assets of King County and are renowned for their
productivity and sustainable managemenL �
a
DP-52 Promote and support forestry, agriculture, mining and other resource-based industries �
outside of the Urban Growth Area as part of a diverse and sustainable regional economy. Q
a
OP-53 Conserve commercial agricultura! and forestry resource lands primarily for thei� long- z
term productive resource value and for #he open space, scenic views, wildlife habitat, and �
critical area protection they provide. Limit the subdivision of land so that parcels remain large �
enough #or commercial resource production. W
>
DP-54 Encourage best practices in agriculture and forestry operations for long-term protection q
o# the natural resources. �
�
�
�
DP-55 Prohibit annexation of lands within designated Agricultural Production Districts or within V
Forest Production Districts by cities.
2
9
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2�12
Amended December 3, 201Z
OP-56 Retain the lower Green River Agricultura! Production District as a regionaily designated
resource that is to remain in unincorporated King County.
OP-57 Discou�age incompatible land uses adjacent to designated Resource Lands to prevent
interference with their continued use for the production of agricultural, mining, or forest
products.
DP-58 Support local production and processing of food to reduce the need for long distance
transport and to increase the reliability and security of local food. Promote activities and
infrastructure, such as farmers markets, fa�m worker housing and agriculturai processing
facilities, that benefit botfi cities and farms by improving access to locally grown agricultural
products.
DP-59 Support institutional procurement policies that encourage purchases of tocally grown
food products.
OP-60 Ensure that extractive industries maintain environmental quality and minimize negative
impacts on adjacent lands.
DP-61 Use a range of tools, including land use designations, development regulations, level-of-
service standards, and transfer or purchase of development rights to preserve Rural and
Resource Lands and focus urban development within the Urban Growth Area.
DP-62 Use transfer of development rights to shift potentia! development from the Rural Area
and Resource Lands into the Urban Growth area, especially cities. Implement transfer of
development rights within King County through a partnership between the county and cities
that is designed ta
• Identify rural and resource sendi�g sites that satisfy countywide conservation goals
and are consistent with regionally coordinated transfer of development rights
effortr,
• Preserve rural and resource lands of compelling interest countywide and to
participating cities;
• Ide�tify app�opriate t�ansfer of development rights receiving areas within cities;
• ldentify incentives for city participation in regional transfer of development rights
(i.e. county-to-city t�ansfer of development rights);
• Develop interlocal agreements that allow rural and resource land development
rights to be used in city receiving areas;
• Identify and secure opportunities to fund or #inance infrastructure within city
transfer of development rights receiving areas; and.
• Be compatible with existing within-city transfer of development rights programs.
�
a �
�
d
a
H
w
�
a
O
a
w
w
A
�
�
�.
�
�
U
3
0
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
HOUSING
The Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework for ali jurisdictions to plan for and
promote a range of affordable, accessible, and healthy housing choices for current and future
residents. Within King County, there is an unmet need for housing that is affordable for
households earning less than 80 percent of area median income (AM1�. Households within this
category include low-wage workers in services and other industries; persons on fixed incomes
including many disabled and elderly residents; and homeless individuals and families. A high
proportion of these households spend a greater percentage of their income on housing than is
typically considered appropriate. This is especially true for low and very low income
households earning 50 percent or less (low) and 30 percent or less (very-low) of area median
income. The county and all cities share in the �esponsibility to increase the supply of housing
that is affordable to these households.
While neither the county nor the cities can guarantee that a given number of units at a given
price level will exist, be preserved, or be produced during the planning period, establishing the
countywide need clarifies the scope of the effort for each jurisdiction. The type of policies and
strategies that are appropriate for a jurisdiction to consider wilf vary and wiil be based on its
analysis of housing. Some jurisdictions where the ouerall supply of affordable housing is
significantiy less than their proportional share of the countywide need may need to undertake a
range of strategies addressing needs at multiple income levels, inctuding strategies to create
new affordable housing. Other jurisdictions that currently have housing stock that is already
generally affordable may focus their efforts on preserving existing affordable housing through
efforts such as maintenance and repair, and ensuring long-term affordability. It may also be
appropriate to focus efforts on the needs of specific demographic segments of the population.
The policies below recognize the significant countywide need fo� affordable housing to focus on
the strategies that can be taken both individuaily and in collaboration to meet the countywide
need. These policies envision cities and the county fallowing a four step process
1. Conduct an inventory and analysis of housing needs and conditions;
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs;
3. Measure results; and
4. Respond to measurement with reassessment and adjustment of strategies.
The provision of housing affordable to very-low income households, those earning less than
30% of AMI, is the most challenging problem and one faced by all communities in the county.
Housing for these very-low income households cannot be met solely through the private
market. Meeting this need will require interjurisdictiona! cooperation and support from public
agencies, including the cities and the county.
C7
�
�
O
x
�
¢.
�
�
U
3
1
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Overarching Goal: The housing needs of all economic and demographic groups are met within
aN jurisdittions.
H-1 Address the cou�tywide need for housing affo�dable to househoids with moderate, low
and very-low incomes, inciuding those with specia! needs. The countywide need for housing by
percentage of Area Median Income (AMI) is:
50-809'0 of AMI (moderate)
3a509'o of AMI (low)
309'o and below AMl (very-lowj
16% of total housing supply
12% of total housing supply
1296 of total housing supply
H-2 Address the need for housi�g affordable to households at less than 3090 AMl (very low
income), recognizing that this is where the greatest need exists, and addressing this need will
require funding, policies and collaborative actions by all jurisdictions working individually and
collectively.
Housing lnventory and Needs Ana/ysis
The Growth Management Act requires an inventory and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs as part of each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan fiousing element. Assessing
loca! housing needs provides jurisdictions with information about the local housing supply, the
cost of housing, and the demographic and income levels of the community's househotds. This
information on current and future housing conditions provides the basis for the development of
effective housing policies and programs. While some cities may find that they meet the current
need for housing for some poputations groups, the inventory and needs analysis will help
identify those income levels and demographic segments of the population where there is the
greatest need. Further guidance on conducting a housing inve�tory and analysis is provided in
Appendix 4.
H-3 Conduct an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of all economic
and demographic segments of the population in each jurisdiction. The analysis and invenfiory
shall inciude:
a. Characteristics of tfie existing housing stock, including supply, affordability and
diversity of housing types;
b. Characteristics of populations, including projected growth and demographic change;
c. The housing needs of very-low, low, and moderate-income households; and
d. The housing needs of special needs populations. �
Strategies to Meet Housing Needs �
VIStON 2040 encourages local jurisdictions to adopt best housing practices and innovative p
techniques to advance the provision of affordable, healthy, sustainable, and safe housing for all x
residents. Meeting the county's affordable housing needs will requi�e actions by a wide range �
of private for profit, non-profit and government entities, including substantial resources from ,�
federal, state, and local levels. No single tool will be sufficient to meet the full range of needs in v
a given jurisdiction. The county and cities are encouraged to employ a range of housing tools to
3
2
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 20i2
ensure the countywide need is addressed and to respo�d to locai conditions. Further detail on
the range of strategies for promoting housing supply and affordability is contained in Appendix
4.
Jobs-housing balance, addressed in H-9, is a concept that advocates an appropriate match
between the number of existing jobs and available housing supply within a geographic area.
Improving balance means adding more housing to job-rich areas and more jobs to housing-rich
areas.
H-4 Provide zoning capacity within each jurisdiction in the Urban Growth Area for a range o#
housing types and densities, sufficient to accommodate each jurisdiction's overali housing
targets and, where applicable, housing growth targets in designated Urban Centers.
H-5 Adopt policies, strategies, actions and regulations at the local and countywide ievels that
p�omote housing supply, affordability, and diversity, including those that address a significant
sha�e of the countywide need for housing affordable to very-low, iow, and moderate income
households. These strategies should address the following:
a. Overall supply and diversity of housing, including both rental and ownership;
b. Housing suitable for a range of household types and sizes;
c. Affordability to very-low, low, and moderate income households;
d. Housing suitable and affordable for households with special needs;
e. Universal design and sustainable development of housing; and
f. Housing supply, including affordable housing and special needs housing, within
Urban Centers and in other areas planned for concentrations of mixed land uses.
H-6 Preserve existing affordable housing units, where appropriate, including acquisition and
rehabilitation of housing for long-term affordability.
H-7 ldentify barriers to housing affordability and impiement strategies to overcome them.
H-8 Tailor housing policies and strategies to local needs, conditions and opportunities,
recognizing the unique strengths and challenges of different cities and sub-regions.
H-9 Plan for housing that is accessible to major employment centers and affordable to the
workforce in them so people of all incomes can live near or within reasonable commuting
distance of their places of work. Encourage housing production at a level that improves the �
balance of housing to employment throughout the county. �
�
H-10 Promote housing affordability in coordination with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian plans x
and investments and in proximity to transit hubs and corridors, such as through transit oriented �
development and planning for mixed uses in transit station areas. �
�
U
H-11 Encourage the maintenance of existing housing stock in order to ensu�e that the
condition and quality of #he housing is safe and livable. 3
3 �
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
H-12 Plan fo� residential neighborhoods that protect and promote the health and well-being of
residents by supporting active living and healthy eating and by reducing exposure to harmful
environments.
H-13 Promote fair housing and plan for communities that include residents with a �ange of
abilities, ages, races, incomes, and other diverse characteristics of the population of the county.
Regional Cooperotion
Housing affordability is important to regional economic vitality and sustainability. Housing
markets do not respect jurisdictional bou�daries. Fo� these reasons, multijurisdictional efforts
for planning and adopting strategies to meet regional housing needs are an additionai too! for
identifying and meeting the housing needs of househoids with moderate, low, and very-low
i�comes. Collaborative efforts, supported by the work of Puget Sound Regionai Council and
other agencies, contribute to producing and preserving affordable housing and coordinating
equitable, sustainable development in the county and region. Whe�e individual cities lack
sufficient resources, collective efforts to fund o� provide technical assistance for affordable
housing developme�t and preservation, and fo� the creation of strategies and programs, can
help to meet the housing needs identified in comprehensive plans. Cities with similar housing
characteristics tend to be clustered geographically. Therefore, there are opportunities for
efficiencies and greater impact through interjurisdictional cooperation. Such efforts are
encouraged and can be a way to meet a jurisdiction's share of the countywide affordable
housing need.
H-14 Work cooperatively among jurisdictions to provide mutua! support in meeting countywide
housing growth targets and affordable housing needs.
H•15 CollaboFate in developing sub-regional and countywide housing resou�ces and p�ograms,
including funding, to provide affordable housing for very-low, low-, and moderate-income
househoids.
H-16 Work cooperatively with the Puget Sound Regional Council and other agencies to identify
ways to expand technical assistance to local jurisdictions in developing, implementing and
monitoring the success of strategies that promote affordable housing that meets changing
demographic needs. Collaborate in developing and implementing a housing strategy for the
four-county central Puget Sound region.
Measuring Results
Maintaining timely and relevant data on housing markets and residential development allows
the county and cities to evaluate the effectiveness of their housing strategies and to make
appropriate changes to those strategies when and where needed. In assessing efforts to meet
their share of the countywide need for affordable housing, jurisdictions need to consider public
actions taken to encourage development and preservation of housing affordable to households
with very tow-, low- and moderate-incomes, such as local funding, development code changes,
�
�
a
O
x
�
i�,
�
�
U
3
4
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 201Z
and creation of new programs, as weil as market and other factors that are beyond local
government control. Further detaii on monitoring procedures is contained in Appendix 4.
H•17 Monitor housing supply, affordabiiity, and diversity, including progress toward meeting a
significant share of the countywide need #or affordable housing for very-low, low, and
moderate income households. Monitori�g should encompass:
a. Number and type of new housing units;
b. Number of units lost to demolition, redevelopment, or conversion to non-residential
use;
c. Number of new units that are affordable to very-low, low-, and moderate-income
households;
d. Number o# affordabie units newiy preserved and units acquired and rehabilitated
with a regulatory agreement for long-term affordability for very-low, low-, and
moderate-income housefiolds;
e. Housing market trends including affordability o# overall housing stock;
f. Changes in zoned capacity for housing, including housing densities and types;
g. The number and nature of fair housing complaints and violations; and
h. Housi�g deveiopment and market trends in Urban Centers.
H-18 Review and amend, a minimum every five years, the countywide and loca! housing
poiicies and strategies, especially where monitoring indicates that adopted strategies are not
resulting in adequate affordable housing to meet the jurisdiction's share of the countywide
need.
c7
�
�
�
O
x
�:
�
�
�.
�
�
U
3
5
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
ECONOMY
Overarching Goah. People throughout King County have opportunities to prosper and enjoy a
high quality of life through economic growth and job creation.
The Countywide Planning Poticies in the Economy Chapter support #he economic growth and
sustainability of King Countys economy. A strong and healthy economy results in business
development, job creation, and investment in our communities. The Economy Chapter reflects
and supports the Regional Economic Strategy and VISION 2040's economic policies, which
emphasize the economic value of business, people, and place.
The Regional Economic Strategy is the region's comprehensive economic development strategy
and serves as the VISION 2040 economic functiona) plan. VISION 2040 integrates the Regional
Eco�omic St�ategy with growth management, tfansportation, and environmental objectives to:
support critical economic foundations, such as education, infrastructure, technology,
and quality of life; and
promote the region's speci�c industry clusters: aerospace, clean technology,
information technology, life sciences, Iogistics and international trade, military, and
tourism.
Each local community wifl have an individual focus on economic development, whiie the
regian's prosperity will benefit from coordination between local plans and the regional vision
that take into account the county's and the region's overall plan for growth.
EGi Coordinate local and countywide economic policies and strategies with VISION 2040 and
the Regional fconomic Strategy.
EC-2 Support economic growth that accommodates employment growth targets (see table DP-
1) through iocal land use plans, infrastructure development, and implementation of economic
development st�ategies.
EC-3 Identify and support i�dustry clusters and subclusters within King County that are
components of the Regional Economic Strategy or that may otherwise emerge as having �
signi�cance to King County's economy. �
O
EC-4 Evaluate the performance of economic development policies and strategies in business �
development and job c�eation. Identify and track key economic metrics to help jurisdictions w
and the county as a whole evaluate the effectiveness of local and regional economic strategies. ;
�
¢.
�
�
U
3
6
2D12 King County Counrywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2D12
Business Development
Business creation, retention, expansion, and recruitment are the foundations of a strong
economy. The success of the economy in the county depends on opportunities for business
growth. Ou� communities play a significant role through loca! government actions, such as by
making regulations more predictable, by engaging in public-private partnerships, and by
nurturing a business-supportive cultu�e.
These policies also seek to integrate the concept of healthy communities as part of the count�s
economic objectives, by calling for support of the regional food economy, including production,
processing, wholesaling and distribution of the �egion's agricultural food and food products.
EG5 Help businesses thrive through:
• Transparency, efficiency, and predictability of local regulations and policies;
• Communication and partnerships between businesses, government, schools, and
research institutions; and
• Government contracts with local businesses.
EC-6 Foster the retention and development of those businesses and industries that export thei�
goods and services outside the region.
EC-7 Promote an economic climate that is supportive of business formation, expansion, and
retention and emphasizes the importance of small businesses in creating jobs.
EC-8 Foster a broad range of public-private partnerships to implement economic development
policies, programs and projects.
EG9 Identify and support the retention of key regional and local assets to the economy, such
as major educational facilities, research institutions, heatth care facilities, manufacturing
facilities, and port facilities.
EG10 Support the regional food economy including the production, processing, wholesaling,
and distribution of the region's agricultural food and food products to all King County
communities. Emphasize increasing access to those communities with limited presence of
healthy food options.
�
�
O
z
0
U
W
i.�
N
�
�.
td
.i:
U
�
r
People
People, through their training, knowledge, skilis, and cultu�ai background, add vaiue to the
region's economy. Additionally, creating an economy that provides opportunities for al! heips
aNeviate probiems of poverty and income dispa�ity.
EC-11 Work with schools and other institutions to increase graduation rates and sustai� a
highly-educated and skilled local workforce. This includes aligning job training and education
offerings that are consistent with the skill needs of the region's industry clusters. Identify
partnership and funding opportunities where appropriate.
EC-12 Celebrate the cultural diversity of local communities as a means to enhance the county's
global refationships.
EC-13 Address the historic disparity in income and employment opportunities for economicalty
disadvantaged populations, including minorities and women, by committing resources to
human services; community development; housing; economic development; and public
infrastructure.
P/aces
Economic activity in the county predominantly occurs within the Urban Growth Area, inciuding
Urban Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers. Continuing to guide local investments to
these centers will help provide the support needed to sustain the economy and provide greater
predictability to businesses about where capital improvements will be located. In addition to
making productive use of urban land, economic activity adds to the culture and vitality of our
local communities. Businesses create active, attraetive places to live and visit, and make
significant contributions to the arts. The Rural Area and Resource Lands are important for their
contribution to the regional food network, mining, timber and craft industries, while Rural
Cities are important for providing services to and being the economic centers for the
surrounding Rural A�ea.
EC-14 Foster economic and employment growth in designated Urban Centers and
Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers through local investments, planning, and financial policies.
EC-15 Make local investments to maintain and expand infrastructure and services that support
local and regional economic development strategies. Focus investment where it encourages
growth in designated centers and helps achieve empioyment targets.
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
EC-16 Add to tt�e vibrancy and sustainability of our communities and the health and well-being
of all people through safe and convenient access to local services, neighborhood-oriented
retail, purveyors of healthy food (e.g. grocery stores and farmers markets), and transportation
choices.
EG17 Promote the natural enviror�ment as a key economic asset. Work cooperatively with
locai businesses to protect and restore the naturai environment in a manner that is efficient
and predictable and minimizes impacts on businesses.
EG18 Maintain an adequate suppiy of land within the Urban Growth Area to support economic
development. Inventory, plan fo�, and monitor the land supply and development capacity for,
manufacturing/ industrial, commercial and other employment uses that can accommodate the
amount and types of economic activity anticipated during the planning period.
EC-19 Support Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers by adopting industrial siting poiicies that limit
the loss of industrial lands, maintain the region's economic diversity, and support family-wage
jobs. Prohibit or strictly limit non-supporting or incompatible activities that can interfere with
the retention or operation of industrial businesses, especialty in Manufacturing/ Industrial
Centers.
EC-20 Facilitate redevelopment of contaminated sites through local, county and state financing
and other st�ategies that assist with funding environmental remediation.
EG21 Encourage economic activity within Rural Cities that does not create adverse impacts to
the surrounding Rural Area and Resource Lands and will not create the need to provide urban
services and faciJities to those areas.
�
�
O
z
0
U
W
i�
a�
�
s�,
«S
.S�
U
k
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 201�
Amended December 3, 2012
TRANSPORTATION
The Regional Growth Strategy identifies a network of walkable, compact, and transit-oriented
communities that are the focus of urban development, as weN as industrial areas with major
employment concentrations. In the Countywide Planning Policies, these communities include
countywide designated Urban Centers and Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers, and locally
designated local centers. An essential component of the Regional Growth Strategy is an
efficient transportation system that provides multiple options for moving people and goods
into and among the various centers. Transportation system, in the context of this chapter, is
defined as a comprehensive, integrated network of t�avel modes (e.g. airplanes, automobites,
bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g. sidewalks, trails,
streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the movement of people a�d
goods on a local, regional, national and global scale.
Goals and policies in this chapter build on the 1992 King County Countywide Planning Policies
and the Multicounty Planning Polities in VISION 2040. Policies are organized into three
sections:
• Supporting Growth — focusing on serving the region with a transportation system
that furthers the Regional Growth Strategy;
• Mobility — addressing the full range of travel modes necessary to move people and
goods efficiently within the region and beyond; and
• System Operations — encompassing the design, maintenance and operation of the
transportation system to provide for safety, efficiency, and sustainability.
Overarchinq Goal: The region is well served by an integrated, multi-modal [ransportation
system that supports the regional vision for growth, efficienrly moves people and goods, and is
environmentally and functionally sustainable over the long term.
Supporting Growth o
�
H
An effective transportation system is critical to achieving the Regional Growth Strategy and H
ensuring that centers are #unctional and appealing to the residents and businesses they are �
designed to attract. The policies in this section reinforce the critical relationship between �
development patterns and transportation and they are intended to guide transportation z
investments from al1 ievels of government that effectively support local, county and regional �
plans to accommodate growth. Policies in this section take a multi-modal approach to serving �
growth, with additional emphasis on transit and non-motorized modes to support planned �
development in centers. v
n
N
,!�
2012 King Cour�ty Countywide Pfanning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Goal Statement: tocal and regiona! development of the transportation sysrem is consistent with
and furthers realization of the Regional Growth Strategy.
T i Work coope�atively with the Puget Sound Regional Council, the state, and other relevant
agencies to �nance and develop a multi-modai transportation system that enhances regional
mobility and reinfo�ces the countywide vision for managing growth. Use VISION 2040 and
Transportation 2040 as the policy and funding framework for creating a system of U�ban
Centers and Manufactu�ing/ industrial Centers linked by high-capacity transit, bus transit and
an interconnected system of freeways and high-occupancy vehicle lanes.
T-2 Avoid construction of major roads and capacity expansion on existing roads in the Rural
Area and Resource Lands. Where increased roadway capacity is warranted to support safe and
efficient travel through the Rural Area, appropriate rural development regulations and effective
access management should be in place p�ior to authorizing such capacity expansion in order to
make more efficient use of existing roadway capacity and prevent unplanned growth in the
Rural Area.
T-3 Increase the share of trips made countywide by modes other than driving alone througfi
coordinated tand use planning, public and private investment, and programs focused on centers
and connecting corridors, consistent with locally adopted mode split goals.
T-4 Develop statian area plans for high capacity transit stations and transit hubs. Plans should
reflect the unique characteristics and local vision for each station area inciuding transit
supportive land uses, transit rights-of-way, stations and related facilities, multi-modal linkages,
and place-making elements.
T-5 Support countywide growth management objectives by prioritizing transit service to areas
where existing housing and employment densities support transit ridership and to Urban
Cente�s and other areas planned for housing and employment densities that will support transit
ridership. Address the mobility needs of transit-dependent populations in allocating transit
service and provide at least a basic level of service throughout the Urban Growth Area.
T-6 Foster transit ride�ship by designing transit facilities and services as well as non-motorized
infrastructure so that they are integrated with public spaces and private developments to
create an inviting pubtic realm.
T-7 Ensure state capital improvement policies and actions are consistent with the Regional
Growth Strategy and support VISION 2040 and the Countywide Planning Policies.
T-8 Prioritize regional and local funding to transportation investments that support adopted
growth targets.
z
0
�,
H
d
a
O
a
�
�
E�
�
�
�
�
U
4
1
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
1Vi0�7%/%1�/
Mobility is necessary to sus#ain personal quality of life and the regional economy. For
individuals, mobility requires an effective transportation system that provides safe, reliable,
and affordable travel options for people of all ages, incomes and abilities. While the majority of
people continue to travel by personal automobile, there are growing segments of the
population te.g. urban, elderly, teens, low income, minorities, and persons with disabilities) that
rely on other modes of travel such as walking, bicycling, and public transportation to access
employment, education and training, goods and services. According to the 2009American
CommunitySurvey, about 8.7 percent of aU households in King County had no vehicle available.
For many minority populations, more than 20 percent had no vehicie availabfe to them.
The movement of goods is also of vital importance to the local and regional economy.
Internationa! trade is a significant source of employment and eco�omic activity in terms of
transporting freigh#, local consumption, and exporting of goods. The policies in this section are
intended to address use and integration of the multiple modes necessary to move people and
goods within and beyond the region. The importance of the roadway network, implicit in the
policies of this section, is addressed more specifically in the System Operatio�s section of this
chapter.
Goa/ Statement: A well-inteqrated, mulri-modal transportation system transports people and
goods effectively and e�ciently to destinations within the reqion and beyond.
T-9 Promote the mobility of people and goods through a multi-modal transportation system
based on fegional priorities consistent with VISION 2040 and local comprehensive plans.
T 30 Support effective management of existing air, marine and rail transportation capacity and
address future capacity needs in cooperation with responsible agencies, affected communities,
and users.
T 11 Develop and implement freight mobility strategies that strengthen King County's role as a
major regional freight distribution hub, an international trade gateway, and a manufacturing
area.
T-12 Address the needs of non-driving populations in the development and management of
local and regional transportation systems.
T-13 Site and design transit stations and transit hubs to promote connectivity and access for
pedestrian and bicycle patrons.
O
Ey
Q
�
O
a
�
�
E�
�
a�
Q.
�
x
U
4
2
20.22 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended Decernber 3, 2012
System Operations
The design, management and operation of the transportation system are major factors tfiat
influence the region's growth and mobility. Poticies in this section stress the need to make
efficient use of the existing infrastructure, serve the b�oad needs of the users, address safety
and public health issues, and design facilities that are a good �t for the surroundings.
Implementation of the policies will require the use of a wide range of tools including, but not
limited to:
• technologies such as intelligent transportation systems and alternative fuels;
• demand management programs for parking, commute trip reduction and
congestion; and
• incentives, pricing systems and other strategies to encourage choices that increase
mobility while improving public health and environmental sustainability.
Goal Statement: The regional transportation system is well-designed and managed to protect
public investments, promote public heaJth and safety, and achieve optimum e�ciency.
T-14 Prioritize essential maintenance, preservation, and safety improvements of the existing
t�ansportation system to protect mobility and avoid more costiy replacement projects.
T-15 Design and operate transportation facilities in a manner that is compatible with and
integrated into the natural and built environments in which they are located. Incorporate
features such as natural drainage, native plantings, and Iocal design themes that facilitate
integration and compatibility.
T-16 P�otect the transportation system (e.g. roadway, rail, transit, air, and marine) against
major disruptions by developing prevention and recovery strategies and by coordinating
disaster response plans.
T-17 Promote the use of tolling and other pricing strategies to effectively manage the
transportation system, provide a stable and susta'rnable transportation funding source, and
improve mobility.
T-18 Develop a countywide monitoring system to determine how transportation investments
are performing over time consistent with Transportation 2040 recommendations.
T-19 Design roads and streets, including retrofit projects, to accommodate a range of
motorized and �on-motorized travel modes in order to reduce injuries and fatalities and to
encourage non-motorized travel. The design should include well-de�ned, safe and appealing
spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.
z
O
d
�
O
a
�
a
E�
�
a�
Q.
�
�
U
4
3
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
T-20 Develop a transportation system that minimizes negative impacts to human health,
inciuding exposure to environmenta� toxins generated by vehicle emissions.
T 21 Provide opportunities for an active, healthy lifestyie by integrating the needs of
pedestrians a�d bicyclists in the local and regional transportation plans and systems.
T 22 Plan and develop a countywide transportation system that reduces greenhouse gas
emissions by advancing strategies that shorten trip length or replace vehicle trips to decrease
vehicle miles traveled.
T-23 Apply technolagies, programs and other strategies that optimize #he use of existing
infrastructure in order to improve mobility, reduce congestion, increase energy-efficiency, and
reduce the need for new infrastructure.
T-24 Promote the expanded use of alternative fuel vehicles by the general public with
measures such as converting public and private fleets, applying incentive programs, and
providing for electric vehicle charging stations throughout the Urban Growth Area.
z
0
�
F
d
�
O
a
�
z
�
H
�;
�
�
�.
�
�
U
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Ovemrching Goal: County residenrs in both Urban and Rural Areas have access to the public
services needed in order to advance public health and safety, protec[ the environment, and
carry out the Reqional Growth Strategy.
Urban and Rural Levels of Service
The Growth Management Act directs jurisdictions and special pu�pose districts to provide
public facilities and services to support development. The Growth Management Act
distinguishes between urban and rural services and states that land within tfie Urban Growth
Area should be provided with a full range of services necessary to sustain urban communities
while land within the Ru�al Area should receive services to support a rural lifestyle. Certain
senrices, such as sanitary sewers, are allowed only in the Urban Growth Area, except as
otherwise authorized. The Growth Management Act also requires jurisdictions to determine
which facilities are necessary to serve the desired growth pattern and how they will be
financed, in order to ensure timely provision of adequate services and facilities.
PF-1 Provide a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the Regional
Growth Strategy and adopted growth targets and limit the availability of services in the Rural
Area consistent with VISION 2040.
Collaboration Among lurisdictions
More than 100 special purpose districts, including water, sewer, flood control, stormwater, fire,
school and other dist�icts, provide essentiai services to the residents of King County. While
cities are the p�imary providers of services in the Urban Growth Area, in many parts of the
county special purpose districts also provide essential services. Coordination and collaboration
among all of these districts, the cities, King County, the tribes, and neighboring counties is key
to providing efficient, high-quatity and reliable services to support the Regio�al Growth
Strategy.
PF-2 Coordinate among jurisdictions and service providers to provide reliable and cost-
effective services to the public.
PF-3 Cities are the appropriate providers of services to the Urban Growth Area, either directly
or by contract. Extend urban services through the use of special districts only where there are
agreements with the city in whose Potential Annexation Area the extension is proposed. Within
the Urban Growth Area, as time and conditions warrant, cities will assume local urban services
provided by special service districts.
�
W
U
5
x
w
�
A
z
Q
�
w
H
a
�
Q
w
U
a
�
a
i
.,
�
�
U
�
5
2012 King County CoUntywide Planning Policies
IVovember 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Utilities
Utilities include infrastructure and services that provide water supply, sewage treatment and
disposal, solid waste disposai, energy, and telecommunications. Providing these utilities in a
cost-effective way is essential to maintaining the health and safety of King County residents and
to impiementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
Water Supply
Conservatio� and efficient use of water resources are vital to ensuring the reliability of the
region's water supply, the availability of sufficient water supplies for future gene�ations, and
the environmental sustainability of the water supply system.
PF-4 Develop plans for long-term water provision to support growth and to address the
potential impacts of climate change on regional water resources.
PF-5 Support efforts to ensure tfiat afl consumers have access to a safe, reliably maintained,
and sustainable drinking water source that meets present and future needs.
PF-6 Coordinate water supply among local jurisdictions, tribal governments, and water
purveyors to provide reliable and cost-effective sources o# water for all users, including
residents, businesses, fire districts, and aquatic species.
PF-7 Plan and locate water systems in the Rural Area that are appropriate for rural uses and
densities and do not increase the development potential of the Rural Area.
PF-8 Recognize and support agreements with water purveyors in adjacent cities and counties
to promote effective conveyance of water supplies and to secure adequate supplies for
emergencies.
PF-9 Imptement water conservation and e�ciency efforts to protect natu�al resources, reduce
environmentai impacts, and support a sustainable long-term water supply to serve the growing
population.
PF-10 Encourage water reuse and reclamation, especially for high-volume non-potable water
users such as parks, schools, and golf courses.
�
w
U
a
w
�
zA
¢
�
w
�
H
�
a
U
Q
w
U
�
�
GQ
�
a
�
a�
�
�
�
U
i
�
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Sewage Treatment and Disposal
Within the Urban Growth Area, connection to sanitary sewers is necessary to support the
Regional Growth Strategy and to accommodate urban densities. Alternatives to the sanitary
sewer system and the typical septic system are becoming more cost effective and therefore,
more available. Alternative technology may be appropriate when it can perform as welt or
better than sewers in the Urban Growth Area. Septic systems are not considered to be
alternative technology within the Urban Growth Area.
In the Rural Area and Resource Lands, which are characterized by iow-density devefopment,
sewer service is not typically provided. In cases where public health is threatened, sewers can
be provided in the Rural Area but only if connections are strictly limited. Alternative
technology may be necessary to substitute for septic systems in the Rural Area.
PF-il Require all development in the Urban Growth Area to be served by a public sewer
system except:
a) single-family residences on existing individual lots that have no feasible access to
sewers may utilize individual septic systems on an interim basis; or
b) development served by alternative technology otMer than septic systems that:
■ provide equivalent performance to sewers;
• provide the capacity to achieve planned de�sities; and
■ will not create a barrier to the extension of sewer service within the Urban
Growth Area.
#
PF•12 Prohibit sewer service in the Rural Area and on Resource Lands except: W
a) where needed to address specific health and safety problems threatening existing 5
structures; or �
b) as allowed by Countywide Planning Policy DP-47; or �
c) as provided in Appendix 5(March 31, 2012 School Siting Task Force Report). A
Sewer service authorized consistent with this policy shall be provided in a manner that does not �
increase development potential in the Rural Area. w
E�
�
a
�
—�---�— U
Solid Waste w
U
King County and the entire Puget Sound region are recognized for successful efforts to collect apq
recyclable waste. Continuing to reduce and reuse waste will require concerted and coordinated a
efforts well into the future. It is important to reduce the waste stream going into area landfills �
to extend the usable life of existing facilities and reduce the need for additional capacity. �
�
�
PF-13 Reduce the solid waste stream and encourage reuse and recycling. �
4
7
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
�_
Energy
While King County consumers have access to elect�ical energy derived from hydropower, there
are challenges for securing long-term reliable energy and for becoming more energy efficient.
Pf-14 Reduce the rate of energy consumption through efficiency a�d conservation as a means
to iower energy costs and mitigate environmental impacts associated with traditional energy
supplies.
PF-15 Promote the use of renewable and alternative energy resources to help meet the
county's long-term energy needs, reduce environmental impacts associated with traditional
energy supplies, and increase community sustainability.
Telecommunications
A telecommunications network throughout King Counry is essential to fostering broad
economic vitality and equitable access to information, goods and services, and opportunities
for social connection.
PF-i6 Plan for the provision of telecommunication infrastructure to serve growth and
development in a manner consistent with the regional and countywide vision.
Human and Community Services
Pubiic senrices beyond physical infrastructure are also necessary to sustain the health and
quaiity of life of all King County residents. In addition, these services play a role in
distinguishing urban communities from rural communities and supporting the Regional Growth
Strategy.
PF-17 Provide human and community services to meet the needs of current and future
residents in King County communities through coordinated planning, funding, and delivery o#
seniices by the county, cities, and other agencies.
Locating Facilities and Services
VISION 2040 calls for a full range of urban services in the Urban Growth Area to support the
Regional Growth Strategy, and for limiting the availability of services in the rural area. In the
long te�m, there is increased efficiency and cost effectiveness in siting and operating facilities
and services that serve a primarity urban population within the Urban Growth Area. At the
�
W
U
a
w
�
A
d
�
w
E�
�
�
U
d
w
U
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
�
U
i
•
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
same time, those #acilities and services that primarily benefit rural populations provide a
greater bene�t when they are located within nei�hboring cities and rurai towns.
PF-18 Locate new schools, institutions, and other community facilities and services that primarily
serve urban populations within the Urban Growth Area, where they are accessible to the
communities they serve, except as provided in Appendix S(March 31, 2012 School Siting Task
Force Report). Locate these facilities in places that are wel! served by transit and pedestrian and
bicycle networks.
PF-19 Locate new schools and institutions primarily serving rural residents in neighboring cities and
rura) towns, except as provided in Appendix 5(March 31, 2012 Schoo! Siting Task Force Report) and
locate new community facilities and services that primarily senre rural residents in neighboring
cities and rural towns, with the limited exceptions when their use is dependent upon rural location
and their size and scale supports rural character.
Siting Public Capital Facilities
While essential to growth and development, regional capital facilities can disproportionateiy
affect the communities in which they are located. It is important that all jurisdict+ons work
collaboratively and consider environmental justice principles when siting these facilities to
foster the development of healthy communities for all.
PF-20 Site o� expand public capital facilities of regional or statewide importance within the
county in a way that equitably disperses impacts and benefits and supports the Countywide
Planning Policies.
�
W
U
�
�
W
�
zA
d
�
w
�
F
�
�
�
U
d
w
U
�,
a
�
a
�
�
�
�,
�
�
U
i
�
_ . � '.l� .L.� F/ '„ i _ .. , • ~ , _.`...
. �� 5:� �{ 1. ^���.
j . `%�k,{ � ' � �
. . . 5 `�`\� �� / . c�.x_ ? i
I � .1.,
t� �
. . � � L � r�. ..
Iri J r Fl1 ^:�'.
.�M .. � �` � �> .. �.,, , *•
�:_ � .
I�� � �` 't`..
� .m
. t ., , .
„
.. r 4 i � . tA . i � � � ' .. /
� � ,� �' ��,:., �- � �� � ' � � � r
�, � {�
� r+".qt .� " t`
i'
� �, �
i ;� � � �., � �� � 'v::
�
, � .� � ;
' �.�.�� �� ;
.
, . r � ,�.
y �.i° i 4�\h1.- � �� s'�.� f ���`
U ^
. �� ��
. � �.t�
� � R� � �
,,, �_ , T � a �
_ w A.. . `-^�ys� a'U.0 , �_
I'� �,� -- � .�'i `�).c.._���. - ���
y ` I � � I � r. ^`
.— •
...' � � . ._ y,- � -
- ; �r� l , - ,,�� , �
��� �... � �. ,
.. ; j f+ �� ,� ...i� , .'" :
�'� , w
. �
� .,, .f�-
, � `l� � ■
F J .. `` . .
,` IN . t
II�
� 1 4' �-` V
,� f ...$ ` .�, . ,
�, .; `�� �. , �-�. �
� .� � ", --, � i�
,,:
;
��.,:
,
,
Growth Altanapsment �' ' �
�lanning Council '� , � , ,.
�
�:Y., � :
Urban Grcwatl� �ndary : �: .
� �� � Urban Growth Ana � �' �:�� �
Runl Area
�'\,i Urben GrowtM Arsa Boundary — Forosc Produelion �I�ricOS ', IncorporaMd City
i► Runl town CeMen '` �;�;� Agrieultural Produotion Distriob �_ _, i Munieipal Waterohsds
� Urb�n Gnbn - Opon Sp�c� �`_� Tnbat Land9
Chapter: APPENDIX 1: LAND USE MAP
O v� I
twrM K+MCw4Mrewn�lO�Wnw W OM�w�wrMMOM
,�uiie ZO�z
��. tnp. w;�n�s w �.q M� w. wMn N
rNNWe �wA�v�wwY✓�ss���.IMw.4wp
NNI C.rY �iw `r wf�www .
Mt�'N�. nfw� w Aw1 n M Nt.Nq, p',U'MII,
11M/A'l. r' pptli W M r00 t a4 MAIMb• Yi� Ip
YNI t�llihln�l^4�.M�� N`w•rLMF•
��iw w� uwr a w a. o•.�M�.w�"a �o
.1wn .,���r.i w r+w w� rr w�v rs ••
.awwaw+s. saeaf.nwa«rn.rwaa�e
N�b
�
012 � 0 6
MNos
� ��
DepeNn�M O! banbqneM
arW EnvXOnmeMN Savica
�ac�cwr�+wrvw�eawcrwactwea.�_a«.uw.xo
sxc,w�wmietrsarw�cw.oec+iwaaq�.ave.oes.ua
MtM1MM
�zti
0 0
� � N
� Q �
� � �
� N O
�'!� � �
rZ N r`I�
�
� O
�A1 �
N ,�
O �
N �
r0
�
�
�
�
�
�
O
�
�
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
a
�
w
�
�
�
a
�
�
�
A
z
w
a
a
d
�
�
�
�
�
�
U
5
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 3: URBAN SEPARATORS MAPS
k � � ." 4 . .. . *:: C�WW.,,.Se'�� vc
3�i�`y� � F
' ; t Y � y� � �,, ' �, � ""�'�
E � � '9� �+�� }
; � , .` .�., �� ,, � 4s �� ,��� , � �,.r.,..�- �
� u{ r � � e� . � ���'`� `
.,.. , �,` { �` c.,�,�;.. :� ! + '` _� i �'
`�� 'F-.I' :r:+o�,,,w� r. � { �`" � � <
� � � k��. � �' � [t � � ,
`�. .t'' . � � �w�r . k�'�'�, .� r i'�';i 4....
'vc.r�a<�t� +�'�-,,,�.�;. �
`.,,, �i � t� l �e�z�,a�` ; ''�§ •
(t �:�. _ '��,`;" �s.��' �y' ��.� (Rw
� ~ " : ,,x,��tr �Z.� f „�. . �� s
� PC °
k ! ....� ViNY a= :,s N �k; � � •,'r°
� F ,���, : w �?� .x -nm gra '�i J � ..:; .
' ° c � ? '�� ,.. . 3 +ad1X;".`S�f' �,i , .
.-..--.b►`M+ � i , t� � �p�►� :>� '��s� �`.� . d
;' ,�`� ` J,�� . . . - � �
�t,�-/ �. �. g �r i`. i � �ti +� . x �. . i .
i 4 z,� '..�'� �.
, i , � " t ti s"*„r� . � *
,. ,>. � � � .�
n i' �`.m�i � ,T
', : s
.: °+ �i
,� • _
� . �� � .� . , te�n: < � ,�[isnw... _ � :
� «, _ _ . _ i M ,
. 'k r. . � : �.y..
'sti}W '' }t . � �..,.C� ,� �}��° �� �� . . � .
' � � '.Y"`� -� ., y� x' � "3 : r{s�w. ��:. . .
�Ytf i . `:�I►,` "1 �/Ayr/ '�. i: , � r.°' �..
o:.:.
.-
� � . . ' � " .tt,,,�,..'^X� . � u»y,� � � .
~ � � �� �' �� � . . �.��-� .' l .�� � �.. . . j�� .�
...? 7}
g � `!j � 6 �"� ti---r�'� �, �� �'�3. � � ��:%•�:' •
�.. p� .f�er.i�� i �,C �' . . .
!M• � :. }l11w3.. Y 1 .� � �� M �>
�; �� ,` . � � } Y � i ` �y � !�
�.r dBuasya��Hiaa�wa .��,' �x� � � �$ t�� . .
.-15 "� x S �'"� � .
... �.%1}bO�f%dO10 . ,� ,•� r,_s1 � v�:t �i' .�� R � � ■. ��. �a's. .
� '4"�,.�.� ��'�^iJFS�' . j „y. �
.�� �� lf4x �:� �.
� � a` �.,�� �
� � � � x�� � �
ti� ;
-� s' rt`..,. »., � �� �� � +� � � � ; �� . i.... �
P �� � � �ro�4, '.���� � : � . � �cwr
.:, i
� i ' . i t�M , � h � .�
T . ., ... Qi. xiolw: �
� ,
� Ab/M ..Grlk . . . .. �, ,
! u�r`s! 6.br �
.. � � � �� ��' . �
. �` �. . M � � .. . . a�s , . .. .�; � ,3"„� - . . �t .
—. ,az� � � �f :� �
;� � �
, i J . .m., j } �
A. � . s, ,.:, ..
, .
. � :: . 1 , r t� �� q4
; Rtit�. __, .. f[apr.a .. r '\ ; C.•''?`!
�`,°"� i �f " - .� ° ''�,,,�t � �� �� � ,
��a R;,�� t , �►`" � {:
st. ,� � �,. ° ', R , ,:� .�
�m.:¢ ` � �R r.+, ' � H`a+r° � a -
" �. f�rts 1�� +.:._�� . :. � ,�,�
.. ,:# ...4 ' .. S°u0� . Creh , � � x'�* , .,.� , ° ,ys!e,:..
� ' MI i t - ...,.. ' .. . �ia�ieY[ille� � .
: : 4 '-� , i � ...,�.
�
� j � � - . � a(m w ' . . { �, � � ���:
rseds .
���y Urban Se r�tors: North Ovenriew - June 2012
,�.° �"�. :+rs°�1'"�ow�.. �•�ne«��w..eawa � � co,.�c��ou.n.ac.�rn. ��n�aw.a�w�nooeca�wa.ic.�r.
,, ,�,�,,,.,,,,b � �•,� ar �,�,.,
�•�:'�.:,, � ra�s.P.�a.w,w..�ea.,. ;i�I �. � awuyu�ow�t�nw..
"j ucaroe'a+.aMe.. � au�eo - uuer�ws�lwap,aauaet
- Gww�e�bUba^=�Parm . tMlydanoodBu�M�ewCwwr :`�.�.' Utic�MliO��lM�OUM(4tidi/s��
�.w - �MvVGnY� OMPMbNY1an1Na UMnNpiOnNM.lO�M(7AWC)
te w
::��'. ynp�nn :`�r�'# �q�+�O��Vw� � Wex�vuuraD�w4pw�[
...... �.•_•�� .�. •• � com�e�wra�e.. rtuaNw�swau� 1 M��1 mNs
�
�
�
O(__,
l�
�
a
w
�
Q
�
X
A
w
a
a
Q
�
CCS
.1�
U
5
2
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
, . , _. r � _� � . ., r � �
_ ; ; � -�,�. �
�� � � � , --
` �
� d..�' ',�
, ,
i � ;:. �
w f y ,; _ , �
._... ,.._.�._. (kSa._ae.mw.:.... �
, ... _._.. _� � .
� .
� � : . � � .'^° .. ' . iA
r,. i
._..... .__ i.....__. . : �� . ... ,M ,- _ ,"�, � ,
J
� 3 � � z. f'.� .
- � `sm.0 _ i f �. �
,.
+� '� , � ��
. ; •
, �� ,
. •-
�C � a�.._ _ __ 'R-- - _ _�' ` { t
f°� , , ti ��
_ _.f . � , .
� ` � if � a � � � L a'ii
W.A�9_.�3t�.--_.._ R _.aHS1Q�rAl_. t � i `s '-'i:�.
' .,..__ _..._ . '�.,..
f �t �'� � �. . . . . "�". ' _ ..
s�i.�: , t c+.�Ft� � �
"f' � -�� ��,� - -, _'_ � _. �saw.a � �
i , �- � � �
t a�
� ��. — , �._.. _._,__ -.,...: . _ ; _ ,
f �` � �y� C�nvt �"'-•
$ � � �~ �" � �,,r`�
_� � ��"�' 1i lwrti�, st' . ,�„"''• i
... � , . �� . �
�n�arlr �"`�.. _ ._efl7T,YiD6l:�%_ .�.y�tpisN.._ ;-,t.'f_...
�..�`�'.." : . ` � � �� �
�`r �� x �
a.� �. . _ ; ..� f
���_;
,
. � , ��� .
��� l�
, �
�,..,., « , r �a
,
� "
•
$ ` +�3.E _.�aa�+�m
wa+E
w+.si.... _ .
r
g
' ; � �, .�:� _
- `�. _, :�:. � ..�� . .. /.
� .c
r'iutitta•n ���a , i
_._.uA.a1c�_: - .. �,��;.
� ,: � �
! s;._..iMlO�-.._ . -
� �_.rners�:__ �
a. r
�f �
� :,� ���y
��� ��
��� . .
d..+ 3� _ ' �
!C
.. '� l.Rri7�K;. IM - 1'. .
�;r' _. ��«b�t+.v ;
.�� .�,.,_�.. ��
- __ ;��,
Y
�}���C ''� K
�� � .. .Y.
� .s ��•.r:. : . _____ _.
; ���.,��. ; ��_,�,� �, �� �� �
. r _ �
;� G
. pA's�
; � . ..,, �?�, M,'`k. � .��-..`��.h;��.-.w � . : y,`�: r,�:;�.:
���y Urban Separators: South Overview - June 2012
.r�r�^ y�"' tiwaonc'ona�eenaarv i canar+orwtaesaea�s � w�ra�Nwp�eaeooecan.rotaa�canw
w�
: w+wcar�nva+s � F«.wr � a,.a�ro�
� tHe.�sea�,+► «�a��e�.s i� M aua�caywb.�a�orewa.
H� �"'',�" --� d,o„o,a�eu�a. � w,,,y � uro.na�a.�wt�ti�ta�+.n
.
'+� '�� � . � cNSne.w�e.nsraaw. � wqh0al�eeCaqins,.e«�w :�::.Je" t&nanaaiC.MiatMM,imN��xAUpel N
� UMCap�NeAM.tiMYCeneer OOnerPyIWYWAemese tMOa�Re�e�,l.ari» �
� ,« ...�. ,..e �e �::f'� KhqCouMY��� � W6u�prwA�
�_.._____.�...a�......_..._... � �1&sv�sCwnbr AualArsa2.S100Wac1 . y�_nx_ny
3
.�
N
�
�
z
O
�
�
�
�
.D
�
�
C�
.�i
U
5
3
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2a12
���:� ��asTMSt.; . , �.
_. _ .,
K 1MM�
�. �`«��� r `
# ��n *,`""', 3'
sC �- ,
� +! 1E 1,l�MK .: � !� .
y_` _:,.� tE�M111R y ,y, 4
iW ��MA""_..14767M 11EWiM� �:,�i+YVy `;�(Y�, 'p
3 . . � .. �j " .. � � ... �.. �;
� , )� IEt�sMif - . �, ...., _ _ . .
,4 ' Mf�NINR $ . - ia•('�
!� F �
F'"�sr "`i�� � Woac�iliVllEe
� �. �����
��; � -
s� ._ R �.«�n _
.,,_
?� _ �
s+.�, j
� �r w.oa � �
i: �Ntyftt . . : . Y:
� �,...xn� f �
q: 'e'aov�w.
_ � q`' ��
. . F _ . _.'�M'f a�
���� � ��
. �a..wMn� �,'a� �.:
"��abn„�''"'"'�Kirkland F�,�,,,K
A..
!_ �eE '6-'"� �
i.
.. E� � ij� � � "` � � � ME+1PirR
� . n'w � we umix € �
evaroa. ����Aer�� ��Sr ^ E• ...
3 - 3 ��
S __ �
<
wE:,n�rsT ..� .
4 fE t„ST0. . ... . 11! 131Ef Pl �. � ..
tiE�s�9t8i '�r+wn�q,: i�y,' .
.... �.� w, q.�.., .-3 � ' .
tEt]OM81 P. _� .
a� r�{
� .� xE��mM6t^': � ..
�� � .. _. � ,�
.. NE�MiMM�.NElyAlit . ..,.
�,
IE ]IO1NSi +4.'� i' :
... .._. ....: .... . . $:.
4E �767NPt � . . . . . . � . � � ,,
� ��}�'
lE���Y `
�i �
3' -
� _::.'Y .. _. "_ _ ..
..,
.�' �crnimat � f w
. y,�.�`�� � � '
ae+� }
�
° I
_ ,
- Redmond �� -
�,�xsr ; ,�+'„+�.
. . ... �r�,. . .. .�.,r.. . a..
i�
�; _ _.
$�{ y � s��
�� ' �j}
1 'i
�1y�
&'aws�
:�:
1;. �"�,
��� Urban Se arators: Ki�IciandlWillows- June 2012
w.....wa.w.r■.r �.uaw�c�w..eaew �`c�.�o■esac«+ws r rt�.ar�ewro�ece�.warc«r.
.rwe...vrw�+�.. <; w�ow,wyvr+a � r«wr � ava�rawa
- � ua.�s.no+eo��w.»..�e+w.. � �.a � �a.re�rwe.�r�ti..
e - ; r�w�r.a,re� � �n • umAa�a�a�PU�a
� �''� � �sro.nc« � t�pneorneeaew.rac«w ��e:�� uMnAak�ulY.alunt+�+2euaa K
� Un�+wnurle0aei.NC.aiRx OMxPaA:MNdenwta � WlanWWsnW4tawlid�rj �
� ... q;�. .� wroea.nvoa.�svw� � uar�vw..ao...bom.e
� co�.rrra+wrscemu aura,wRS+owa9
_ _�...;c..,�r. »....... t i� a Sm Mel
�
.�
Q
O
z
i-�
�
�
�
a�
�
�
.�
�
�
.Si
U
5
4
2012 King County Countyw+de Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 4: HOUSING TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Affordable Housing Need
Each jurisdiction, as part of its Comprehensive Plan housing analysis, will need to address
affordability and condition of existing housing supply as well as its responsibitity to
accommodate a significant share of the countywide need for affordable housing. In order for
each jurisdiction to address its share of the countywide housing need for very-low, low and
moderate income housing, a four step approach has been identified:
1. Conduct an inventory and analysis of housing needs and conditions;
2. Implement policies and strategies to address unmet needs;
3. Measure results; and
4. Respo�d to measurement with reassessment and adjustment of strategies.
The methodology for each jurisdiction to address countywide affordable housing need is
summarized as foBows:
Countywide need for Housing by Percentage of Area Median Income (AMn
1, Moderate Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimatesl indicate #hat approximately 16
percent of households in King County have incomes between SO and 80 percent of area
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these moderate
income households at 16 percent af each jurisdiction's total housing supply. X
A
z
2. Low Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimatesl indicate that approximately 12 a
percent of households in King County have incomes between 30 and 50 percent of area Q
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these low income Q
households at 12 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply. V
3. Very-Low Income Housing Need. Census Bureau estimatesl indicate that approximately 1��
percent o# households in King County have incomes between 0 and 30 percent of area E�-�
median income; establishing the need for housing units affordable to these very-low �
income households at 12 percent of each jurisdiction's total housing supply. This is where�
the greatest need exists, and should be a focus for all jurisdictions. p
x
Housing Supply and Needs Analysis �
Contezt: As set forth in policy H-3, each jurisdiction must include in its comprehensive plan �
an inventory of the existing housing stock and an analysis of both existing housing needs and z
housing needed to accommodate projected population growth over the planning period.� Thi�
policy reinforces requirements of the 6rowth Management Act for local Housing Elements. Q
The h ousing supply and needs analysis is referred to in this appendix as the housing analysis. �
As is noted in policy H-1, H-2, and H-3, the housing analysis must consider loca! as well as �
countywide housing needs because each jurisdiction has a responsibility to address a �j
significant share of tfie countywide affordable housing need.
5
5
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
The purpose of this section of Appendix 4 is to provide further guidance to local jurisdictions on
the subjects to be addressed in their housing analysis. Additional guidance on carrying out the
housing analysis is found in the Puget Sound Regional Council's report, "Puget Sound Regional
Council Guide to Developing an Effective Housing Element," and the Washington Administrative
Code, particularly 365-396-410 (2)(b) and (cj. The state Department of Commerce also provides
useful information about housing requirements under the Growtfi Management Act.
Housing Supply
Understanding the mix and affordability of existing housing is the first step toward identifying
gaps in meeting future housing needs. Combined with the results of the needs analysis, these
data can provide direction on appropriate goals and policies for both the housing and land use
elements of a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. A jurisdiction's housing supply inventory
should address the following:
• Total housing stock in the cammunity;
• Types of structures in which units are located (e.g., single-family detached, duplex or
other small multiplex, townhome, condominium, apartment, mobile home, accessory
dwelling unit, group home, assisted living facility);
• Unit types and sizes (i.e., numbers of bedrooms per unit);
• Housing tenure (rental vs. ownership housing);
• Amount of housing at different price and rent levels, including rent-restricted and �
subsidized housing; A
• Housing condition (e.g. age, general condition of housing, areas of community with W
higher proportion of homes with deferred maintenance); a
• Vacancy rates; ¢
a
• Statistics on occupancy and overcrowding; U
• Neighborhoods with unique housing conditions or amenities; �
• Location of affordable housing within the community, including proximity to transit; V
• Transportatian costs as a component of overall cost burden for housing; w
• Housing supply, including affordable housing, within designated Urban Cente�s and local �
centers, �
• Ca aci for additional housin b `�'
p ty g, y type, under current plans and zoning; and �
• Trends in redevelopment and reuse that have an impact on the supply of affordable x
housing.
Housing Needs
The housing needs part of the housing analysis should include demographic data related to
existing population and demographic t�ends that could impact future housing demand �e.g.
aging of population). The identified need for future housing shouid be consistent with the
jurisdiction's population growth and housing ta�gets. The information on housing need should
be evaluated in combination with the housing supply part of the housing analysis in order to
assess housing gaps, both current and future. This information can then inform goals, policies,
and strategies in the comp�ehensive plan update.
v
X
�A
z
w
a
d
�
�
�.
�
U
5
6
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
A comprehensive housing needs analysis should address the following population, household,
and community characteristics:
• Household sizes and types;
• Age distribution of population;
• Ethnic and racia! diversity;
• Household income, including the following income groupings:
0 30 percent of area median income or lower (very-low-income),
o Above 30 percent to 50 percent of area median income (low-income)
o Above 50 percent to SO percent of area median income (moderate-income)
o Above 80 percent to 100 percent o# area median income (middle-income)
o Above 100 percent to 120 percent of area median income (middle-income)
o Above 120 percent of inedian income;
• Housing growth targets and countywide affordable housing need for very-low, low and
moderate income househalds as stated in the Countywide Planning Policies;
• The number and proportion of households that a�e "cost-burdened:' Such households
pay more than thirty percent of household income toward housing costs.
"Severely-cost-burdened" households pay more than fifty percent of househofd income
toward housing costs.
• Trends that may substantially impact housing need during the planning period. For y�
exampie, the impact that a projected increase in senior population would have on A
demand for specialized senior t�ousing, inctuding housing affordable to low- and W
moderate-income seniors and retrofitted single family homes to enable seniors to age in Q
place. a
• Housing demand related to job growth, with consideration of current and future jobs- V
housing balance as well as the affo�dable housing needs of the local and subregional z
workforce. V
• Housing needs, including for low- and moderate-income households, within designated �
Urban Centers and locat centers. �
�
Note on Adjusting for Household Size �
As currently calculated, the affordable housing targets do not incorporate differences in �
househoid size. However, the reality is that differently-sized households have different housing
needs (i.e., unit size, number of bedrooms) with different cost levels. A mo�e accurate
approach to setting and monitoring housing objectives would make adjustments to reflect
current and projected household sizes and also unit sizes in new development. Accounting for
household size in providing affordable units could better inform local policies and programs as
well as future updates of the Countywide Planning Policies and affordable housing targets.
Implementallon Strategies
As stated in policy H-5, local jurisdictions need to employ a range of strategies for promoting
housing supply and housing affordability. The Puget Sound Regional Council's Housing
�
X
�
z
w
a
a
¢
�
�
a,
x
U
5
7
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
innovations Program Housing Toolkitl presents a range of strategies. The strategies are
identified as being generally appiicable to singte family development, multifamily development,
ownership housing, rental housing, market rate projects, and subsidized projects. Strategies
marked as a"Featured Tool" are recommended as being highly effective tools for promoting
affordable and diverse housing in the development markets for which they are identified.
Measuring Results
Success at meeting a community's need for housing can only be determined by measuring
results and evaluating changes to housing supply and need. Cities are encouraged to monitor
basic information annually, as they may already do for permits and development activity.
Annua! tracking of new units, demolitions, redeveiopment, zoning changes, and population
growth will make periodic assessments easier and more efficient. A limited amount of annual
monitoring will also aid in providing timely information ta decision makers.
Policy H-18 requires jurisdictions to review their housing policies and strategies at least every
five yea�s to ensure periodic reviews that are more thorough and that provide an opportunity
to adapt to changing conditions and new information. This five-year review could be aligned
with a jurisdiction's five-year buildable lands reporting process.
X
�A
W
a
a
d
�
Q
U
�z
x
U
W
E�
C7
�
�
�
O
x
�
�
�
a
z
w
a
a
�
�
a�
�
a
�
�
U
� PSRC Housing Innovations Program Housing Tooikit http://psrc.org/growtti/hip/ c
J
8
2012 King County Countywide Pianning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
APPENDIX 5: KING COUNTY SCHOOL SITING TASK FORCE REPORT
On March 31, 2012 the School Siting Task Force issued the following �eport and
recommendations related to 18 undeveloped school sites in King County, and future school
siting. Countywide Pianning Policies DP-50, PF-12, PF-18 and PF-19 contain references to this
report, and in particular the Site Specific Solutions table found on pages 15-19.
E�
a
O
a
�
w
v
a
0
w
�
�
d
H
C7
�
E�
�,
�
a
0
0
x
�
�
0
U
�
�
vi
�
�
A
z
w
a
a
d
�
�
�
a.
�
�
U
5
9�
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
�
O
a,
�
w
U
�
O
w
�
�
d
H
C7
�
E�
�
�
a
0
0
x
U
�
�
�
O
U
C7
�
�
X
�
A
z
w
a
a
d
i.:
a�
�
�
�
V
6
0 -
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
GLOSSARY
Affordable Housing: Housing that is affordable at 30 percent or less of a household's monthiy
income. This is a general term that may include housing affordable to a wide range of income
levels.
Agricultural Production District: A requirement of the Growth Management Act for cities and
counties to designate, where appropriate, agriculturai iands that are not characterized by urban
growth, have soils suitable for agriculture, and that have long-term significance for commercial
farming. The King County Comprehensive Plan designates Agricultural Production Districts
whe�e the principai land use should be agriculture.
Area Median Income: The annual household income for the Seattle-Bellevue, WA Metro Area
as published on approximately an annual basis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Buildable Lands Program: A requirement of the G�owth Management Act for certain coun#ies
in western Washington to report on a regular basis the amount of residential and commercial
development that has occurred, the densities o# that development, and an estimate of each
jurisdiction's ability to accommodate its growth target based on the amount of development
that existing zoning would allow.
Climate Change: The variation in the earth's global climate over time. It describes changes in
the variability or average state of the atmosphere. Climate change may result from natural
factors or processes (such as change in ocean circulation) or f�om human activities that change
the atmosphere's composition (such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation.)
Climate Change Adaptation refers to actions taken to adapt to unavoidable impacts as a
result of climate change.
Climate Change Mitigation refers to actions taken to reduce the future effects of climate
change. },
�
Comprehensive Plan: A plan prepared by a local government following the requirements of the �
Washington Growth Management Act, containing policies to guide local actions regarding land �
use, transportation, housing, utilities, capital facilities, and economic development in ways that �
will accommodate at least the adopted 20-year targets for housing and employment growth. �
p.
�
Envi�onmental lustice: The fair distribution of costs and benefits, based on a consideration for U
social equity. Environmental justice is concerned with the right of all people to enjoy a safe, —
6
1
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
clean, and healthy environment, and with fairness across income, ethnic, and racial groups in
the siting and operation of infrast�ucture, facilities, or other large land uses.
Forest Production District. A requirement of the G�owth Management Act for cities and
counties to designate, where appropriate, fo�est lands that are not characterized by urban
growth and that have long-term significance for the commercial produccion of timber. The King
County Comprehensive Plan designates Forest Production Districts where the primary use
should be commercial forestry.
Growth Management Act: State law (RCW 36.70A) that requires loca) governments to prepare
comprehensive plans (including land use, transportation, housing, capital facilities and utilities)
to accommodate 20 years of expected growth. Other provisions of the Growth Management
Act require developing and adopting countywide planning poiicies to guide loca! comprehensive
pianning in a coordinated and consistent manner.
Greenhouse Gas: Components of the atmosphere that contribute to glaba! warming, including
carbon dioxide, metfiane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Human activities have added to
the levels of most of these naturally occurring gases.
HeaRhy Housing: Housing that protects all residents from exposure to harmful substances and
environments, reduces the risk of injury, provides opportunities for safe and convenient daily
physical activity, and assures access to healthy food and social connectivity.
High-capacity Transit: Various types of transit systems, such as fight rail and bus rapid transit,
operating on fixed guideway or dedicated right-of-way designed to carry a large number of
�iders at higher speeds.
Industry Clusters: Specific economic segments that are the focus of the Regional Economic
Strategy. As of lune 2011, the identi�ed regional industry clusters included: aerospace, clean
technology, information technology, life sciences, logistics and international trade, military, and
tourism.
King County Open Space System: A regional system of county-owned parks, trails, natural
areas, working agricultural and forest resource lands, and filood hazard management iands.
low-lncome Households: Households earning between 31 percent and 50 percent of the Area �
Median Income for their household size. v�
�
O
Manufacturing/ Indust�ial Centers: Designated locations within King County cities meeting �
criteria detailed in policies DP 35-37. ;
�
ss.
�
Mixed-Use Development: A building or buildings constructed as a single project which contains V
more than one use, typicalty including housing plus retail and/or office uses.
6
2
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended Decembe� 3, 2012
Moderate-income Households: Households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the
Area Median Income for their household size.
Potential Annexation Area: A portion of the unincorporated urban area in King County that a
city has identi�ed it will annex at some future date. See Appendix 2: lnterim Potential
Annexation Areas Map.
Purchase of Development Rights: P�ograms that buy and then extinguish development rights
on a property to restrict development and limit uses exclusively for open space or resource-
based activities such as farming and forestry. Covenants run with the land in perpetuity so that
the property is protected from development regardless of ownership.
Regional Growth Strategy: The strategy de�ned in VISlON 2040 that was developed by the
Puget Sound Regional Council to help guide growth in the four-county region that includes King,
Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties. VISION 2040 directs most of the region's forecasted
growth into designated Urban Areas, and concentrates growth within those areas in designated
centers planned for a mixes of uses and connection by high-capaci#y transit
Resource lands: Designated areas witfiin King County that have tong-term significance for
agricultural, forestry, or rr�ining. See Appendix 1: Land Use Map.
Rural Area: Designated area outside the Urban Growth Area that is characterized by smaN-
scale farming and forestry and low-density residential development. See Appendix 1: Land Use
Map.
Rura1 �ties: Cities that are surrounded by Rural Area or Resource Lands. Rural Cities are part
of the Urban Growth Area.
Stormwater Management: An infrastructure system that collects runoff from storms and
redirects it from streets and other surfaces into facilities that store and release it — usually back
into natura! waten+vays.
Sustainable Development: Methods of accommodating new population and employment that
protect the naturai environment while preserving the ability to accommodate future
generations.
Transfer of Development Rights: Ability to transfer allowable density, in the form of permitted
building lots or structures, from one property (the "sending site") to another (the "receiving
site") in conjunction with conservation of all or part of the sending site as open space or
working farm or fo�est.
Transportation 2040: A 30-year action plan for transportation investments in the central Puget
Sound region intended to support implementation of VISIOIV 2040.
�
�
�
O
C7
;�
�
a.
�
�
U
6
3
2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies
November 2012
Amended December 3, 2012
Transportation Demand Management: Various strategies and policies (e.g. incentives,
regulations) designed to reduce or redistribute travei by single-occupancy vehicles in order to
make more efficient use of existing faciiity capacity.
Transportation System: A comprehensive, integrated network of travel modes (e.g. airplanes,
automobiles, bicycles, buses, feet, ferries, freighters, trains, trucks) and infrastructure (e.g.
sidewalks, trails, streets, arterials, highways, waterways, railways, airports) for the mo�ement
of people and goods on a local, regional, national a�d global scale.
Universal Design: A system of design that helps ensure that buildings and public spaces are
accessible to peopie with or without disabilities.
Urban Centers: Designated locations within King Coun#y cities meeting criteria detailed in
Development Pattern chapter policies 31-32.
Urban Growth Area: The designated portion of King County that encompasses all of the cities
as weil as other urban land where the large majority of the count�s future residential and
ernployment growth is intend to occur. See Appendix 1: Land Use Map.
Very low-Income Households: Households earning 30 percent of the A�ea Median Income or
less for their household size.
VISION 2040: The integrated, long-range vision for managing growth and maintaining a heaithy
region—including tfie counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish. it contains an
environmental framework a numeric Regional Growth Strategy, the Multicounty Policies, and
implementation actions and measures to monitor progress.
Water Resource Inventory Area: Major watershed basins in Washington identified for water-
related planning purposes.
Workforce Housing: Housing that is affordable to households with one or more workers.
Creating workforce housing in a jurisdiction implies consideration of the wide range of income
levels that characterize working households, from one person working at minimum wage to
two or more workers earning the average county wage or above. There is a particular need for
workforce housing that is reasonably close to regional and sub-regional job centers and/or
easily accessible by public transportation.
�
�
�
O
a
�
�
�
�
a
�
�
U
•
i
March 31, 2012
Dow Constantine, King County Executive
King County Chinook Building
401 Fifth Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104
Dear Execurive Constantine,
With this letter we transmit to you the finai report and recommendations of the School Siting Task Force.
The crirical issues of quatity education, efficient use of taxpayer doliars, equitability, presen+ation of rural
character, and sustainable growth made consideration of undeveloped rural school sitas and all other
future school siting a complex and important undertaking.
Together, we have worked diligently since December to craft these recommendations. We r�present
diverse perspectives and through our discussions we have reached agreement on specific solutions and
recommendations that we believe to be in the best interests of all King County residents, particularly our
schoolchildren. We are pleased to present to you these recommendations informed by accepted data
collected by our Technical Advisory Committee.
We would be happy to serve as a resource in any way we can as you consider these recommendarions. We
look forward to your review, and we stand ready to assist in their implementatioa '
Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Task Force. We look forward to having these
recommendations incorporated in future planning.
Sincerely,
King County School Siting Task Force members
(signatures on reverse)
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................1
SECTION 2: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................1
SECTION 3: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUNO INFORMATION .................................................................4
OvERVIEIN.............................................».............................................................................».....................«..4
GMPCGuinnnicE Fat nie TnSK Fonte .............................................»................................................»................ 5
SECTION 4: THE TASK FORCE PROCESS ................................................................................................6
MvoiNnn�c n�e Tasu fatce ............................................................................................................................... 6
HIRIPIGA FACIL.ITATOR ...............................»....................................................................................................... 6
Sraucrure� aNO R�ES oF n+e Tnsu ForteE ..................»......................................................................._................ 7
TECHNIGLLAOVISORY COMMIi7EE .« .......................................................«.»......................................................... 7
Fwva��w WoaK GaouP .................................................................................»............................»....................7
MEEfiWGSiRl1CiURE AND PROCFSS .....................«..«.....................»................................................«........»........7
DEC�S�oN M�uc�NG: A CONSENSlJS APPROACH ........................................................................................»...............8
PueutPRO[E55 ................................................................................................................................................ 9
INfORMAl10NCONSIOERED BY THE TASK FORCE ....................................................................................................... 9
TaSKFoRtE REPOnT ...............................................................................................................................».......11
SECI'ION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................il
IN'ntoouCi'ioN ...............................................»...............................................................................................11
RECOMMENDEDSOLUilONS FOR UNDEVELOPED RURAL StTES .........................«.«...................................................« 11
RECOMMENOAilONSfOR FUiLlRE SCHOOI 5171NG .................................................................................................. 2O
SECTION b: lMPLEMENTING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AiVD NEXT STEPS ..............................22
IVExrSTEPS .................................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDICES (Attached)
A. TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP ...............................................................................................................A7"fACHEO
B. Faan�uu� Wowc GROUV MEnns�sFnP .............................................................................................. ATT/1CHED
C. TECHNICAI AOVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP .....................................................«.......................... Al'f/�CHED
D. MAP � 18 UNDENELOPED SCHOOL SITES.» .................................................................»..................... A7TACHED
E. GMPC MonoN li-2 .................................................................................................................... A7TAGIED
APPEN0ICES (ON CDj
F. MATRIX OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION ON UNDEVEIOPED 517'ES ..................................................... ON ATTACFIED CD
G. MAPS OP UNDEVELOPED SITES .............................................................«....».......................... ON AITACHEO CD
H. DEMOGRIIPHIC INFORMATION ................................................................................................ ON ATfAp1ED CD
1. ENROUINEIV'f PROJECTIONS ................................................................................................... �1 AITAtHED CO
1. Pusuc H�rH AsPECrs oF ScHOO� Smn� .............................................................................. ON AiTApIfD CD
!C. TECHNICAL MVISORY COMMITTEE WORK (13 TASKS� ................................................................. �1 AITACHED CD
LSTATE SCHOOL SIi1NG GUIDEI.INES .......................................................................................... �1 AITACHED CD
M. EXISTING POUCY AIVD REGUtATORY FRAMEINORK ....................................................................... ON A7TACHEO CD
N. EXCERPT FROM PSRC ISSUE PAPER ON RURAI AREAS .................................................................. ON ATTACHED CD
O. L.ANO USE PIANNING OVERVIEIN.....« ...................................................................................... ON A7TIlCHED CD
P. MEEIING SUMMARIES ......................................»...............................«.........................»...... ON AITACHEO CD
Q. OPERATING PROTOCOLS ............................«................................................«..................••.... �V A1TAtNEO CD
R. PROCfSS SCHEMAi1C ............................«..........................................................«........«........ �1 A7TAG1£D CD
5. Tnsu Foace MaNeER UvresESn ............................................................................................ oN nrracHeo CD
T. IN�rtviEw SunnMartY .......................................................................................................... ont nTratNeu CO
U. PUBIIC COMMENiS ..................................................................................».«....«............»... ON AITACHED CD
SECTION 1� Acknowledgements
The School Siting Task Force thanks the King County Facecutive and the Growth Management Planning
Council for the oppodunity to provide input on an issue critical to supporting K-12 education and to
preserving natural resources, public health, and quality of life in King County.
The Task Force would �specially like to thank its members who agreed to serve on the Framing Work
Group. This group met on mulriple occasions throughout the process, generally twice between each Task
Force meeting, to develop and frame issues and meeting approaches for the full Task Force. Without the
considerable efforts of this group, the Task Force would not have been able to accompiish its work,
The Task Force also thanks the Technical Advisory Committee (TAG�, whose members worked
throughout January, February, and Ma�h of 2012 to gather data and information on tbe undeveloped
rural school sites and to compile additional information relevant to future school siting.
The Task Force also acknowledges the many members of the pubiic who submitted comments and/or
attended one or more Task Force or TAC meetings. Their contributions provided valuable insight for the
Task Focc�'s consideration.
Finaliy, the Task Force thanks Triangle Associates for their exemplary support throughout the process.
See Appenclices A, B, and C far Task Force, Framing Work Group, and TAC membership.
SECTION 2• Glossary of Terms and Acronym�s
Comprehensive Plan
A generalized coordinated land use policy statement of the goveming body of a county or city that is
adopted pursuant to 36.70A RCW. (Washington State Growth Management Act)
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs)
A written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which
county and city comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to the Growth Management
AcG (Washington State Growth Management Act)
Growth M$nagement Act (GMA)
The GMA was enacted in 1990 in response to rapid population growth and concecns with suburban
sprawl, environmental protection, quality of life, and related issues. The GMA requires the fastest
growing counties and the cities within them to plan for growth. The GMA provides a framework for
regional coordination; counries planning under the GMA are required to adopt county-wide planning
policies to guide plan adoption within the county and to establish urban growth areas (UGAs). Local
comprehensive plans must include the following elements: land use, housing, capital facilities, utilities,
transportation, and, for counties, a rural element. (Municipal Research and Services Center of
Washington)
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC)
The GMPC, which was established by an Interlocal agreement, is a 15-member council of elected
officials from Seattle, Bellevue, suburban cities and King County. The GMPC has bee� responsible for
the prepara6on and recommendation of the Countywide Planning Policies to the Metropolitan King
County Council, which then adopts the policies and sends them to the cities for ratificatioct. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Identified Need
Identified need exists if a school district has detennined the type of school needed and a timeframe for
development on one of the 18 undeveloped school sites. (Source: School Siting Task Force)
Multi-County Planning Policies
An official statement, adopted by two or more counties, used to provide guidance for regional decision-
making, as well as a common framework for countywide planning policies and local comprehensive
plans. (Puget Sound Regional Council)
Nonconformance
Any use, improvement or structure established in conformance wiih King County rules and regulations in
effect at the time of establishment that no longer conforms to the range of uses pernutted in the site's
current zone or to the current development standards of the code, due to changes in the code or its
application to the subject property. (King Counry Code)
Regional Growth Strategy
An approach for distributing population and employment growth within the four-county central Puget
Sound region (King, Kitsap, Pierce, Snohomish). (Puget Sound Regional Council)
Rural Area
Outside the urban growth area, rural lands contain a mix of low-density residential development,
agriculture, forests, open space and natural areas, as well as recreation uses. Counties and adjacent small
towns provide a limited number of public services to nual residents. (Puget Sound Regional Counci!)
Rural Character
Rural Character refers to the pattems of land use and development established by a county in the c�u�al
element of its comprehensive plan:
a. In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built
environxnent;
b. That foster traditional rural lifestyles, nual-based economies, and opporiunities to both live and
work in nual areas;
c. That provide visual landscapes that are tradirionally found in rural areas and communiries;
d. That are comparible with the use of the land by wildlife and for fish and wildlife habitat;
e. That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density
development;
f. That generally do not require the extension of urban govemmental services; and
g. That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and groundwater and
surface water recharge and discharge areas
(Washington State Growth Management Act)
Rural Cities
A free-standing municipaiity that is physically separated from other cities and towns by designated n�ral
lands. Also referred to as "Cities in the Rural Area." The incorporated nual cities are Black Diamond,
Carnation, Duvall, Enumclaw, North Bend, Skykomish and Snoqualmie. (Puget Sound Regional Council,
King County Comprehensive Plan)
Raral Towns
Rural towns are unincorporated areas governed directly by King County. They provide a focal point for
community groups such as chambers of commerce or community councils to pazticipate in public affairs.
The purpos� of nual town designatioc►s within the County's Comprehensive Pian are to recognize
existing concentrations of higher density and economic activity in rural areas and to allow modest growth
of residential and economic uses to keep them economically viable into the future. Rural towns in King
County include Alpental, Fall City and Vashon. (King County Comprehensive Plan)
Rnral Zoning
The rural zone is meant to provide an area-wide, long tenn, nual character and to minimize land use
conflicts with nearby agricultural, forest or mineral extracrion production districts. These putposes are
accomplished by: 1) limiting residential densities and pennitted uses to those that are compatible with
rural character and nearby resource producrion districts and are able to be adequately supported by rural
service levels; 2) allowing small scale farming and forestry acrivities and tourism and recreation uses that
can be supported by rural service ievels and are compatible with rural character; and 3) increasing
required setbacks to minimize conflicts with adjacent agriculture, forest or mineral zones. (King County
Comprehensive Plan)
Tightline Sewer
A sewer trunk line d�igned and intended sp�ifically to serve only a particular facility or place, and
whose pipe diameter should be sized appropriately to ensure service only to that facility or place. It may
occur outside the local service area for sewers, but dces not amend the local service area (King Counry
Comprehensive Plan)
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated azeas are those areas outside any city and under King County's jurisdiction. (King County
Compreherrsive Plan)
Urban Grnwth Ares (UGA)
The area formally designated by a county, in consuitation with its ciries, to accommodate future
development and growth. Given that cities are urban, each city is within a county-designated urban
growth area. Ciries may not annex iands outside an urban growth area, nor may they formally identify
addirions to the urban growth area independentiy of the county desigiation process. Development that is
urban in character is to occur within the designated urban growth area, preferably in cities. Development
outside the designated urban growth area is to be iural in character. (Puget Sound Regional Council)
VISION 2040
VISION 2040 is the growth management, environmental, e�onomic, and transportation vision for the
central Puget Sound regioa It consists of an environmental framework, a regional growth st�ategy,
policies to guide growth and development, actions to implement, and measures to track progress. (Puget
�und Regional Council)
SECTION 3: Overview and Back�round Information
Overview
The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires counties and cities to work together to
plan for growth. In King County, the Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is the countywide
planning body through which the County and cities collaborate. The GMPC is comprised of elected
officials &om King County, Seattle, Bellevue, the Suburban Cities Associarion, and sp�ial purpose
districts. The GMPC develops and recommends Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) to the King
County Council where they are reviewed, adopted, and sent to the cities for final ratificarion. The CPPs
were initially adopted in 1992; certain elements of the policies have bcen updated over the years.
In 2010 and 2011, the GMPC undertook the first comprehensive evaluarion of the CPPs since their initial
adoption. A full set of updated policies is required to bring the CPPs into compliance with the
multicounty planning policies (VISION 2040) adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2008.
VISION 2040 is the regional growth strategy for the four-county region including King, Kitsap, Pierce
and Snohomish Counries.
On September 21, 2011 the GMPC completed its review and voted to recommend an updated set of CPPs
to the King County Council. However, they could not reach consensus on policies governing the siting of
public facilities and services. At issue was whether public schools serving primarily urban populations
should be sited in rural areas, and whether such facilities should be served by sewers. The recent update
of VISION 2040 included policies stating that schools and other community facilities serving primarily
urban populations should be sited in the urban growth area, and that urban services (sewers) shouid not be
provided in rural areas. In the interest of consistency, the GMPC was considering adding similar policies
to the CPPs.
While the GMA is clear that sewers are not permitted in rural areas (except in limited circumstances), the
CPPs have since 1992 contained a policy that allows public schools to be served by sewer when a finding
is made that no alteroative technologies are feasible. King County implements this policy by authorizing a
tightline sewer connection after the finding is made.
This potenrial change in policy was of concern to school districts, many of which owned or had an
interest in undeveloped nual properties. While some had acquired their properties before the adoption of
the GMA and CPPs, most had no� Those school disiricts purchasing land after 1992 did so under a
regulatory fraznewrnk that pernutted schools in nual areas and that allowed a tightline sewer if needed. At
the time, with rising land costs in urban areas and rapid growth, choosing less expensive rural sites
seemed the most judicious use of limited taxpayer funds. Many school districts pointed out the difficulty
of finding large parcels in urban areas, and the importance of siting schools so that they are convenient for
all students, including those in n�ral areas. School districts leaders testified that they do not distinguish
between the urban and nual portions of their service areas; their planning takes into account the needs of
their districts as a whole.
The policy debate generat� testimony from rural residents, many of whom expressed concems about the
impacts of siting schools in rural areas, including trat�ic cong�tion, erivironmental degradation, and ioss
of nual character. Tt�ey pointed out that while initial land costs might be lower in rural areas, the total
costs to society of siting schools in non-urban areas might be greater. in addition to the impacts of
transporting large numbers of urban students to schools in nu�al areas, the cost of transportation
investments needed to support new schools are borne only by unincorporated area reside.nts. These
community impacts and financial burdens are not shared equally by residents in incorporated amas. Much
of the tesrimony from rural residents questioned the fairness and sustainability of siting in n�ral areas
infrastructure supporting primarily urban development.
In order to address these concerns, to aclaiowledge the changing environment and to support school
districts in their obligation to provide quality education for the children of King County, the GMPC
agreed to set aside the policies related to siring public facilities and postpone their consideration untii a
task force made up of school districts, cities, King County, rural residents, and other experts could s#udy
the issue and report back to the King County Executive.
GMPC Guidance for the Task Force
The GMPC established guidance for formation of the School Siting Task Force in their Morion 11-2
(Appendix E) on September 21, 2011.
The Task Force was given the Mission to:
Develop recommendations to better align city, county, and school districts' planning
for future school facilities in order to provide qualiry education for all children and
maximize health, em�ironmental, programmatic, fiscal, and social objectives.
-GMPC Motion 11-2, School Siting Task Force Work Plan, Task Force M'�.ssion
To fulfill this Mission, the GMPC recommended a specific scope of work. As described in GMPC Motion
11-2, the Task Force's primary task is "to evaluate the current inventory of rural properties owned by
King County school districts" and to make recommendarions as to their use or dispositioa Coll�tively,
the Task Force idenrified 18 undeveloped sites in rural areas. To further suppoit the fulfillment of its
Mission, it was anticipated that the Task Force might recommend legislative and other strategies.
The GMPC established a set of eight principles to guide the Task Force in its work. All of the solutions
recommended by the Task Force in this Report reflect the Guiding Principles established by GMPC:
• Academic Excellence: Educational facilities should promote and support the academic achievement of
students.
• Equitable: All children should have access to quality educational facilities.
• Financially Sustainable: School siting should be financially sustainable for each impacted jurisdiction
(school districts, citi�, county unincorporated areas, and sewer/water districts) and make the most
ei�'icient use of total tax dollars.
• Support Sustainable Growth: Planning for school facilities shall comply with state law and be
integrated with other regional and local planning, including land use, transportation, environment, and
public health.
• Cominuniry Assets: Schools should unite the communities in which they are located and be
compatible with community character.
• Based on existing data and evidence: The Task Foroe process shall utilize recent demographic,
buildable lands inventory, and other relevant data and information.
• Public Engagemenr The Task Force process should include robust community engagement with
impacted communiries. M�erings will be transparent and open to the public for observation The Task
Force shali provide opportunities for public comment.
• Best Practice and Innovation: Lasting recommendations should serve the region well for years to
come and support educarion, health, environmental, programmatic, fiscal, and social obj�rives.
SECTION 4: The Task Force Process
Appointing the Task Force
The GMPC designated categories of inembership in Motion 11-2, but did not specify individual members.
Task Force members were appointed by the King County Execurive (see Appendix A).
Hiring a Facilitator
Public Health - Seattle King County hired Triangle Associates as the independent facilitator to help
coordinate the work of the Task Force, including conducting initial assessment interviews of all Task
Force members, organizing Task Force meetings, faciiitating development of recommendations by the
Task Force and providing support through drafting and production of the Task Force's Final Report and
Recommendations.
Structure and Roles of the Task Force
The Task Force established two workgroups to assist in the effort: the Technical Advisory Committee,
(also necommended by the GMPC) and the Framing Work Group. Both are described below.
Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was comprised of representatives from King County, the
Puget Sound Regional Council, school districts, water and sewer districts, and the Suburban Cities
Associa6on. A membership list is included in Appendix C. The TAC met ttiroughout the beginning and
middte stages of the Task Force process; its role was to provide data and infornzation to support Task
Force decision making. TAC meetings were open to the public and included dialogue with thvse who
attended. Meeting summaries (Appendix P) were developed to provide a record of their work.
The primary work product of the TAC involved compiling a matrix containing informarion related to the
18 undeveloped school sites (Appendix F). In addition to populating the matrix with site-specific
information, the TAC was asked to collect data and information in several other areas of inquiry, which
collectively were refecred to as the "13 Tasks". This included subject areas such as demographic trends
and school enrollment projecrions. A complete list of the 13 tasks is included as Appendix F.
The TAC work and products enabled swifi evaluation of, and development of solurions for, specific sit�
by the Task Force. The breadth and detail of the data compiled by the TAC, and that Committee's timely
response to Task Force requests, played a critical role in the accomplishments of the Task Force.
Framing Work Group
Due to the short timeline for the Task Force to complete its work, the Task Force created a Framing Work
Group (Appendix B) to frame issues for its considerarion. Prior to each meeting of the full Task Force, the
Framing Work Group met to review informarion gathered by the TAC and to discuss how best to organize
information and issues for discussion. Doing so helped the Task Force have focused and substanrive
discussions and stay on task to meet their deadlines.
The Framing Work Group made recommendarions on process to the Task Force; however, all d�ision
making power remained with the full Task Force. Framing Work Group members were appointed by the
Task Force Chair from the general Task Force roster. The group met on average twice between each Task
Force meeting, and meeting summaries (Appendix P) were inciuded in the materials that the Task Force
received.
Meeting Structure and Process
The Task Force met suc times from December 2011 through March 2012, using the process schematic
(Appendix R) as a visual guide for navigating its work effort:
1. The first meeting, December i4, 2011, focused on introducing Task Force members, establishing
a process for the work effort, and hearing Task Force member peispectives on hopes and desired
outcomes from the process.
2. The second meeting, January 25, 2012, focused on leaming information from the TAC and
creating a set of interests (Appendix S) based on the Task Force's Guiding Principles as
established in the GMPC Morion 11-2. The Task Force also agreed upon a set of Operaring
Protocols (Appendix Q).
3. On Febn�ary lb, 20t2, the Task Force held a 4hour workshop to begin developing solutions for
the 18 undeveloped rurai school sites and for future school siting. The Technical Advisory
Committee presented data on each of the 18 sites, and each schooi district was given the
opportunity to present additional information on their sites. The Task Force reached consensus on
an approach for evaluating sites that was developed by the Framing Work Group. This approach
involved identifying the crirical or "threshold" factors that would allow Task Force members to
create four categories into which the 18 sites would eventually be sorted. The first step was to
brainstonn potential solutions for each category.
4. On March 1, 2012, the Task Force met for the fourth time, also in a 4hour workshop. Worldng in
small groups, Task Force members accepted possible solutions for the four categories of sites.
They then sorted the 18 sites into the four categories and also considered future school siting. The
Task Force reached consensus agreement on several items, including.
� The "Solutions Set and Criteria" document (Document 1 in the Recommendarions
secrion), with agreement that a few items needed addirional definition, clarificarion, and
confirniation at its next meeting
• The placement of all school sites in appropriate qua.drants of the solurions table
5. On March 15, 2012, the Task Force accepted by 100% consensus:
• A final version of the "Solurions Set and Criteria" document
• Recommended and prioritized solutions for 12 specific sites
• The following t�hnical documents: Matrix of school sites, list of 13 tasks, population
and demographic information, enrollment trends by school district, public health aspects
of school siting.
• Recommendations to the Growth Management Planning Council and Wastungton State
legislature reiated to school siting
6. On March 29, 2012, the Task Force accepted the Recommendarions Report to be submitted to the
King County Executive.
Decision Making: A Consensus Approach
At the second Task Force meeting, the Task Force members accepted the Operating Protocols (Appendix
Q). This document established roles for all non-Task Force members involved in the process, clarified
communications prota;ols and workgroup composirion, and defu►ed a specific decision-making approach.
The Task Force defined consensus as obtaining the full acceptance of all members; short of that, decisions
and recommendations would move forward with the approval of at least 70% of the Task Force members
present, with at least one member from each primary interest group (county, cities, school districts, and
residents) voting in favor to accept a document or decision.
Publfc Process
The GMPC Motion stated that the Task Force process should include robust public engagement All Task
Force mcetings and TAC meerings were open to tbe public. All written materials (agendas, meeting
summaries, and other informarion) were made avaiiabie on the Task Force website, and public comments
were accepted throughout the process at Task Force meetings, through the Task Force website and via
email. Comments from the public were summarized by the facilitator at the beginning of every Task
Force meeting, and the compiled comments were emailed to Task Force members after each meeting (see
Appendix in•
Information Considered by the Task Force
As Task Force members studied the issues associated with siting schools in rural areas, they considere� a
range of data. and information. The majority of this information was provided by the TAC. It included the
foltowing documents, reports and policy frameworks, many of which are included in the appendices to
this Report.
18 undeveloped rural schoot sites. The TAC prepared a matrix containing factual informaiion
related to e,ach of the 18 sites including. general site information (e.g., zoning, acreage, assessed
value), land use and transportation considerations (e.g., landscape posirion, distance to UGA,
distance to sewer/water connection, environmental features), and the school districts' plans (e.g.,
intended use, development timeline). School districts were given the opportunity to correct andlor
augment the information about their school sites.
• Planning contex� King County staff provided the Task Force with a brief history of the land use
planning in two areas where many of the undeveloped sites aze located: the Bear-Evans Corridor
and the Soos Creek Basin. The county's land use strategy in both areas employed wning and
development regulations on an area-wide basis so the cumulative impact of development would
not cause environmental degradation. A summary of this history is included as Appendix O.
GMA policy framework There is a strong policy basis in Washington State for focusing growth
in urban areas, protecting rural areas and the environment, and the efficienf provision of
govemment services and facilities. The growth management framework considered by the Task
Force included GMA, VISION 2040, the Countywide Planning Policies, King County
Comprehensive Plan and King County Code. Relevant portions of these documents can be found
in Appendix M.
Demographic information. The Task Force was presented with information from the 2010
census that identified population trends in the urban and rural portions of each school district, and
also district-wide. Significant demographic shifts have occurred in the past decade: &om 2000 to
2010, the overall ivral population in King County deciined by 1%, and the nual popularion under
the age of 18 declined by 18.4%. During the same time, the urban population saw an overall
increase of 12.1% and under-18 incnease of 83%. This infom�ation can be found in Append'u H.
• School district enroDment projections. The Task Force was presented with information related
to cuirent and projected school enrollment, which illustrates that district populadoas wili continue
to grow to varyir►g degrees and that urban students will continue to comprise the majority of those
populations. The anricipated enrollment for students &om nual areas generally failed to
materialize in the vicinities of the sites owned by school districts. The enrollment projections can
be found in Appendix I.
• Funding for school construction. Although there was no formal presentation on this topic, it
came up on several occasions and was an important consideration for the Task Force. The State
of Washington dces not provide funding to school districts for acquisition of propeities; schooi
districts must rely on their own funding sources (through bonds, levies, grants, and donations).
Once pr�perties aze acquired, school districts can apply for state assistance for school
constcuction as part of a state match program.
• Current criteria and process for school siting. Using both state regulations and locally adopted
standards, school districts consider many factors when locating a site to develop a public school
facility. Following grxidance set forth by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
and the Washington Administrative Code (392-342-020 WAC), districts look at site quality, cost,
projected enrollment, distance to students✓ transpoitalion, and timing of school construcrion. The
WAC guidelines can be found in Appendix L.
• Funding for county road maintenance. The TAC determined that the cost for upgrading,
operating and maintaining county roads to serve future schools on the 18 undeveloped sites could
range from $30-35 million over 20 years. This is important to consider because the County road
fund has become severely strained, and because that cost would be bome solely by
unincorporated area residents through the county road levy. In addition to cost of road
infiastructure and talc equity issue, there are climate impacts associated with transp�ting large
numbers of students to schools in nual areas, in the form of increased greenhouse gas emissions.
• Public health aspects of school siting. One member of the TAC and one member of the Task
Force presented information on the public health aspects of school siting. In recent years, best
practices in school siting have evolved to reflect a more community-centered approach, placing
schools in urban areas where children can walk to school and where school facilities can serve as
community assets. The major themes identified in this research (included in Appendix .� include:
a School siting determines the proximity of schools to a student's home and larger
community and can affect whether children achieve and maintain good health,
b. Physical activity is key to children's health,
c. Schooi travel impacts children's health in muitiple ways, and
d. Education policy is also health policy.
Task Force Report
This Report was drafted by the independent facilitation team. The Framing Work Group refined the initial
draft document, which the Task Force considered at the March 15'� meeting. Between the March 15tk and
March 29'� meetings, the Framing Work Group, project team, and facilitation team refinai iterations of
the Report, with a final draft present�i to the Task Force at its last meeting on March 29, 2012. The Task
Force accepted the document, with revisions, at that meeting. The facilitation team made final revisions
based on Task Force input before submitting this Report to the King County Executive.
�, �' � 4�_ ' �. 1��
lntroduction
The GMPC and King County Executive requester! that the Task Force recommend solutions for the 18
undeveloped rural sites and guidelines for future school siting. The Task Force analyzed data and
information to create and prioritize specific solurions for each of the sites and to develop
recommendations for future sites. These are encapsulated below in Recommended Solutions for
Undeveloped Sites and Recommendations for Future School Siting, respectively. Throughout the process,
Task Force members identified other recommendations in support of its Mission; tbe other
t�ecommendations are listed under Recommendations for Future School Siting.
Recommended Solutions for Undeveloped Rural Sites
The Task Force focused the major part of its et%rt on the 18 undeveloped sites, seelcing logical and
sustainable solutions. Once the Task Force process was underway, the Task Force surveyed all the school
districts to ensure the Task Force's scope included the universe of undeveloped rural property with a
school district interest. No other undeveloped rural sites were idenrified by the school districts.
The Task Force, with guidance from the Framing Work Group, decided to use a"threshold" approach for
determining solurions for each of the 18 undeveloped sites. This threshold approach identified two
specific criteria; a site must possess one or the otber in order to be considered for development. After
some refinement, the Task Force accepted the following criteria for decision making:
1) Does the school district have an identified need for a school site? (Identified need exists if
a district has identified a type of school and a time frame in which the school is needed.)
2) Does the site border the Urban Growth Area (UGA) or have an existing sewer
connection? (Bordering the UGA means the site is directly contiguous to the UGA. An
existing sewer connection means sewer line is on site. This does not include sites with sewer
on an adjacent parcel or across the street.)
Based on these criteria, the Task Force accepted the threshold approach for sorting the 18 sites and
created the Solutiorrs Tab[e, which separated the school sites into four quadrants:
• Bog A, in the upper left corner, includes sites that border the UGA and/or have an existing sew�
conne�tion and for which school districts have an identified nee�.
• Boa 8, in the upper right corner, includes sites that do not border the UGA and have no sewer
connection and far which schoal districts have an identified n�d.
• Boz C, in the lower left corner, includes sites for which school districts do not have an identified
ne.ed and that border the UGA and/or have an existing sewer connection on site.
• Boa D, in the lower right comer, includes sites for which school districts do not have an
idenrified nced and that do not border the UGA and have no existing sewer connecrion on site.
Any and all other undevelo}� cural school sites (those not among the 18 recognized sites) fall utto
"future school siting" in Box E of tbe Solutions Table. Future school siting issues are addressed in greater
detail in the section entitled Recommendations for Future School Siting.
The Task Force then developed possible solurions for each box and ranke�i these possible solutions in
order of preference, recognizing that circumstances for specific sites within each category might merit a
different order.
The r�ommended Solutions Set and Criteria are shown here as Document 1.
Document 1—Solutions Set and Criteria
Existing Undeveloped Schooi Sites in the Rural Area
Assuinptions for Solution Set:
• For any solution that would resuit in a school district not being permitted to use a site for a school, the Task Force
recommends options through which the school district could receive fair and appropriate value.
� Ail solutions resulting in site deveiopment should mitigate impacts and provide community benefits.
• Any solutions that involve a change in the UGA or allow/prohibit sewer service shall be governed by the laws,
policies, and/or administrative procedure(s) in place at the time.
• Additional solurions may apply; detailed analysis may be required to determine optimal solution for any site.
• All sites, site conditions, and idenrified nceds are included in the Matrix. School districts were asked to bring forward
any additional sites and no other sites emerged so the full a�d final list of specific sites is shown in Documents 2-3.
NOTE: Solution Sets in each boa is listed in priority order.
Site borders UGA or has sewer Site does not border UGA and has no sewer
COR11eCllOR. "Sewerconnection"definedashaving COIIIICCtIOII.
sewer on site already (not odjacent).
School district A e
�s � 1. Find an alternarive site in the UGA 1. Find an alternative site in the UGA
identified need 2. Allow school district to connect to 2. Find an alternative site bordering UGA (if
for a school existing sewer this occurs, see Boz A for possible
site. 3. Inco�orate site into adjacent UGA solutions)
3. Sell, or hold with the understanding that
"ia�,+a;�dne«►" any future development must be
e�"'`u'fd''`a"t �i"` consistent with Vision 2040 as
ideneifred a type of
s�h�t a,�d a u,� implemented by King County Code
frame in which they
need the school. Prohibit: Extending additional sewer outside Prohibit: Moving UGA; tight-line sewer
UGA
C D
School district 1. Find an altemarive site in the UGA 1. If the site is of value to the county, cities
does not have 2• If the site is of value to the county, ciries or community, facilitate the purchase,
an identified or community, facilitate the purchase, sale, or land swap of property
need for a sale, or land swap of property 2. Find an alternative site in the UGA
school site. 3. Sell, or hold with the understanding that 3. Sell, or hold with the understanding that
any future development must be any future development must be
consistent with Vision 2040 as consistent with Vision 2040 as
implemented by King County Code implemented by King County Code
Prohibit: Moving UGA,- new sewer Prohibit: Moving UGA; tight-line sewer
connectio»s
All Other Undeveloaed School Sites
Once the Task Force accepted these criteria and categories plus the prioritized solution sets for each
quadrant, members considered each undeveloped school site. At the March 1�` meeting, the Task Force
reached consensus agreement for the placement of each site in accordance with the accepted criteria.
The accepted placement of each rural school site is shown below as Document 2.
--
Document 2—Site Categorization
Task Force breakout groups identified the sites in each category. The fuil Task Force reached 100'�a Consensus on March
1, 2012 on the following site categorization:
Existing Undeveloped Sites in the Rural Area (18 sites)
Site borders UGA or has sewer Site dces not border UGA and has no sewer
connection. connection.
A B
School district Sites: Sites:
has an Enumclaw A, D Enumclaw B
idendfied need Lake Washington 2, 4 Issaquah 1
for a school site Snoqualmie Va11ey 1
Tahoma 1
C D
School district Sites: Sites:
does not have Kent 4 Auburn 1, 2, 3
an identified Kent 1, 2, 3
need for a Lake Washington 1, 3
school site Northshore 1
All Other Undevelooed School Sites
Future School E
sl�g All future school siting should be consistent with Vision 2040.
Once the Task Foroe accepted the threshold criteria and site categories, developed the basic solution sets
for each quadrant, and placed the school sites in categories based on the threshold criteria, members
brainstormed possible solutions for each site. Task Force members devetoped a preferred solution for
each site, with a prioritized list of addirional solutions. Where appropriate, they included notes,
considerations, and rationale to support each site's recommended solution(s).
The Task Force recognized that VISION 2040, the CPPs, the King County Comprehensive Plan, and the
King County Code will ultimately govern what happens on both current undeveloped school sites and on
any other future school sites in rural azeas. In addition, school districts will control the timing and specific
actions within that framework. The involvement of cities is needed to facilitate siring within urban areas.
Docutnent 3 below shows the recommended solution(s) for each school site, along with site-specific
considerations.
Docurnent 3—Site-Specific Solutions
Boz A
SITE BORDERS UGA or HAS SEWER CONNECTION
School
district has Overview•
identified � general, while the Task Force's preference is to find altemative sites in the UGA, the Task Force finds
need for a � for the sites in Box A the particulaz site conditions and circumstances facing the impacted school
school site. districts may warrant other soiutions. Thus the recommended solutions vary by site. For any
recommendations that allow for development on a site, the Task Force recommends that the district worlc
with the county and community to minimize impacts on the nual surroundings and rural residents.
Because of the identified need by the school districts, the Task Force recommends that these sites receive
priorirized attenrion from city, county and school district d�ision makers.
Sites and their Soiutions:
Snoqualmie Valley 1
1. Allow school district to connect to exisring sewer
Site specific: The high percentage of floodplain land in this school disb-ict makes finding an alternate site
very challenging. The site does not have sign�ant conservation value. The site has an existing school,
which was deve[oped with the intent that another school would be built on the site. The district has
undertaken site preparation for the addition of an elementary school on the site. The school district
imested in the I.ocal Improvement District that enabled the sewer to reach the site.
Tahoma 1
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
2. Allow school district to connect to exisring sewer
Site specific: The Task Force encourages the district to work with the counry and cities in the district to
explore opportunities for finding an alternative site in the UGA that would meet the pressing need for
additional capacity that development of another school would provide. If no viable alternative site that fits
within the district's financial plans can be exp8ditiously found, the availability of sewer and an existing
school on the site present compelling reasons for development of the site to meet the district's needs. The
site does have conservation value and the Task Force recommends that any new development on the site
occur adjacent to the existing school so that impacts to the site's forest cover are minimized.
Lake Washington 2
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
2. Incorporate site into adjacent UGA
Site specific: The site borders the Redmond watershed and has conservation value. The Task Force
therefore encourages the school district, the county and the City of Redmond to find an alternatiue site
within the IlGA that would meet the district's need for additional capacity that development of another
school would provide. The parties should identify other parrners and funding mechanisms that would
allow for purchase of the property (perhaps in conjunction with the Lake Washington 1 site) for
pernutnent conservation as well as provide resources to the district for purchase of an altemative site. If
no viable alternative site can be expeditiously identified, the Task Force recommends that the scieool
district develop the site in a manner that preserves as much of the conservation value of the site as
possible. This may be accomplished through, for example, incorporation of a small developable portion of
the site (about five acres) into the UGA for a small errvironmental school * while placing the remainder of
the site into permanent conservation. The district should also work closely with the county and community
to minimize other impacts, such as transportation. The Task Force does not recommend extension of
sewer to any portion of that site that remains outside of the UGA. If the site is proposed for incorporation
into the UGA, it shall go through the King County docket process.
*Environmental School will have sustainable or "green " buildings and grourtds (refer to State RCW
39.35D, "�gh Performance Public Buildings — Guidelines for School Districts' ).
Lake Washington 4
1. Allow school district to conn�t to existing sewer
Site specific: The Task Force recognizes the school district's need for additional capaciry in the eastern
portion of the district, which straddles the City of Redmond, the rural area, and an unincorporated urban
"island " surrounded by rural area. The site is part of a large parcel on which there is an existing
elementary and middle school, both already connected to sewer. The undeveloped portion of the site was
previously used as a»unk farm and portions of the site are cleared. The Task Force recommends that the
district work closely with King Counry and the communiry to minimize both existing and additional '.
impacts on the area surrounding the parcel, particularly the transportation impacts related to several �
facilities being located or developed on the site.
Enumclaw A & D:
l a. Find altemative sitels in the UGA
lb. Place all school buiidings and impervious surfaces on the urban side of the UGB and place
ballfields/playfields on the rural side of the UGB.
Site spec�c (la): This joint site lies on the south-eastern boundary of the Black Diamond UGA and a
master-planned development (MPD) that has yet to be constructed. The ident�ed need of the school
district is associated primarily with the population projections of the MPD and with students residing
outside of the MPD but in the northern purt of the district; the sites are planned for an elementary and a
middle school. The fee title to both sites is held by the developer, with the district's property interest
recorded as an encumbrance on title, and would only be conveyed to the school district ij the MPD
materializes. The Task Force recommends that no sewer be extended to the rural portion of the site and
that the City of Black Diamond and county work with the developer and the school district to site al!
schools associated with the MPD completely within the UGA. The Black Diamond City Counci! supported
this solution in a resolution passed 3-1-I2. The Black Diamond City Council previously approved the
Comprehensive School Mitigation Agreement identifying Enumclaw Sites A, B, arul D as agreed-upon
school sites.
Site specific (lb): The Enumclaw School District and the developer have identified as an alternative to la
the placement of a poKion of the proposed school-related facilities on rural lands. Ijattempts to site each
of these schools fully within the UGA are unsuccess.ful, alternative Ib may be contemplated. Altemative
Ib consists of siting all school buildings, storm water detention and other support facilities, and al!
parking and impervious surfaces within the UGA and limiting any development in the adjacent rural area
to ballfields/playfields. The Task Force further recommends maintaining significant forest bu,,�`'ers between
the bal�elds/playfields and adjacent rural lands including the Black Diamond Natural Area.
Recommendation of this urban/rural alternative by the Task Force is meant to address the unique
circumstances of the Enumclaw A& D sites and is not to be construed as a precedent for locating schools
on adiacent rural lands. Conseauent[v. it is not recommended %r anv other sites.
School disttict
!�s an identified
need for a schoot
site.
Boz B
SITE DOES NOT BORDER UGA and HAS NO SEWER CONNECTION
Overview:
The Task Force recommends that alternative sites in the UGA be found for all sites in this box and
that sewer not be extended to these sites. Because of the identified need by the school districts and
the recommendation to find alternative sites, the Task Force recommends that these sites receive
prioritized attenrion by school district, county and city decision makers.
Sites and their Solutions:
Issaquah 1
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
Site specific: The s�te is a large parcel (80 acres) on May Yalley Road belween Squak Mountain to
the north and Cedar Hills Landfill to the south. The site has conservation value. The Task Force
recommends that the schoo! district work e�peditiously with King Count}; the City of Issaquah and
the Ciry of Renton. These partners shall work diligently to find an a[temative site within the UGA
that would meet the school district's need for additional capaciry that development of another
school would provide. The county, cities and school district should ident� other �rtners and
funding mechanisms that may allow for purchase of the property for permanent conservation or
other rural-related uses while also providing resources to the district for purchase of an
alternative site.
Enumclaw B:
1. Find alternative site in the UGA
Site specific: The site is in the rural area west of the Black Diamond (JGA and a master p[anned
development (MPD) that has been approved but is yet to be constructed. The identified need of the
school district is associated with the population projections of the MPD; the site is planned for a
middle school. The fee title for the site is held by the developer, with the district's property interest
recorded as an encumbrance on title, and would only be conveyed to the school district if the MPD
materializes. The Task Force recommends that no sewer be extended to the site and that the City of
Black Diamond and the county work with the developer and the school district to site schools
associated with the MPD in the UGA.
Schooi district doe
not have an
identified need for
a school site.
Boz C
SITE BORDERS UGA or HAS SEWER CONNECTION
Overview:
Because the site in this box is not associated with an identified need, the Task Force recommends
that the school distriet plan to develop the site consistent with Vision 2040 or manage the site as
part of its capital portfolio.
Site and its solution:
Kent 4
l. Sell, or hold with the understanding that any future development must be consistent with
Vision 2040 as implemented by King Counry code.
School district dces
not have an
identiHed need for
a school site.
Box D
SITE DOES NOT BORDER UGA and HAS NO SEWER CONNECTION
Overview•
Because sites in this box are not associated with an idenrified need, the Task Force
recommends that school districts plan to develop the sites consistent with Vision 2040 or
manage the sites as part of their capital portfolio. The Task Force also r�ommends that while
the school districts will ultimately determine how sites aze handled, the county, cities, and
other interested parties should investigate whether sites may be suitable for permanent
conservation or other public purposes; if so, these entities should work to facilitate the
acquisition of the properties for the identified public purposes.
Solutions for sites with conservation value:
1. If the site is of value to the county, ciries or community, facilitate the purchase, sale, or
land swap of property
The Task Force recommends that the county, ciries and school districts investigate whether
the properties may be appropriate for permanent conservation or acquisition for other public
purposes.
• Auburn 1: The site has value for flood hazard reduction.
� Kent 3: The site has forestland of value for environmental, social, and potentially
economic benefits.
• Lake Washington 1: The site has va[ue for ,flood hazard reduction and regionally
significant aquatic or terrestrial natural resources. Facilitating the sale of the property
into conservation may assist with solutions for other Lake Washington sites in Box A.
• Northshore 1: The site has forestland of value for e�rvironmental, social, and potentially
economic benefzts.
Solutions for sites without identified conservation value:
Auburn 3, Kent 1, and Lake Washington 3
1. Sell, or hold understanding that any furiue development must be consistent with Vision
2040.
The Task Force recommends that school districts plan to develop the sites corrsistent with
V'uion 2D40 or manage the sites as purt of their capital portfolio.
Solution for Auburn 2:
Aubum 2: The site has an existing elementary school, but no sewer extension. The school
district plans to redevelop the eaasting elementary schoo[ or build a middle school to rep[ace
the elementary school. No time frame has been specified. The Task Force recommends that
the school district be allowed to redevelop, if no sewer connection is needed and as allowed
by development regulatiorrs in place at the time of development.
Note: In developing the above recommendations for schools sites, Task Force members reached out to all
school districts whose service area includes rural land, even those districts not represented on the Task
Force. To make sure the solutions recommended by the Task Force would encomprrss all known sites and
create lasting solutions, school districts were asked if they owned or had interest in any rural sites not
already under consideration in this process. School district representatives stated there were no
additional rural sites needing to be addressed at this time. Therefore, no other sites are included and all
fuhire school siting should be guided by the recommendations below.
Recommendations for Future School Siting
The Puget Sound Regional Councii (PSRC) comprehensively updated VISION 2040 in 2008. In
preparation for the update, the PSRC developed an issue paper regarding Rural Areas that inciuded a
discussion on Special Purpose Districts and Institutional Uses (Appendix I�. The issue paper noted that
special purpose district planning is disconnected from GMA, and that many facilities {including sch�ls)
had expanded into rural areas, taking advantage of relarively low land values and large tracts of land The
issue paper recommended that policies be established that provide regional guidance on siting special
purpose districts within rural azeas. Thus, the following policies were established and incorporated into
VISION 2040:
MPP-PS-4 Do not provide urban services in rural areas. Design services for limited access when
they are needed to solve isolated health and sanitation problems, so as not to increase the
development potential of the surrounding rural area.
MPP-PS-S Encourage the design of public facilities and utilities in nual areas to be at a size and
scaie appropriate to rural locations, so as not to increase development pressure.
MPP-PS-21 Site schools, insriturions, and other community facilities that primarily serve urban
populations within the urban growth area in locations where they will promote the local desired
growth plan.
MPP-PS-22 Locate schools, institutions, and other community faciliries serving rural residents
in neighboring cities and towns and design those faciliries in keeping with the size and scale of
the local community.
Also in 2008, VISION 2040 incorporated new policies integrating public health considerations into land
use and transportation planning, and addressing climate change through the regional growth strategy
(reducing greenhouse gas emissions by focusing growth in urban centers).
Consistent with all of the above, VISION 2040 now encourages the siting of public facilities in urban
areas, and states that "Schools should be encouraged to become the cornerstone of their communities by
locating in more urban settings and designing facilities to beuer integrate with their urban
neighborhoods. "
Given the adopted policies in VISION 2040 and after consideration of the wide range of technical
information presented, the Task Force recommends that all future school siting be consistent with
VISION 2040.
Boz E
The Task Force recommends that all future school siting be consistent with
VISION 2040.
In support of this recommendation, the Task Force fiuther recommends:
1. The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) should develop poticies and adopt a work
prog�am that commits jurisdictions to working together to identify future school sites within the UGA.
These policies shall direct jurisdictions to use wning and other land use tools to ensure a sufficient
supply of land for siring schools.
2. King County should wark with the school districts, community representarives, and other stakehotders
to address any future redevelopment of existing schools on rural sites to accommodate school districts'
needs while protecting nual character.
3. The Growth Management Planning Council should add a school district representative to its
membership.
4. The Puget Sound Regional Council should collaborate with counties and cities in working with school
districts to ensure coordination in regional (4-county) growth management discussions (per VISION
2040 PS-Action-6).
5. Ttie Washington State Legislature and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction should
examine, together with the State Department of Commerce, how state laws, guidelines, policies and
administrative procedures can influence school siting decisions, including:
a. Reconsideration of existing transportation policies and funding that incentivize busing and
siting schools away from population centers
b. Identifying new funding for school land acquisition, including incentives for purchases, land
swaps, and other avenues for obtaining land inside the UGA
c. Revising existing guidelines for school siring such that districts who build on small sites in
urban areas are eligible for state match funds
d. Increasing the compensarion to school districts for the conshuction costs of schools sited
within the UGA
Note: The Task Force did not spec�ca[ly consider redevelopment of existing schools on sites in the rura!
area. Redevelopment issues were not included in the Task Force scope of worl� Information emerged late
in the Task Force process regarding redevelopment and will be passed on to appropriate officials for
consideration at a future date. Redevelopment is addressed in #2 in Box �
CommunicaNng Task Force Findings to Stakeholders
To help communicate its findings, Task Force members are available to speak with interested parties
(school boards, city councils, etc.) to discuss its work, its process, and its recommendations.
1 � � u ' u ►II ► : , � : ► � u u __ � _• . � �_� � � __��_ .`��
Implementation of these recommendarions will require additionai work by and ongoing coordination
between King County, the cities, school districts, and other stakeholders. For this reason, the Task Force
has recommended including school districts in regional planning bodies.
Recognizing that the Task Force's recommendations wili require school districts to reconsider their real
estate portfolios and/or financial plans, one of the first implementation items should be to explore the
recommended solutions for specific sites, including
• Finding alternative sites in the UGA
• Exploring land swaps for undeveloped sites
• Exploring acquisirion of undeveloped rural sites for public purposes, including conservation,
recreation, or other rural-based uses
The Task Force suggests that this work commence immediately, and defers to the King County Executive
on idenrifjring the appropriate forum(s).
Next Steps
The following are the next formal steps in the development of new policies to support the Task Force's
recommendations: �
1. The King County Executive will review this Task Force Report and propose new Countywide
Planning Policies for Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) consideration
2. The GMPC will review the Execurive's proposal, and recommend new Countywide Planning
Policies to the King County Council for their consideration
3. The King County Council will review the GMPC's recommendation, adopt new Countywide
Planning Policies, and send them to the cities for ratification
4. The King County Council will adopt new Comprehensive Plan policies and development
regulations that are consistent with the new Countywide Planning Policies
�4un� endices (Attached�
A. Task Force Membership
B. Framing Work Group Membership
C. Technical Advisory Committee Membership
D. Map of 18 Undeveloped School Sites
E. GMPC Motion 11-2
�nuendices (on CD�
F. Matrix of Technical Information on Undeveloped Sites
G. Maps of Undeveloped Sites
H. Demographic information
I. Enrollment Projections
J. Public Health Aspects of School Siting
K. Technical Advisory Committee Work (13 Tasks)
L. State School Siting Guidelines
M. Existing Policy and Regulatory Framework
N. Excerpt from PSRC Issue Paper on Rural Areas
O. Land Use Planning Overview
P. Meeting Summaries
Q. Operating Protocols
R. Process Schematic
S. Task Force Member Interests
T. Interview Summary
U. Public Comments
�
i�ing Couniy
Metropolitan Ki�ng Cour�ty Coancil
�ommittee of th� W�ole
REVISED STAFF REPORT
\ enda Item: 6 Name: Kendali Moore
Pro osed No:: 2092-0282 Date: November 26 2012
Invited• 1'aul Reitenbach, GMPC staff coordinator
_ ' Karen Wolf, Executive's offrce
UB.IECT
A-proposed ordinance adop#ing Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC")
recommended revisions to the King County Countywide Planning Poiicies (pCPPs"),
inciuding changes to he Potential Annexation Area ("PAA"j map: `
C�MMITT�E ACTIUN
On November 26, 2012 the committee voted out Proposed Ordinance 2Q12-0282 as
amended with a"do pass" recommendation.
BACKGRUUND
Please see October 29, 2012 staff report.
ANALYSIS
-�- - � _ --- �4�hect° °�° t�tis �F= re�or� as- A#�aeht�n�n� 4 is, -� rYt�tri�- id�r�t�fying att th� �hang�� _ -
made to the CPPs that are proposed by the striking amendment.
The only addition to the changes described at the October 29, 2012 committee meeting
is the change found at page 33 of the CPPs, which is new text to provide tfie reader
contex# for jobs housing balance strategy called out in policy H-9 {CPPs, page 33�, as
well as in the Housing Appendix at page 57. �
As reported in the discussion at the October 29� 2012 committee meeting, these
changes were reviewed by the interjuridictional team ("ITJ") members, who are staff to
the GMPC. No objections to the changes were received.�
' At the October 28 meeting several members commented that these changes improved the document's
clarity and readabilit�r.
1 of 2
AMENOMENT
A new Attachmen# A, incorporating'the cl�anges discussed at the �OS u�d 9at2t�hat
committee meefing has been prepared. Additionaliy as also
committee meeting, .a stcik+�g amendment ha #��ene�n �e C� c° ��k�o� ger cal�led
so that listing every GMPC a�tion �nd ra�� ��s�� se�#ions in the code rather than
out in c�de. The proposal is tfl dec�dif;l- roach is similar to what is proposed
repeal, so that history will be pr�served, - Th+s app
_
for the Camprehensive P{an code sections that list the history of amendrnents #o e
Cornprehensive �'1an. ' : ` ' .
zof2
1
2
3
4
5
5-
7
8
9
ia
�1
-.�'�'
'G
�
Propo�ed No 20i2-0436:2
�N� coun��nr
Signature Report
E?ecember 3, 2012
Ordinan�e 1T487
�t�!�4o�rs,1'hilli�fi
uoo ��o�y co,�,o,�
516 7'hird A�
Seaak, WA 98704
AN ORDINANCE adopting Grov�rth Mauag�nem Pianning.
Council Matioa 12-5 and ratifying M,Qtion 12-5 far
wiineorporated King Couniy.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. The Countywide Planni�ng Poli�ies ("GPPs"j �re adopted in,�ardance
wi#h the state Growtii Manag�nent Act,., uader 36.7QA310, I�CVi�:
2. The Growth Management Planning Council ("GMPC".) was forme�d ia
1"992 to guide the development of the CPPs, 'The (3�AqpC is a
represeritative bodp of elected officials fmm King County, the city of
�eattle, the ci#y of Beilevue and the Suburban Ci6es Association.
R�pr.esentatives of the special distciats serve as ex officia members.
/.r
r
� 3: The CPPs establish a fran�,ework for guiding d�relopment in all King
-_ _ _.. _ _ - -- __._
_, . _ � _. __ ,-
__. ._ _
-,__ _- _ ._�.- -_ _ _ _
13 �owrty jurisdictions.
14
15
16
17
18
1.9
4: T#ie �PPs aze deemed adapted when ratified
bY �8 ��Y and the
requisite number of cities and sati�fying .the required pop�lation
pereentage.
5. The �N1FC reconunends CPP amendments to the King County council
for considcration, possible revision and ratiftsation.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
1
at�titl� i 7487
20 �ECTION 1. �`lndings�
21 A. Ou June b, 2012, thc Grov�th 1G[an�gement. Planning Coui�it intnoduced
22 Motion 12-5 listYng the propt��d c,�ges to tiLe. urba�; ,gcowd� area. t�n mxter
23 consideration by the Kuig G'�'�'vm�i� arid � public t�sqmoay re�arciing�the .
2� Prol3oscd chao�• ; � _
25 B. On Sept�mbec`=11;�01�; i�e G�r+�`uvih 1Vtariagemeirt Planni�g: Couacil. app�oved
26 Motion i2-5 follawing a�litional publiE te.stimoiry r�gardirig:ttre praposed changes to the
27 utban gmwth area.
2� C; �tta��t A�t+a t�is ci�i�nanc� inc�rpoxat�s 1Glotiott 1�-5.
29 SECTiON �. The aim�ndm�nts=to 2Q12 T�iug �ouiity Plamm�gPalicie�s, as sliowa
0
2
Ordinance 17487
30 in Attachment A to this ordinaace, are hereby adopted and ratified on behalf of the
31 �pulation of unincorporated King County.
32
Ordinance 17487 was introduced on 10/29/2012 and passed by the Metropolitan King
County Couacil on 12/3/2012, by the following vote:
ATTEST:
Yes: 9- Mr< Phillips, Mr. von Reichbauer, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Hague,
Ms. Patterson, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Dunn and Mr.
McDermott
No: 0
Excused: 0
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-
- . ,.- _ _ ._ _._ .
, _,_. ,__, _
; _.- _ .. .
-- _-
-� _. .
- --��— _
Anne Nons, Clerk of the Council
APPROVED this +� day of C�;1"�. 2012.
Attachments: A. Motion No. 12-5
3
��l +
Dow Constantine, County Executive
17487
9/1 I/i2
Decision: Approved
/pr
Z
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lb
17
1$
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 i
28
29
30
31 ,
32
33
34
35
36 I
Sponsored BY:
MOTION NO. 12-5
ATTACHMENT A
Executive Committee
A MOTION to amend the Urban`�rowth Area of King
County. This Motion also modifies the Potential An�►exation
Area, map in'the Countywide Planning Policies.
WHEREAS, the '9Vashington State Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.110 requires
counties to designate au urban growth area or azeas within wliich utban growth shall be
encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature; and
WHEREAS, Countywide Planning Policy FW 1 Step 8 recognizes that King CauntY �Y
uutiate amendments to the Urban Crowth Area; and
VVHEREAS, the King County Executive and the Metropolitan King County Councii
, requests t�ie Growth Management Planning Council consider the attached amendments to
�he Urban Grrowth Area. for eventual adoption_by the Metropolitan King County Council
and ratifica.tion by the cities; and
WI�REAS, Countywide Planning Policies LU 31 and LU-32 anticipate the coliaborative
designation of Potential Annexation Areas and the eventual annexation of these areas by
cities. 'Iiie attached amendments are supported by the affected city.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE GROW'ITi MANAGEMENT PLA,NNING COUNCII, OF
KING COUNTY HEREBY MOVES AS FOLLOVfTS:
1. Amend the Urban Growth Area as designated by the Urba�n Growth Areas Map' in the
Countywide Planning Policies, the Potential Annexarion Area map, as depicted on the
following attached maps:
Attachment 1: Sammamislt= Soaring Eagle
Attachmenf 2: Snoqualmie - Mining Site -
Attachment 3: Aul�um -148'� Ave. SE technica! correction �
Atta.chment 4: Black Diamond - 212°' Ave. SE technical correction
Attachment 5: Redmond - NE Union Hill Road/196'� Ave NE technica.l conection
Attachment 6: Black Diamond - Lake Sawyer Road SE technical� corr�tion
Attachment 7: Renton - SE Old Petrovitslci Road technical correction
- 1 -
17487
1
2
3
4
5
6
7',
8
9'
�
10 I
11 �
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Attachment 8: Maple Valley — SE 281�` Way technical correction
Attachment 9: Maple Valley — SE 288t° St. technical correction
Attachment 14: Enumclaw — SE 440`" St. technical correction
Attachment 11: North Bend — SE 142� St. technical correction
Attachment 12: North Bend — SE 150'� ST technical conection
Attachment 13: Auburn — SE Green Valley Road technical correction
Attachment 14: Duvall — SR 203/NE 140'" St. technical correction
Attachtnent 15: Maple Valley split pazcel
2. Amend the, Interim Potential Annexation Area Map by including any additional
unincorporated urban land created by these UGA amendments in the Potential
Annexation Area of the adjoining city, and deleting any land changed from urban to
rural from the respective PAA. . , .
3. These amendments are recommended to the King County Council and the Cities of
King County for adoption and ratification.
ADOPTED by the Growth Management Planning Council of King Couniy in open session
on September 11, 2012 and signed by the chair of the GMPC.
Dow Constantine, Cha.ir, Growth Management Planning Council
_ _ _ -, �
- 2 -
A#tachment 1
. . Soaring Eagle � '
Recommended Land Use Map � �s�n�v 'i
. ����� I
. � ��
�»�����.����
�u„o cwrr9m rm�e, wnar orsoirmaaw e meJ�im a�wioe r..�,�,
����, ,,,�, ,� � a OS KC Open Space System L��` � Incorporated Areas
�, �., « �..a, m a ,�. �. O �? Other Parics/W+kiemess •
imei�af�, a epd4 �s oro au oe aud� M�aarBan. �
'"" °0a�" " "°""`�da0 °r °'° " ' �'"" pio0i"'� � Urban Growth Soundary
ww Ca.p aAr aa� a wr �or a�r p.n«N, seeUl. . N
iMY+�L tswnw. or �vwv�Y e�pa iW�o. L�a aat `
�nitl b. EY w�wa w IoY O�s muNp 6an tN �uK � .. -� �
a� �. a �n. �owon �aa m w. �. �ny �. or Q S�/ Area
rr.�n«aemrren o■ras.w r aana.a.�qrerw�n
p�Mi9s d10A1 Cw�b. �
n,�:,a�,ry�.�a+2 � Proposed Urban
eo��� �� � ��. � �r+owth Boundary o aoo mo
� � �
, OS
�
�" _
' " .p,n =rL a��,�, � A�' .r ;,� : -- - y::<:: ,` � , _ .. .. ..
:.i. :!: '.2'•• . . �...
.. .,i •-? :p.. '::,�` '•' '!.`;�� r .�' ' .it�, . •��:.�t.�gr ,y
r �� � :-.. ry y : .. •
i . -t ?� j�' } '? : -ti+� ` i� . ' y' -, �
� z�c J. :.-,:Z.::- �,at' S �?i ,�:g�� - ;:- .:. _ . .'
:%i,:�:°`'- 'd�'•. - . ;:�i .ti'.: ". -'.^�`'..�..,��_s,���.
..:s=::;:i�i° �'�:��::_. ..'.?y. -Y •i`� .:'�J; ' ,% ' -
' � ¢ 3 r a.. , �. : :a
I y �i
� . F .�1 . l. .
:i � : t - d„�! � . . . i� � i � y �7 � +� . 2; 4�� Y ..,
V �. � . �� � ' . a � �
� - '' ��' '�` 'Sammamish
� �: � -';k r : 5
_ ; ..;: � + r h
�. i C v: r y•:
, �3 � �' � y. . �
�' �� : f � ��-
1� � � Q' ---
� � �
a� ;
�'i �
' ; v' �4
: , . ' . . J
� _ � . �
F • �,127F1 y��
� .. . :. a :_.. �� � .. _ . ..:.:_ _. �! -:�:; . �.� � '; . <:��5��" F��
I�'�
%
�
n
� _: _
^•t ��
W
_ ...��
�:.. ' �
�Qi��;SF ���, ,� `�.
yS% =d.'
°:: : : �. �' _.' :. : . � . � . ::
17487
Attachment 2
Snoqualrnie - Mining ��
Recommended Land Use Map tc�ge��ty
������
�������,���
���
a�a�uursuraomavaMyorsa.ces,mtss�qeaaaianm ' r.�--:7
�. �.. � c� �a ���. fX Rural Cities Urban Growth Area • Incorpora#ed Areas
«an.�Gss. e�m. « i�fod. o m�r. oomaaa.as. . L��� � . .
�. a +a++ b � � � � ��• f a Rural Area .
7lis Ooa�awnt 4. �ol- MtiMW tor toe as a surv+Y 0�
i6m �""' a01 ��01e ���� i71 Mining Urban Growth Boundary
�aa. aaaemu, a ow�sw�r ax�s �na�mro. ew oa
ia�w a. au nt�wa « eu poois ra�q aao w we � N
�� a�����a���� OS IGng County Open Space System Q Change
w� w�•a�a. �
�r:n�,a��,zo�2 �Di � Proposed Urban
�»�. �a� ��P Growth Soundary o zso soo
MCCOMBSP Feet
.�.�
m
Portbn of
2024089017 Zp 17
4�2ND AVEs�
m ra
'rT
� , �` `�''�
1,
_.�. _ , _ _ _._. __---- - - .. _ _ ._ _
. _ . . . . _ - __. . _ - _ ..
_g .gp . .
,
1
rortion of �
� • .. 2024089020 408901 . '�
ra
rx � \ I�
i 1
Atta�chment 3
17487 _ _. _ _ _ .. _
�� tlr�an Grovuth B�undar� Right=of �111ay �s�u�s -148th At�enue SE
�: _ . % i : ..._,.�--_ '� � �
.�: 1�..,� � ' , i
� -�� ��
. ,.
— --- —' _�.._ � - _
.. . . . - . . _. . �,�.�, - -
. ; . ' . ' �� .�... � ---- . "-- - .
�
. �,: t .
, F � . ' , ��� tf, . - . , . i . . .
.. � • ±
, . . ., ' �� . � � . .
w ; t, t�.� 3 a ._
j _r�j �. � �
� f - ,,._ , t, .; . � u ' . .
� d,,. F . �� , �, 4 _
.
. a
; �_ ..� . S,}4k'Y�'+� i . ,�rr �„ '. . . . . _..
- � t .s, .��3<r �kp .. ` •..% .
. .,_ � �;, �.� :� �.. � ,� � ��
� .5�.1 R+. �aa ++ '�'t._ „' .a^ �:: . :'.v �a . � .
_'.,;i�.;' ��" A7lo�e UGB to east margm of R�1iV�
� .ci. y. � j'� �� ��4 � � r , _ .
� � � t ���' _ ��a �- J �. � - to include entire� road s�egment
�` •
.i F lfi �� �. .� :��''�F �` F� �r � in urban ar�a. R�d is a(r�ady
� ' '� � � � , � � I- .�__ maint�ined by City- o# AUbum..
.;�, � ' . � �� � '
� , �; , '�� �._ _._
; .-�. � , . im � . . . . . . . . .
_ ; = J; - � P • �
r, r
�
�� ,;� .. , . �:».` ' - . ' '
� _ .
x ? �'�-
r �...�
� r ;t`' ;�,� ny r+ x."$c� x � '' "�� . • . . .
t y� 9 j
� n t: j � ��k'>y`t;* { `*' ?,� , G; �, �` � 1
£:� :, d rx }' m . r ., r< �'' � , y� '`�i� � �.h. . ..
�`{x t 3 ^� w '� :`i �` �i � '� f � � . x �s . ra; � . . . .
� ;�' , � ..;{4 3�r.-��_?�y,��a� K�g,�.G. � �.� +f' . _ . . . .
� �� r �
F . ,�„ d �` "r.�* z7 �� �*'p�,.. ��,a����� - .
� [ s Yf ^�c� } �C � i:� `'1�.:rt� 3 t� Y k .a".�4�' _. . . - . �.__ '
i� � i +35 �.-y#'.�� �2 ��,1i ��.A,ye��� ��; . . . '. . .. .
: '� t '' t�3 � '� . `X+T` ' 9 t, _ •'4t , ' � .
�"� b'1+ . .. .
.r��+� `"' �,' � �.
. ....a- rf ` ''' .. + . . i . .
?�C�-a� "'r�t •"Lsa'�' y.y '` i �� � f � i , t ' �
�:� ^�� �� : �� , �' �r .
,
� ,: �
..� _
. . . . .... � S . .
, ..
-, - � _ r , � �� ��. �
���� _
i
.
_:z .. .. ; r �: °,-. �. ;.r.1�.y ..�:�. a � 1.� . z::,
�' N
�
-. . . ��� � ... �. . ..:,�TT�T�wF�� . . ' _ . :
��' i"�A�Z� f�._'�r4�-�e-^7; s
'.`,�' ��-�-..:�,�� . �
`�—�_• r�,�._..�:Bi;Ea*�. '^' .
. , �� x
. . � - . � ��: _ � :
� ' ' j .��,�yy�, : �- r � � •
' 'j r,t, 4�s '�a-,�aQ'1:I Si.t�" - �AfriYw t 9' Y5li �� ' ... � .
��� �
� • `x7�` � �"�' -, , .
x �
_- r' �I S�" ��Y%bi%%%�� r � i.. '-�� . � � .
�. . Y +.; � �:�; �S`�� . _ , _. _ . � . . .
��ar . . .
r . • U�0 GroGVdt UIt� � ��� �� .'� �x .
�aa ��.
1 i,i .- . ..-
•�� CO[li1�F �i0af1S i � � ' ;
� Pac�ts . � - �
� Gities ' � . i �
---; Uhirx�orporatedArea ° � � _-
,.
� ;
. �_ a _ i � :
_ :. .
wr.w.w�.r�w� +.r... � � - - ' � -
�p+r�.,.+���*.r•�.r�w+
M1�.Iw'�r` jus+wir �.Y�fif � �r�+k. . . .. .
»ae....»...�r.rr:;.....wK«.+a+.w.. 125 62.5 0 125 Feet ���. �V�
... �,r,... ti '�` «r°�'...�w��".wi.i ,l^ �f 1
�MV M�Yr�i��4�i���YA�NiY IYMy 1�� G�7 1 . .
Atta�hment 4
17487
Urban G.rowth Boundary Ri�ht of Way Issues-- 21�th Avenue SE
Attaci�men# 5
nas�
Urban Grav�th �oundary Righ� af W�y lssue� � NE i�lnion Hili R�ad
_ _ ,
; : �
• -�;F�'�'t�, f ; � _ ..__ _���_��
rt' � 1 � � S�
�"��.`_.�' i ' i l�
- _ _ ��M � � ,�
�■ ; � \�
� � gfi8�3
�'-`"''---�-_ _ •. NEHJnlonlFJiii�td .
. �-- .�.._._.__-----� -• — _______._.._ ,\ �� �
I
'-, � .
. �� ' .
;
� ;
Mav� UGB to �orth margin � � � -
t�f RtE llnibn Hilf Rdad ROW � .� �
� to indude entine r�ad in �1r.b�n Rrea. 1 .
� . ... -
. . i - .� .
' : _. , Redmonaf � � . -
. - , �
. , �� .
� . a � � � . �
_._— � �. .
Move UGB to west rimargin d� �.�
o� 996th }��r�e �I�E RO1IW �o �in�lude ; ' : -
� en�ire•r�aac� in Rur�al Are�. _ :. � i . �. .
I�. �
;
� - - . � .
- -rivate-R
• � .s
`� - � i
.
; ' �' _
- , , , + , . ._._. .. .._.
, ..�
.
�3..: t..
.: Y- W �'.-+4'�
�' ; � . - _ .. . , . . . . ,
i . �, . �a?`� � ���--L .
� a�a .. r
; :. _
.� - . ° _ _
s ; �ao
.. S _ ' . - , y . . .. . . � . . . .. . . . . . .
�
. . . . � ' . . v -.t�+k'+r =� ' -, � ��. ' . . .
.. . , .� �: � . � .� ,� . �Redrnond � "-'FVa,,,, y .._� �
� � �� _ ju:R'
. � � ~r' . . � .
.. . ; ;.. _ .�. . �. - � . .
� Y `� �` A�
.■ r�fs Ri t af Wa Issue �� -� y� a� 76tn St- � �
Urlian Growtti titie '� w '°
��■ s� -� �.. - _� z. y .
County Roads � . Q ; . -
' � Pare�is , � �
� N
� Ciaes . ��� �t :
� Unincorpwated Area --.� � �a .. . fi
. . . /'i~- . , ..
�eY�.•' 'raewl�rW�T� �� —� � � / � . . . � .
MO.iw!�.�w.rTw�r.�Ai�n�raw.c -_A - . . _. . . . .
■O�aaA1F�M�sIw��Mb�rwMm
:�r.r�. tww...�+rawrw.aw�a
�................�.�«.�,.e... ,to ss o ,7o F�t � K'mg Cout�(
;,.� .,�. w..._,.....,�..... . . .
.. . .,.�....r...,...,.. �y �o. za,t
�» �. a,,... «. �, .�. �... «M. �... �.
nas7 Atfachment 6
Urban �rQwth �oundary Right of Wa.y Issues - Lake Sawyer t�d� SE
»aa�
Attachrrrent 7
Urban Gr.buvth, Boundarv Rictht o� lAlav ls�sue� - SE Otd Petrovitsky Roa�l
nas� Attachment 8
Urban Growth Boundary Righ# of Way Is�t�es -�E �81st Way
i��� Atfach.rt�ent 9
i7487
Attachment i0
Urban Crowth Boundary Right of W�y lssues - SE 440th Sfreet -
_ ry.
_._.... ._..�.__..__.._ ;._....� ._........
,.
i
..� �_v-_._�.�i ��F _.._[�=--�. �:'r:�;#�-=�,�.�- Proposed i�evision
._ � ....� . . . + ..,,.,.7,....
��....._..__.__----.._�� � �._ to lJGBL
� . .... _...._......___;
�+� : �!---;. -�..._ For Informatlona'I Use Only �
..w. - � �� _ '! �._. _.._..._..__ -� ---- _.. ,� � _. �E 142nd �tr.eet �
r_.`W : � . �.�. � . �=.
� � � ...l,y m ,° + !� � Seotion 15, T�ownship 23,
._. ._ .
, �
_. .
. ,,,
,
' � ( � � , r_ � � ` •....._... �� `-_.� Range 8 E
�.•'---- ._.__.__�----�•Q� y .� �
, � i -- � '- �.._.�_� �`-....�..,.._.:
` �� `_ ��! `� �,,_....,._._._.....';" _._...._--� �`_�
. (
. .
. r ,___._.._..... ._...._
` � � ..........................._.....__... ' ..... . .._ �.>�•-� _._ o . e
� � `�' � ����' �ity f North B nd
j � ' N�rch BeYic1 �f` �`"{ ..�.`• �- �...--
i � ; � � � ! � ; `'� North Bend Potential
( � .. ..a _.�..__..._r ��
; , � ,... .... �
_...__..gE 1 ` ' i � � 7-_ � ,�.
4orH sr , � , � �,�� ; Annexation Area
-.- f ,
, .,, � . i
� ,. � , -�
' 'SE-'140TH ��T �
� �� . . I � � �.�
,_...�._.�._... ..t_._..... ._..__.__....�_ ,� __ .
_.. ..__ ...__ ._ ..., _.___....._.._.._. �. .�. �` � � ;/�/,�;• KC Mai.nta]ned
l-90 , • � I-90 � /�/ Cu�r�nt UGBL
a .
. /�/ Proposed UGBL �
Pro osed Revision to.�UGBL �� • '
_. .. .
UGSI. . . . _ . . . •
� j S� 1�4�Np S7 . ! � =�,-;,...�.. a'
{ � .. _ L I" .... � ,, -....., ,.
y ,....._ L � '�..., -�.-1..,,�. ._..r._�...,.�.
., f., (' � _.i ��,� �:.;�,-_....SE 42ND:.Si'�.,, �
� � � { � `' ` KingCounty
�,.. �' �'• . � . ......�._.. _._t.._._�..1_.__� ��.-� _ .
`y , ,, 'I ' � � __i.. . , ' �:. 250 129 0 250 500 Feet
''r.. ��/. ._f �
%' .`� ��` N[o.ve UGB� to narth mar�in of ROW � �une 2�, 2011
. . . , . ,
;, ,. , , ., ,
. ,, . .
_ . ._...
� '" ' ,f `��. � to mclude road �in. Rurai Area. ( ThekiMimetbnhclud�dontbbrtuphaihs�ntompi�dby
... ._.;:_...:.:......._..__..._._.,..�.:....._._.__,,......_ �
• . anp eoun a.n tmm e.riay a wurucena �c fueJaa w•
� . ..... ... __._.........__..,__.._...�_......_.....�_..�..Y_......_....,._..
• , ._._._...................-�..�._.____... . _. .____.:..__.
,: �.1 ,. Road serves �r.urai prop.erties. � .. .. .. _ , �A����,���s.
iGnp Cwnty mNws no npnsentetlons a weantlea. exPress
�;..�'i aimppW,ntoa6cutecy omqet�new.thiMhasn,u.riptda
�.__.,.._...�.... [o Ne uee W wth In�.
,' ` , 71iis �uxn�t la na ht�ndad ror ua as a�pvay produa.
� ti I4nq Camty dNl not M tl�lo fw anY 9onarM, epx(el,
+ .� ., `'• ,` 1 . � lndrea. hel0entil. a eonspua�tlel deme0ea Indudnp, Dut
� �
� `"'.,�"' ""'""- na Yrtdtadto, toet rwvwae a la6 praAts raultlnp hom me
t '�� •`� .'-,+'�.`,.. �,,.;, uwamiwaamamlurtmdone«atln.aon�hKrrrea.
'!, .�� .� � pny fqp bf tl�e mep or hifametlon on thk miD Ci aohbitod
...:j ',� �' I w� �n..,.... ' ..... ..__ exept by wtkCen P��lon of IOitp Oounty.
� /' '" � � !� / � ���%• ' ' N °'';:'' n
! � J % "'��..�.�'+..� -------..._,.... 1aV & �..., . 'y,.
4 � � ��-�.t,,,� t �, f �•.. ",,,. . . - r+
( ! I I � "•,�! r' .7 � .�.. ' � ' . C!'
1 / . .ti �V �j' �>'• �� �/•• • •• �`"i'� ;� ?'
�.,��_._ --••.1,� . � '\ % y; /� / ...�, •.� � ` —.....• �
� �% :�7,..�_�.�h�r, � `; �.�., ��.,..�._ �t. �..... .+� .:�. �
I . � �•� i•.
�'1 ,% ��;� , ••"'.,, �' r , '`. 7--..,.._.._. -�,; �,a
• .: , r �•�, *, � ,
r / ` �--" ..,� •,; � I/r,\ .,� � •�,_. t F+
� ��_..� ''••
, j._........_._ ,...�.;_.,,._1 � , ��.� ,.� �: �%, .,\ � L... �i'Utqurte6Nk,�8WAArtu•UA6LEtlislS8U2rol�c:�r�
I
%�- --::: �, .� _....�.... ; -r---; ---......,�,...�. t �; � , � ; ; � �
,� ..�:... i �
/; t';�_. ..;r..., ,_? ; ` f `,, T-`�...,�, ._� -�� �:�... ,
: _,,,
! %- ir- � .t�_...� ..�.._i � �.- ,�� .! ' �_ .:�....., 1
; �.� ';, ...�_ ..:-,- """ -�,� � ' j i r 1'� �.. � ,
,,,,. � � �_.._k�.
, ,,., . 4 1
�� . , . '-,.. ' i, e . �.. '•"j....�.a.�.1 ......—.i_.__.7�....� .... _ . .�..
� ��rY- �
... �
� ; j�,-.�..�. ,; �: �
. ..: : �
... . ;; ... __
:
.-
. , .,. �---_.� . , ,� . .��..___
+ ,_ � , �----r._...... � . f� �
� � ..� �._._.;
',, :, , � � r ) ._...._("`�.._.�......_ _'�.. _�.._.:..
, ; �... . ...__ �. �`-,.+ i i �, ..1....�. ! � , { t
� , ., , ; _` ,� , .. �.._._..�_____�_. �
' �������:� � '�� .'ti � �
- ��� ,.90 S�N ,. � ;- � 1 �
� �R�h'e . ! ' � ''.Ntrz'tI� �ear�.d � � �
.__...._...._.....W _ ..... ._� .._._..._..._--�--- ���'°. � � � � ', �, 5� 144T �
- f�. - ''.:'' � .._��_.�._. �I�ST
, `'. ;9 ,y ,.� ,,,, ._._..,�....__._._....._._
w ;- -r---._..__..�._
, _� sF ;�� ,, � �, _._.
;..:.� ` .
.. ._.�..�._..s,..- - _....� i xspT�s� .,;: ''..• . �` ,•,., j �� �:..�J-,,,.
, _..i �, � ��.. � `� �' ��, i
� - �, .,r �• Arp�' � I=-� ISE:146TIi SY, �
,, ���,..� S�R .,, � : - ��� .�;...,�:. '
..a,,. �. ek�s ..�,, ��1 i ^� ,':
..�' _ � _V ;on . . _. ... �. _.i...4.,--• i }...�i.. ,
,. _.'� , �o •�� ��`.�.......�,. _ � +� ', . ,'`'
,,,.` .. ,� ... �G�i, fa :i.
`~ `�. '� , %
Mave UGB to norkh R01EV ma.rg(�r
to inelude r�ad in Rural Area. �'�
Road serves rurai pr�pert�es
-! ----,,..
� 90
�fw �, -- ....� r f-
�,,,; ... 'r
._ • ,` `:
t
�,` 1
�•.. 1
,
�sr
Propa�sed Revision
to U�BL
For fnformational Use Only
SE 15Oth Stre�et
9ection 24, ToWn:ship 23,
Range 8 E
��:� City of North Bend
/�;/.!� KC Mai�ntained
/�/ Current U�BL
/�/ Praposed UGBL
�
King Courrty
250125 0 250 500 Feet
.k�ne?1, 2011
Tha IMamedon hdudad on ihk map bac Daart cromp9ad by
IOAO Cwnty a[aM Iram s ymloy W souree� anC k audlecc b
[h:�W krNhaut 4olka.
Mny Counly melroa no raprssenttliona a werrantles, express
a ImWod, r W aeeuracy,eomplKanue, tMsl��n, er rlphts
to tl�� ua � wd� M(omrWn.
Thls doaurw� lo nqt.li�ta�tlodJor usa es r survW Dtod�n,
kfny Counly �h•1 aa b.1.q�� lor arry Danard, spadN,
Indroet, NclOencM. ar con9oqwntld dertropes Includng. Dut'
►1d NmiMp to, loet rwawo3.dr IQet prolits ►esultlnp hom.lhe
Yse Ot alhuta W tAB �R�tlal Ca�Usd on thls Rup.
Nry sdrW thb map a•kk�aormsbn on tldrmr� la prohWtteC
extoOLDY wrktMi O�b�4n ot i6n9 Caunry.
w�� ''•,•. .. �
S . �,
.. 't�..
, t-^�`';�`. ,
C�tdPMtl-U�bF,I.F'UAt�:`nE'IF,OIh ;t
a
�«
�
�
A
s
3
r�
�
�«
�
N
� Attachment 13
17487
Urban �ro�vth Boundary Ri�ht of Way Issues - SE Green t(ailey Raad
Move� UGB to south ROV11 �
margin to ineiude road .in �
Rural At�ea. Ali o�ier segmehts �
of SE Green Vai1e� Road
are ruraL
:�. ' ' '.� '° -',► ' - „`a`i
,�' x } �. c�l , _.__ __ .
. . , `'`,. �?.,
�, ;� �:� °
`�t �>�'r ,"� � `. ;.sg.�g �"' �. � .
x }' t qi�� a : ��� � ' .
l, � F; _�.. �y''�#i� r4' , . � � , ' .
-� _= C� �. y . ' �T ��i� t y . . _
�� vR��i
'�, .�., ��+, y��„+• k�tr ts{��� S'y j�,�, ? '' . � ' �
��' � � � 3 e :�'$� �� ' � ... ' � . .7� ,y .°�' , ��� .
s. ' _ .. M Y . r�'*� 4 � . � ,.. ." :.�i �S 7'•�' �`�.` _ .
� ;, i . �.i�h� ��;�z ! ;2 � � �`�` �`\
, �� ` �
;'� � ' s� 9- (' t <i�"'Ffi � Tt,'4� 5 . , . , i �r t, �,,` . \,ti .
: :
, s }r , N a w' s =�, �' �� �' ' a ti'. 's 'j � '`\ `��
�K. e �.�' ��: � Y�.. ��_ �� �� 4 � .
��� � �`R' •n^�> N��.,... � t � 's q�.T }'rA 4+ p �. � , _ r _^ f <y } \ . .
q ,u . .�- .F' -a. y n � � ,y
''' J, h 3 � j' 'r �� , � : � S .. . ' � - �'�
rs� K f ? §'� '' ,e� s ._ � ' f" .-M��� , ' .` �� i f .
•�t. : i.l��'a €��. �� t+T pi� �+ i�� �._' � �.
`,:r.[ �?.:�� } T �� t c }_ St � iL � .f�' �tix , _ � r .
�"�� :,�c3�% � � �. �. � s �� 1 i .. .F �}, i '� i' % -
� ..: {r .. a �'� 3; 'A�,`. �'P zi 'f '� g, � s .z . - ! � .
. .�,,,��A�� "i' � .� E S�s-}�.: jt r '• . �� I _ %
� �:s �tf, '.r�y�S � �� � . - .
e� � . . .. '� �, � �i
4 �t t� �.�.y
�� w, r�,�, .'� • �u�i�Y'!'I' . ' , '��a+'� t. t� .
,'� y j� 'w g s ��i s �" t . , , . . ,.i # ,y. %' .
�, �r �' A� �� �g �� �'P� � � � S� �'� �
�' � � � � � �' �T�. r�� . . t r k�,t �, � �
..� 2 � .� a :� .Yx� .s $ �;�r - � �j
.. 'ii �a ; *� �� t -�i �w .. � _ . �.ti �+._.�s� ✓n. F.3 t �n.kv k.�"���+. - t �
�p (�, k f-`
t�' ? i+K� y..0 3h.�'Y � � f5;J1
i �- �is� «r.� at s �'��* f}.{+ � t �R ''„a�.k� :.� i 7 Q � ' . . .
' �j, �� � � : '� ��'.: � �
. *� � , � ; ; , & �, � �. � „ sRt,�g�R'�8 -
'� .# � t LS } � }x.i , �� .
� � � �t � -ra > ' �s�� � �� : � � ' x .
��s�' s .x . '�` :+ : t
� � ; � : ��� � �
� ,_ , _
r,. ;�. `+: . '� 3z � . � � �.' ; � , � ��,�'� , : �
: � ,�r `� s � '' �' f
l � ��'� � ' i
�., � r�� , ,
.,, � ___.,—�--,-s ' � '�ti
* + +`
- -�xR ' I� _ 4`
{
I�K�ht Of W�Iy �SSU2 ' ' `t:
` SR 464
�s r s� ,�. Y . :, ' , . - ' , . .
�. . � � Ucbatt Growdl Lina � �
� Auburn �
Couniy lioad� � `" -�— � .,
__1 ':' - - �".�
j Parc�2ls .�. �' � .
i . �
. � �S � � � � ' . . � .' . �
�
. _ Unlncorp�rated Ar� _ �
, �
: ...«w,..�.....': "aMM..�a,.M� . � �. � . . . . � . . �
�Cww�wwrA7e�rIY����ia�ww��M.l � .
a�sa �rMtM�rt�M�YqMM�d� �
1'wiirrtiMi++nldrrrawti�
�, tlM�..,.�..�.;,�£, �,s,,,�, 110 55 0 �,o F�t � King Courrty
Nrw�a�i� wrt/Y���a�wiwar�Mr �.�/'�0�20'�'�
r�Yir, pilf/Y '_wqM�rfaaA►A/Ywae�i� •v -
»as� � attachment 14
Urban �rowth Boundary Righi of Way lssues -$R �0� &�i� 14Q�M Street
. � {• _ , . �
;� � � ' r��,��� � -
' � . � . . ; y �: � . '. . . �
7 1. � i
i i. ,
f � ; : �. ��.
1 ' "",..�,.' `
_ � � . _ ;� t"' � �`'�,
. " '_ � :_��' F
— � � ;�7 : 11 � �� `-
`' ��c
� �� . � . ` � � e `� 4 .; ' ( - S 4•a
j � ... M hi iw �' � �y '•
aM 'k i+l '�� X i. i %: } 1�'� 1' t� i
' � . : � �t t ! a�.' i � ..4 . 'Si.
(J - : y i ..� ��,dy , ., a 'i
�� �,����i�� Y �Y `...�P ��;�� ���T4�� :.�t�.
J t. � r �
. . . ',l ., . <.a �6,�.7�f T� � ��r� Y � {��
� � . . . : s:. �� � . � .'�S3 .,�y.4 k K �."ry+�� . s..:f`):r z. -..
\ ' � x� t � } ,- �" r � �.� �� k
�` \� t. `y�� '� ; 2�� ; t � � ��� ?'^.'�. ;} �`�iye ����
, '`..� r >: r � �',.� + '�„ -,, _ � �, �'
■ , t �
� '-------- --- �-� . ., . �� r :� 1 �� .
`��. � i�Ft'� � rs
�^-.-+-•t�Fa —�.-�n.
s �.a �` : ,.rt �f' a �: +�..t � +r e �'.3$,�" ;:, 'L'+�
.. , - Tk. `Y �t�?'e ., s 1 , '� ��.,
�«.a� ,'`� � . -�''a. :x. .�' r; r;
�
. - ' � -
�. { � .
; -
y ' }
!
� ' . .
Nlove U.GB ia e�s# ciiargiri of : ; •
SR 20� RQW ta include ail ' �- :
: ?
(�01i�.fo� IdE 1�Otf�t utreet irt _; t ,_
l�rban�Area and eli:mina#� � � -- __v_:__------ .-------,-�__.__ --- __..
t
op:rhaned f�W s�gment. : _
; -
- - � 1� _
. =� � �
. �: . . .. .. ,.. . � . . . .. .��.. �;i ,. ..: .:.,�� �.F �_.� .
.. .__.._ ..._.._ .... . .. . :.._ .�i ..._ ��(
�. S. �
_'.�.:._ <, _ . . �_Ra... . '__'_. "..'__ . �.' } tM �. :3_, . • �T � L� .
_.-... _ . ... . � ..
_... _.. � . . � � . � �
. .. YJ' � : .. S.
. i y, ry
� � � _ � ;�� � t �k Y )� � fi��';
♦ �
. � f i . i , �qiy , � y , y�!
. - / f.:;' ) ° a , s 3 �i , ; i+s , � a ':,� i � r
, - .�t�.. �.h� �St �:t 1A� �
_��. f� ; ���1�.` �, t. .
. . � ..�!�` �pi � z
_�_ i�� �, a
_ ._..__.. _ ___ � � ;; :^ .
.7A�"-r=ttj��� .`,,, �.' � N. �
. � .�a n i� . . . . . � � ; \ 'SG.81�:P._OC1L . � �'i
� ,
Urbar� Growth Lin� ► 1 � �r �
rba J.
�..� . ��___ � i.
County Roatls .
+r . � P�r�cets _
� �S
.U�ilii:oipotateciA�a - � .
�
1r+i�eiWT�Y��wfi�i�ii�b4iCr1` � i . ..
.�Ytia I/�MlM4H�brrM�!�1�'+�
,rr'1�'..+��_4��M�r�w/�IMt�r� � 1�iL �
..�....�..,....,__«. �..:� ' KingCoa�ty
+r.d. 7M._......'.w...Y.:1.w.,+.: �
-rvAi.v�rr4ra�+r`s+�sraarrra�ac 90 45 0 90 Fee!
s�iAl�wYrr�w�Y}YwMrtM�:�L�
/YY`�il�w�i�iwYMUAir�1MLi���w1+�
��i�iiM�wri+ItiM�iArt�erww�irl . _� M� ��� 2���
��i1MrlrM++�f!b�f�. _ Jitd
�
.. _.. -_ . . . . . _ I
I
—� -- — - — ----- ---------- Attachment 15 ._ _
17487
a
a
King County
Metrapolitan King County Council
Committee of the Whole
REVISED STAFF RERORT
A enda Item: Name: Kendall Moore
Pro osed No:: 2012-0436 Date: November 26,, 2012
Invited: Pau1 Reitenbach, GMPC staff coordinator
Karen Wolf, Executive's office
SUBJECT
Adoption of the UGA and PAA� map amendment recommendations by the Growth
Management Planning Council
COMMITTEE ACTION
On November 26, 2012 the committee voted out Proposed Ordinance 2012-0436 as
amended with a"do pass" recommendation.
SYNOPSIS
Adoption of Proposed Ordinance 2012-0436 would approve and ratify for the population
of unincorporated King County the recommendations made by the Growth Management
Pianning Council ("GMPC") relevant moving the Urban Growth Boundary ("UGB") in 15
different instances, none of which are controversial. These changes have already been
fonrvarded as part of the King County Comprehensive Plan ("KCCP") Update for
consideration. Additionally, except for the split parcel correct+on (Attachment 15 to
GMPC Motion 12-5) alf have been subject to the County's KCCP public review and no
__ . __
=-___�— _ ._—_�_: . as=�pp�ge�;�ese �l�ar-rge�: �kd�itionall�; °na one=iestifre� a�=tFre�=�liP� �+�ari►ig in - _. _
opposition to these changes.
BACKGROUND
At its June 6, 2012 meeting, the GMPC took up for consideration Motion 12-5 listing ihe
proposed changes to the Urban Growth Area ("UGA") then under consideration by the
King County Council and accepted public testimony regarding the proposed changes.
No one testified against the proposals.
' UGA is #he acronym for Urban Growth Area and PAA is the acronym for Potential Annexation Area.
1 of 8
On September 11, 2012, the GMPC approved Motion 12-5 following additional pubiic
testimony regarding the proposed changes to the UGA. Again, no one testified agains#
the proposals.
ANALYSlS
1. . GMPC Motion 12-5 Attachment 1(Soarinq Eaqie)2
The proposai would change the from Rurai to Urban a 29.9 acre portion of Soaring
Eagle Park and add it to the Potential Annexation Area ("PAA") of the City of
Sammamish. It is expected ihat a later time, the ownership of the parcel will be
transferred from King County to the City and an interloca! agreement would ensure that
this property to be permanenily kept in park use. This will allow the City to annex the
subject property and develop it with an active reereation ci#y� park.
KCCP Poiicy U-104 supports this change.3 The transfer will result in a public benefit in
the form of a city park with restrooms served by public sewers.
2 All of the map amendments recommended by the GMPC in Motion 12-5 were included in the striking
amendment to Proposed Ordinance 2092-0103, the 2012 Updates to the King Counry Comprehensive
Plan. .
3 U-104 Rural properties that are immediately adjacent to a city and are planned or designated for park
purposes by that city may be redesignated to urban when the city has committed to designate
the property in perpetuity in a form satisfactory to the King County Council for park purposes
and:
a. The property is no more than 30 acres in size and was acquired by the city prior to 1994;
b. The property is no more than 30 acres in size and receives county support through a park
or recreation facifity transfer agreement between King County and a city, or
c. The prope�ty is or was formerly a King County park and is being or has been transferred to
a city.
2 of 7
3 of 8
2. GMPC Motion 12=5 Attachment 2• (Snoqualmie Minina Site)
This recommendation would change the land use designation from Urban (and in
Snoqualmie's PAA) to Rural for a portion of parcel 2024089017 and aIF of parcel
2024089020. Both of these properties contain a long-term mining operation and are
zoned Mining. Both the City and the property owner, Weyerhaeuser, suppart the
change.
KCCP Policies also support this change:
• R-510,4 which calls for land designated in a Rural City's PAA should be planned
and developed with urban uses, not mining activi#y.
• R-676,5 support the designating existing mining sites as a Designated Mineral
Resource. By definition. designated Resource Lands are noi within the Urban
Area.
4 In substantive part, R-510 The cities in the rural area and their Urban Growth Areas are considered
part of the overall Urban Growth Area for purposes of planning lartd uses and facility
needs.
5 In substantive part, R-676 King County shall identify existing and potential mining sites on the
Mineral Resources Map in order to conserve mineral resources, promote
compa#ibitity with nearby land uses, protect environmental quality, maintain and
enhance mineral �esource industries and serve to notify property owners of the
potential for mining activities. The county shall identify:
a. Sites with existing Mineral zoning as Designated Mineral Resource Sites;
4of7
Snoquaimie Mining �
Recomrr►�nded Land Use Map Ic�Gw.�y
� �«
�r �� YsW w M�w r►w r.r.i y
efo..�s�ea.�.�ti�w�w��a1p�,�v �X }��(;1�25Vi�f1i�.71DY1A�1/4R0 � �14(E95
1WIt 1�l O� oY� �I1�Y 1� ��� �/ —' .
�rrr► �f.r r Y�r/ Y s re�y, p.KYr�a,
w... rr . w.. r.r rrrr.. fa Rural/1�i
11M wrr�t re Mri� k� r. arw� Mn . .
M'I G�► wi ti �Y YW �r .y i+.M. rrYl m �HIf18 �if�: �IN�! QOl/I�Y
�I�1� ���1�1~�OIIIw1Y a Y/ ��Irr�1�W W � �j
. rr.. t r:rsr......wr « r r rr .r. r 0$ IG10 C.OU11lY QP� $P� Si`+�m Q� �
�.� �wf�+r�w��rwM•ww
O�twA��.]blf � p�p�Qli(b]n
+�+� a�r e m as
++emwr► _r.++o'r�'oa.r+��+.o.1��aEt s�.or�� a�.sa Geo�N� 8aa+dary �/sr
�r"
�
A0.+°E Sk
m
P�� d
�t�
m
:�C
�__�
� -- --- - - - : � � � /r`��-- �>
r�
5 of 7
�rMoalil'� - —`'-�.�J,-�,
I6Z1B�B017 _
..,,m<^fV{3�,krE 4E
., /�\ �
�
1�_ - i - i _, - - `- '
3. GaMPC Motion 12-5 Attachments 3-14: (ROWIUGA Technical Correctionsl
Pursuanf �to T-205s, King County Departmen# of Transportation determined 12
segments of King County road rights-of-way ("ROW") shouid be redesigna�ed on the
KCCP Land Use map for the purposes of efficient future road mai�tenance. In eight
cases, the ROW segment should be included within the UGA so tha# the adjacent city
will have long-term maintenance responsibility. In three cases, the ROW segment
should be included in the Rucal Area, since King County will continue #o have
maintenar�ce responsibility. One case involves two segments; one should be
designated Rural and the other Urban to clarify mainfenance respansibility between
King County and the City of Redmond.
Map Amendmen#s � These map amendments are attached to this staff report as part of
Attachment A to proposed Ordinance 2012-0436.
Redesignate from Rural to Urban:
• 148�' Ave SE, adjacent to Auburn
• 212�' Ave SE, west of Black Diamond
• NE Union Hill Road, east o# Redmond
• Lake Sawyer road SE, wes# of Black Diamond
• SE O1d Petrovi#sky Road, east of Renton
• SE 2815} Way, east of Mapte Valley
• SE 288�" Street, south of Ntaple Valley
• SE 440t�' Street, north of Enumclaw
• SR 203 at NE 140th Str-eet, south of Duvall.
Redesignate from Urban to Rural:
• 196th Ave NE, east of Redmond
• SE 142"d Street, south. of North Bend
• SE 9 50th Street, south �of North Bend
• SE Green Valley Road, :northeast of Aubum
4. GMPC Motion 12-5 Attachrr�ent 15• Maple Vallev Split Parcel
Council Staff discovered�a split parcel in the city of Maple Valley during their review of
the map amendments for the 2012 KCCP Updates.' This developed parcel, located
within a subdivision totally within the city limits of Maple Valfey, shows up on the UGA
map with the UGB running through it, resulting in half designated Urban and hal�
6 T-205 Any segment of a county roadway that forms the boundary between the Urban Growth Area and
the Rural Area shall be designed and constructed to urban roadway standards on both sides of
such roadway segment. �
' This map amendment was not included as an area study for the 2012 KCCP Update; however, it is a
technical change rather than su6stantive change and merely corrects the UGA map to reflect ttie existing
conditions on the ground.
6 of 7
designated Rural. This change results in the parcel being completely within #he Urban
Area. .
This map amendment is attached to this staff report as part of Attachment A to
proposed Ordinance 2012-0436.
The change comports with KCCP Policy U-103.$
AMENDMENT
A striking amendment has been prepared to comport this legislation with the revisions to
the code that are included in the striking amendment for Proposed Ordinance 2012-
0282. As members will recall, the striking amendment to Proposed Ordinance 2012-
0282 will simplify the King County Code changes so that listing every GMPC action and
ratification by the Council will no longer called out in Code. The striking amendment to
Proposed Ordinance 2012-0282 will decodify those iisting sections in the Code rather
than repeaf them, so that history will be preserved. This approach is similar to what is
proposed for #he Comprehensive Plan code sections that list the history of amendments
to the Comprehensive Pian. Therefore, the sec#ion in the transmitted proposed
ordinance refilecting the history of past GMPC and Council action relative to CPP
amendments are not necessary and have been removed. Findings are added to set the
context.
$ U-103 Parcels which are split by the Urban Growth Area boundary line should be redesignated to either
all urban or all rural unless the parcel is split to recognize environmentally sensitive features o�
the �equirements of interlocal agreements or King County plans.
This parcel was not split for environmental reasons or as a result of planning or agreements with the City.
Maple Valley supports this change.
7of7
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2013
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:��_L
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE TANUARY 8,2023 PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY
COUPiCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council members present for the January 8, 2013 Parks, Recreation,
Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee approve the minutes?
COMMITTEE: PRHS&PS
CATEGURY:
❑ Consent
� City Cuuncil Business
❑ Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: 2/12/13
� Public Hearing
0 Other
STAFF REPORT BY: Pat Richardson CitY Attorne DEPT• Law
._........_............_...----........_.....-------..._........_,._.........�.........__._..._..._....._......... �.._......_.- ---...._._..........._..._....._Y._...._........__........_......_..---------..........._....._...-----�-----......_._....__.___ __.._..__.._..._..-----
On Jant�ary 8, 2013 the Parks, Recreatian, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee did not
have a qaorum due to the recent elections of Representatives Freeman and Kcehmar. Deputy Mayor
Ferrell attended the Council Committee meeting to make a quorum so that business could go forward. At
the Council Committee meeting on February 12, 2013, the minutes could not be approved because
Councilmembers Burbidge and Maloney were not in attendance. Consequently, approval of the minutes is
under Council Business for Chair Honda's and Deputy Mayor Ferrell's approval.
Options Considered: 1. 'Chair Honda and Deputy Mayor Ferrell approve the minutes as presented.
2. Chair Honda and Deputy Mayor Ferrell approve the minutes as modified.
MAYUR'S RECOMMENDATION: n/a
MAYOR APPROVAL:
Comminee
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A.
Council
DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Committee Chair Committee Member Committee Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of Option "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY C1TY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACI'ION:
� APPROVED COUNCIL BILL #
� DENIED 1ST reading
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
❑ MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordivances only) ORDIPiANCE #
REVISED- 08l12/2010 RESOLUTION #
City of Federal Way
City Council
PARKS. RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
6:00 p.m.
�Yr�► �► r_�:��i
Committee Members in Attendance: Chair Honda, Deputy Mayor Ferrell
Council members in Attendance: Council member Burbidge
Staff Members in Attendance: Cary Roe, Director, Parks, Public Works & Emergency Managemen� Amy Jo
Pearsall, City Attorney, Jay Bennett, Community Services Manager, John Hutton, Recreation Supervisor, Cody
Geddes, Arts & Special Events Coordinator, and Mary Jaenicke, Administrative Asst. II.
Guest: Cat Mason, Chair Arts Commission, Robyn Richin� Vice Chair Human Services Commission, Kathryn
Scanlon, Human Services Commission
Chair Honda called the meeting to order at 6:OOp.m.
Public Comment: None
Commission Comment: Cat Mason, Chair of the Arts Commission distributed a post event evaluation for the Tree
Lighting Festival that was held at the Commons. She stated it went very well, although there were a few issues with
the Commons. She also stated that the Commons would like to partner with the Arts Commission on an Arts
Festival. Council member Burbidge and the Committee thanked the Arts Commission for their hazd work on this and
stated that it was a very nice event.
APPROVAL OF SUMMARY
Ms. Jaenicke reported to the Committee that she was informed that a name in the minutes was misspelled. It has
been corrected. Chair Honda is the only committee member in attendance that attended the December rneting. She
has read the minutes, and stated that they are accurate. Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved to approve the December
meeting summary. Chair Honda seconded. Motion passed.
BUSINESS ITEMS
2013-2014 Human Services Commission Work Plan
Mr. Bennett provided the background information. The Commission has made recommendations to adopt a two year
plan. There is a significant amount of work that will take place for the next two years. 2013 is a no�funding year
for the Commission. Some of the major action items for the Commission in 2013 are: Ra+iew the Human Services
Grant Funding process, in partnership with the PRHSPS Committee and with support from staff review the existing
City Council Human Services Funding Priorities and objectives. T'hese were last reviewed in 1996.'The commission
will also go out and visit the agencies that are funded by the City. Council member Burbidge and the, Committee
thanked the Human Services Commission for all of their hard work. Deputy Ferrell moved to forward the 2013-
2014 Human Services Commission Work Plan to the January 15, 2013 cansent agenda for approval. Chair
Honda seconded. Motion passed.
2013 Diversitv Commission Work Plan
Mr. Bennett reported that this is a revised work plan. The work plan was originally presented at the November
PRHSPS Committee meeting. T'he question was raised on whether or not the Diversity Commission couldtake on a
leadership role for the MLK Celebration and add the event to their work plan. The work plan was brought back to
the Diversity Commission, and at their December 12,meeting they amended their work plan and added the event.
Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved to forward the 2013 Diversity Commission Work Plan to the January 15, 2013
consent agenda for approval. Chair Honda seconded. Chair Honda asked if the commission had decided on a
meeting schedule. Mr. Bennett answered that at this time it is still quarterly. Special meetings may be scheduled as
needed. Deputy Mayor Ferrell asked if this was enough. Mr. Bennett stated that as they move forwazdkhey may
decide to go back to monthly meetings. Motion passed.
2013 Arts Commission Work Plan
Mr. Hutton provided the background information. Each year the Arts Commission develops a work plan for the
upcoming year. T'he work plan outlines the projects, programs and funding forthe year. Deputy Mayor Ferrell
moved to forward the 2013 Arts Commission Work Plan to the January 15, 2013 full City Council consent
K:�PRHSPS Committee12013\0108I3 Min.doc
PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 8, 2013 Summary
Page 2
agenda for approval. Chair Honda seconded. Chair Honda stated that the 2% for the Art and the o�rgoing
maintenance program is a project that really needs to be done. It is on the work plan every year. Some of the art
work that is in the parks is fading. She believes that the Parks Commission should be involved in this also. Gouncil
member Burbidge stated that there is a document that was developed by a previous Arts Commission that outlines
Visual Arts Collection and Management policies, which should help the process. Motion passed.
2013 Arts Gommission Contract for Services
Mr. Hutton provided the background informatirn. The Contract for Services Program funds local Arts organizations
that provide cultural programs in the community. The organizations are required to complete an application, and
those applications are reviewed by the Arts Commission. The Arts CommissDn also interviews each organization
and then they develop funding recommendations. 'I'he budget for the program is $37,900.00. Chair Honda stated
that she was at the Arts Commission retreat where the funding recommendations were discussed. She wants the
Historical Society and the Youth Orchestra Symphony to receive more funding than they di� and is recommending
to forward this item to full council without a recommendation from the committee. Deputy Mayor Ferrell moved
to forward the 2013 Arts Commission Contract for Services funding recommendation to the January 15, 2013
Full City Council Business Agenda without a recommendation. Chair Honda seconded. Motion passed.
NEXT MEETING
February 12, 2013 @ 5:30pm
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 6:23p.m.
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: , 3 �
1�'I
CITY OF FEDER�L WAY
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA BILL
ITEM #:�_
POLICY QUESTION: Should the City grant Zayo Group, LLC. a Franchise Ordinance to operate and maintain a
Fiber Optic Network within and through the City of Federal Way?
COMMITTEE: Finance, Economic Development and Regional
Affairs Committee
CATEGORY:
❑ Consent
❑ City Council Business
� Ordinance
❑ Resolution
MEETING DATE: 7anuary 22, 2013
❑ Public Hearing
❑ �Other�
STAFF REPORT BY: Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director�DE�'[': Public Works
Attachments: Memoranduxn to the Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee dated
January 22, 2013.
Options Considered:
1. Approve the Ordinance and forward to the February 5, 2013 City Council meeting for first reading.
2. Modify the Ordinance and forward to the February 5, 2013 City Council meeting for first reading.
3. Reject the Ordinance and provide direction to staff.
.......... �
MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION• Mayor recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 5 2013 Council
Agenda for first reading.
MAYOR APPROVAL: ���� m� �'" �'�� DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Co ttee Council omtnittee Council
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Committee recommends forwarding Option 1 to the February 5, 2013
Council Agenda for first reading.
Dini Duclos, Chair Bob Celski, Member , Member
PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION:
1ST READING OF ORDINANCE (02/OS/2013): `7 move to forward the ordinance to a second reading for enactment
on the February 19, 2013 Council agenda. "
2ND READING OF ORDINANCE (02/19/2013): "I move approval of the Zayo Group, LLC. Franchise ordinance. "
(BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE)
COUNCIL ACTION:
❑ APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # � 02 0
❑ DENIED 1sT reading 2''c'J' ' ��_
�
❑ TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment reading
� MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE #
REVISED - 02/O6/2006 RESOLUTION #
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 22, 2013
TO: Finance, Economic Development, and Regional Affairs Committee
VIA: Skip Priest, Mayor � -../�
FROM• Cary M. Roe, P.E., Director of Parks, Public Works and ergency Ma ent P/�"'�► '
' Marwan Salloum, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Zayo Group, LLC - Franchise Ordinance
BACKGROUND
Zayo Group, LLC has requested a franchise from the City of Federal Way, in order to use space on and
air-space above certain rights-of-way for the installation, operation and maintenance of fiber optic
network. See attached copy of the proposed franchise ordinance.
The term of this Franchise is for a period of ten (10) years commencing on the effective date of this
Franchise consistent with franchises the City has granted to other utility provider.
Zayo Group, LLC agrees to pay a fee or a charge in the amount of $1,000.00 to recover the actual
reasonable administrative expenses incurred by the City that are directly related to preparing and
approving this Franchise.
Zayo Group, LLC will maintain insurance of $5 Million combined single limit for commercial general
liability and $5 Million for automobile insurance. The franchisee may self-insure against such risks in
such amounts consistent with good utility practices.
The proposed franchise requires Zayo Group, LLC to post a bond for $100,000. Additional bonding
may be required as a condition of the right of way permit before commencing any work within the City
to guarantee performance of construction, maintenance or repair in accordance with any permits
required by this Franchise.
K:\FEDRAC�2013\O1-22-13 Zayo Group LL,C Franchise Ordinance memo.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, GRANTING ZAYO
GROUP, LLC, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO OCCUPY
RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, WITHIN THE SPECIFIED FRANCHISE
AREA FOR THE PURPOSES OF INSTALLING FIBER OPTIC
NETWORK WITHIN AND THROUGH THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY.
WHEREAS, Zayo Group, LLC ("Zayo") has requested a franchise from the City of Federal
Way, in order to install and maintain fiber optic network in the public rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Federal Way finds that it is in the public interest to grant
such a franchise, which will specify the rights and duties of Zayo; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.47.040 permits the City of Federal Way to grant nonexclusive
franchises for the use of public streets, bridges or other public ways for, inter alia, conduits, wires
and appurtenances for transmission of signals and other methods of communications; and
WHEREAS, in granting such a nonexclusive franchise, the City of Federal Way reserves
such other powers and authorities granted to Washington code cities by general law;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Defmitions
Where used in this Franchise the following terms shall be defined as follows:
1.1 "Cit}�' means the City of Federal Way, Washington, a municipal corporation of the
ORD # , PAGE 1
State of Washington, and its respective successors and assigns.
1.2 "Council" means the City of Federal Way Council acting in its official capacity.
1.3 "Director" means the Public Works Director, or designee, of the City of Federal Way
Public Works Department.
way.
1.4 "Facilities" means Franchisee's equipment to be located within the public right-of-
1.5 "FWRC" means the Federal Way Revised Code.
1.6 "Franchise Area" means only that portion of the City public rights-of-way located in
the City of Federal Way and shown in Exhibit A attached hereto, andJor any other areas approved by
the Federal Way City Council and incorporated into this Ordinance via amendment.
1.7 "Franchisee" means Zayo Group, LLC, and its respective successors and assigns if
consented to by the City of Federal Way as provided in Section 24 herein.
Section 2. Grant/Acceptance
2.1 Grant of Franchise.
The City hereby grants to Franchisee the nonexclusive right to enter upon the Franchise Area
for the limited purpose of constructing, excavating, installing, maintaining, restoring, and repairing
Facilities within the Franchise Area. This franchise is specifically limited to the right for Franchisee
to install Facilities owned and operated by Franchisee. This franchise does not permit Franchisee to
lease, rent, or otherwise allow use of conduits, space or capacity provided by the Facilities to other
third-party telecommunications providers, and Franchisee covenants and agrees that it will not do so.
2.2 The Franchise may not, in the ordinary course of its business lease or sublease a portion of the
Facilities (i.e., the physical equipment) to other entities until the lessee or sublessee has first obtained
ORD # , PAGE 2
a franchise from the City. This provision shall not applv to Franchisee's potential lease of its
broadband ca�acity. Franchisee shall at all times retain exclusive control over the Facilities and shall
remain responsible for locating, servicing, repairing, relocating, removing or controlling the leased or
subleased facilities.
2.3 Franchisee may not provide cable television or open video system services, unless it first obtains
a cable television franchise or open video system franchise or agreement from the City.
2.4 Acceptance bv Franchisee. Franchisee shall have no rights under this Franchise, nor shall
Franchisee be bound by the terms and conditions of this Franchise, unless Franchisee shall, within
sixty (60) days after the effective date of this Franchise, file with the City its written acceptance of
this Franchise and all of its terms and conditions.
Section 3. Non-Franchise Area Citv Propertv
This Franchise does not and shall not convey any right to Franchisee to install its Facilities
on, under, over, across, or to otherwise use City-owned or leased properties of any kind outside the
Franchise Area, or to install Facilities on, under, over, across or otherwise use any City owned or
leased property within the Franchise Area other than public roads, streets, avenues, alleys and
highways.
Section 4. Term
Subject to Franchisee filing its acceptance pursuant to Subsection 2.2, the term of this
Franchise shall be for a period of ten (10) years commencing on the effective date of this Franchise
(Term"), unless terminated earlier pursuant to this Franchise or other applicable law.
Section 5. Location of Facilities
5.1 Location. The Facilities permitted by this Franchise shall be installed underground.
ORD # , PAGE 3
The location of the Facilities, including any underground Facilities and appurtenances, their depths
below surface of ground or grade of a right-of-way, and any related existing equipment (such as
cellular antennae) to which the Facilities are connected shall be depicted on a map and submitted to
the City within thirty (30) days of the installation of the Facilities. Upon written request of the City,
Franchisee shall update such map to reflect actual or anticipated improvements to the system. Any
such map (or update thereo fl so submitted shall be for informational purposes only and shall not
obligate Franchisee to undertake any specific improvements, nor shall such map be construed as a
proposal to undertake any specific improvements.
5.2 GIS Data. At such time as Franchisee develops or employs Geographic Information
System ("GIS") technology, Franchisee shall submit the information required in Subsection 5.1
above in digital GIS format, showing the location of its Facilities within the Franchise Area.
5.3 Desi�n Markin�s. In the event the City desires to design new streets or intersections,
renovate existing streets, or make any other public improvements, Franchisee shall at the City of
Federal Way's reasonable request, provide the location of Franchisee's underground Facilities within
the Franchise Area by either field markings or by locating the Facilities on the City's design
drawings, and shall provide all other reasonable cooperation and assistance to the City.
Section 6. Noninterference of Facilities
Franchisee agrees to maintairi its Facilities and perform any and all activities authorized by
this Franchise: (1) so as not to unreasonably interfere with the free passage of traffic; (2) in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and City Code requirements, franchise
provisions, regulations, resolutions and rules, as now existing or as hereafter amended; and (3) as
required by the Director. This requirement applies whether or not the work is performed by the
ORD # , PAGE 4
Franchisee, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or other third parties at Franchisee's direction.
Section 7. Requirement to Obtain Permits
7.1 Permits and Permit Applications.
Franchisee shall, at its expense, obtain all permits, (including rights-of-way permits), and pay
all permit fees required by applicable City ordinances, regulations, resolutions and rules prior to
commencing any work within the Franchise Area. Franchisee permit applications sha11 show the
position and location of the proposed facilities to be constructed, laid, installed, or erected at that
time, show their relative position to existing rights-of-way or property lines upon prints drawn to
scale, designate rights-of-way by their names and improvements, such as, but not limited to,
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, shoulders of roadway, ditches, paved roadways, roadways to property lines,
turnouts, parking strips, telephone or electric distribution poles, and water pipes existing on the
ground to be occupied, or as required by the Director. The Franchisee shall specify the class and type
of materials to be used, equipment to be used, and mode of safeguarding and facilitating the public
traffic during construction. Materials and equipment shall be in new or like-new condition for its
type and kind. The manner of excavation, construction, installation, backfill, and temporary
structures such as, but not limited to, traffic turnouts and road obstructions shall meet the standazds
of the FWRC and be satisfactory to the Director. All traffic control shall be in accordance with the
right-of-way permit, and shall be in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MLTTCD). The Franchisee shall indicate on any permit application the time needed to complete the
work. The time needed to complete the work is subject to approval by the City as a condition of the
issuance of the permit or approval.
7.2 Emergencv Exception to Permit Requirement.
ORD # , PAGE 5
In the event of an emergency in which Franchisee's Facilities within the Franchise Area are in
a condition as to immediately endanger the property, life, health or safety of any individual,
Franchisee may take action immediately to correct the dangerous condition without
first obtaining any required permit so long as: (1) Franchisee informs the City of nature and extent of
the emergency, and the work to be performed, prior to commencing the work; and (2) such permit is
obtained by Franchisee as soon as practicable following cessation of the emergency.
Section 8. Standard of Performance
The Franchisee shall not excavate for a distance ofmore than one hundred feet (100') without
immediately backfilling and compacting to surface grade and city standards. Backfilled trench areas
within a driving lane must be patched, either temporarily or permanently, before the end of the work
day in which they have been opened. Trench areas within the right-of-way, but not with in a driving
lane, must also be patched within the time limits specified by the City on the right-of-way use peimit.
Final surface restoration shall be completed within thirty (30) days and shall be equal to or better
than the surface condition prior to permit issuance.
Any asphalt overlay completed within the Franchise Area during the five (5) year-period
immediately prior to the date of permit application shall not be open cut by Franchisee unless
required by an emergency and subject to the provisions of Subsection 7.2 above. Franchisee shall
install new asphalt overlay on any street that is open cut, whether in an emergency or otherwise, for a
minimum of one (1) block (approximately 500 feet) in length in both directions from the open cut,
unless determined otherwise by the Director.
Within fifteen (15) days of completion of any installation of Franchisee's Facilities within the
Franchise Area, Franchisee shall submit to the Director plans, stamped by a Professional Engineer
ORD # , PAGE 6
licensed by the State of Washington, showing the "as-built" location of the Facilities.
Section 9. Survev Markers and Monuments
Franchisee shall, using a licensed surveyor, immediately replace all markers or monuments
disturbed during any work by Franchisee within the Franchise Area. Franchisee shall pay all costs
associated with such lost, destroyed or disturbed monuments or markers.
Section 10. Surface Markings/Stakes
Prior to Franchisee commencing any excavation work within the Franchise Area, Franchisee
shall reference all monuments and markers relating to subdivisions, plats, highways, and other
surveys. The reference points shall be located so that they shall not be disturbed during the
Franchisee's operations under this Franchise. The method of referencing these monuments or other
points shall be approved by the City before placement. The construction shall be made as
expeditiously as conditions permit, and as directed by the City. The cost of monuments or other
markers lost, destroyed, or disturbed, and the expense of replacement of the monuments, sha11 be
borne solely by the Franchisee. A complete set of reference notes for monuments and other ties shall
be filed with the City.
Section 11. Right of Citv to Complete Work
In the event Franchisee fails to comply with any applicable federal, state or City laws,
ordinances, rules, regulations or standards or with any of the terms of this Franchise, and such
noncompliance continues for a period of ten (10) days after Franchisee receives written notice from
the City regarding the noncompliance, the City may, but in no event is the City obligated to, order
any work completed, including without limitation Franchisee's obligation to repair pursuant to
Section 13 herein and Franchisee's obligation to remove or relocate facilities pursuant to Section 12
ORD # , PAGE 7
herein. If the City causes such work to be done by its own employees or by any person or entity
other than Franchisee, Franchisee shall, upon the City's written request, immediately reimburse the
City for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in having such work performed,
which costs may include the City's reasonable overhead expenses and attorneys fees. However, the
City shall not have any electrical work accomplished by any person or entity other than Franchisee or
a qualified and licensed electrical contractor.
Section 12. Required Relocation of Facilities
12.1 Citv Reservation of Ri ts. The City reserves the right to use, occupy and enjoy all or
any part of the Franchise Area, either above, below, or adjacent to the Facilities, for any purpose that
is not inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this Franchise. The rights reserved herein
include, without limitation, the construction, installation, and/or maintenance of any electrical, water,
sewer or storm drainage line, traffic signals, street lights, trees, landscaping, bicycle paths and lanes,
equestrian trails, sidewalks, other pedestrian amenities, and other public street improvement projects.
This Franchise is not an exclusive Franchise shall not be construed to in any manner prohibit
the City from granting other and further Franchises in, under, over, upon, and along the Franchise
Area, nor from exercising such other powers and authorities granted to the City by the Washington
State Constitution and general law.
12.2 City's Duties. In the event the City undertakes any work, including necessary
maintenance within a right-of-way in which Franchisee's facilities are located, and such work
necessitates the relocation of Franchisee's then existing Facilities within the Franchise Area, the City
shall:
(a) Provide written notice of the required relocation to Franchisee within a
ORD # , PAGE 8
reasonable time prior to the commencement of such City work; and
(b) Provide Franchisee with copies of pertinent portions of the City's plans and
specifications so that Franchisee may relocate its Facilities to accommodate the City work
Nothing in this section shall be construed as to relieve Franchisee of its duty and obligation to
relocate its Facilities, at Franchisee's sole cost, for any improvement project undertaken by, or on
behalf of, the City in the interest of public health, safety, welfare, necessity or convenience, as
adjudged in the sole discretion of the City.
12.3 Franchisee's Duties. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the City notice under
Subsection 12.2(a) requiring relocation and receipt of the plans and specifications pursuant to
Subsection 12.2(b), Franchisee shall raise, lower, or move such Facilities within the Franchise Area
at its sole cost and expense to the location or position directed by the City, to cause the least
interference with the improvement, repair, or alteration contemplated by the City and to conform to
such new grades as may be established. If the City improves a right-of-way, Franchisee shall, at its
sole cost and expense, upon receipt of notice, replace the Facilities located in the improved subgrade
of the improvement with substitute Facilities conforming to the specifications for the improvement
of the right-of-way.
Section 13. Damage Repair
In case of damage by the Franchisee, its agents or employees or by the Facilities of the
Franchisee to rights-of-way, or to public and private improvements within or adjacent to rights-of-
way, the Franchisee agrees to repair the damage at its own cost and expense. The Franchisee shall,
upon discovery of any such damage, immediately notify the City. The City will inspect the damage,
and set a time limit for completion of the repair. If the City discovers damage caused by the
ORD # , PAGE 9
Franchisee to rights-of-way, or to public and private improvements within or adjacent to rights-of-
way, the City shall give the Franchisee notice of the damage and set a time limit in which the
Franchisee must repair the damage. In the event the Franchisee does not repair a right-of-way or an
improvement as required in this section, the City may repair the damage pursuant to Section 11 of
this Agreement.
Section 14. Default
14.1 Notice of Default. In addition to other remedies set forth herein, if Franchisee shall
fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise, the City may serve a written notice to
Franchisee ordering such compliance and Franchisee shall have sixty (60) days from the receipt of
such notice in which to comply.
14.2 Revocation of Franchise. If Franchisee is not in compliance with this Franchise after
the expiration of the sixty (60) day period, the City may, by resolution, declare the franchise
immediately revoked.
Section 15. Limited Ri�hts
This Franchise is intended to convey only a limited right and interest to Franchisee in the
Franchise Area. This Franchise is not a warranty of title or conveyance of any ownership interest in
or to the Franchise Area to Franchisee.
Section 16. Eminent Domain
The existence of this Franchise shall not preclude the City from acquiring by condemnation,
in accordance with applicable law, all or a portion of Franchisees Facilities within the Franchise Area
for the fair market value thereof. In determining the value of such Facilities, no value shall be
attributed to the right to occupy the Area conferred by this Franchise.
ORD # , PAGE 10
Section 17. Vacation
If at any time the City, by ordinance, vacates all or any portion of the Franchise Area, the City
will not be liable for any damages or loss to the Franchisee by reason of such vacation. The City shall
notify Franchisee in writing not less than 30 days before vacating all or any portion of the Franchise
Area. The City may, after thirty (30) days written notice to Franchisee, terminate this Franchise with
respect to any such vacated area.
Section 18. Compliance with Laws
18.1 General. Franchisee shall comply with all applicable federal, state and City laws,
franchises, resolutions, regulations, standards, policies and procedures, as now existing or hereafter
amended or adopted, including without limitation the State Environmental Policy Act; provided,
however, that if any term or condition of this Franchise and any term or condition of any City law,
code, franchise, resolution, regulation, standard, procedure, permit or approval are in conflict, the
term or condition of this Franchise will control.
18.2 Future City of Federal Way Re lu�tion. Franchisee acknowledges that the City may
develop rules, regulations, ordinances and specifications for the use of the right-of-way which shall
govern Franchisee's Facilities and activities hereunder as if they were in effect at the time this
Franchise was executed by the City and Franchisee covenants and agrees to be bound by same.
Section 19. Guarantee
Franchisee shall guarantee work completed by the Franchisee under this Franchise for a
period of 10 years against settlement or repair.
Section 20. Char�e for Administrative Costs
Franchisee agrees to pay a fee or a charge of One Thousand and No/ 100 Dollars ($1,000.00)
ORD # , PAGE 11
to recover the administrative expenses incurred by the City that are directly related to preparing and
approving this Franchise. Nothing herein shall preclude the City from charging administrative fees or
recovering any administrative costs incurred by the City in the approval of permits or in the
supervision, inspection or examination of all work by Franchisee in the Franchise Area as prescribed
in accordance with applicable provisions of the Federal Way Revised Code.
Section 21. Indemnification
Franchisee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless and defend the City, its elected officials,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all claims, demands, losses, actions and
liabilities (including costs and all attorney fees) to or by any and all persons or entities, including,
without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives, arising from, resulting from,
or connected with this Franchise to the extent caused in part or in whole by the acts, errors or
omissions of the Franchisee, its officers, partners, shareholders, agents, employees, or by the
Franchisee's breach of any provisions of this Franchise; provided, however, that this section sha11 not
be construed as requiring Franchisee to indemnify, hold harmless or defend the City against claims or
damages arising from the negligence of the City, its agents or employees. In the event any claim,
demand, suit or action is commenced against the City that gives rise to Franchisee's obligation
pursuant to this Section 21, the City shall promptly notify Franchisee thereof. Franchisee's selection
of an attorney to defend any such claim, demand, suit or action shall be subject to the City's
approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Franchisee shall not settle or compromise any
such suit or action except with prior written consent of the City, which shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The City shall have the right at all times to participate through its own attorney in any suit
or action which arises pursuant to this Franchise when the City determines that such participation is
ORD # , PAGE 12
required to protect the interest of the City or the public. In the event it is determined that RCW
4.24.115 applies to this Franchise, Franchisee agrees to defend, hold harmless and indemnify the
City to the maximum extent permitted thereunder, to the full extent of Franchisee's negligence.
Section 22. Insurance
22.1 Minimum Limits. The Franchisee agrees to carry as a minimum, the following
insurance, in such forms and with such carriers as are satisfactory to the City.
(a) Workers compensation and employer's liability insurance in amounts
sufficient pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington;
(b) Commercial general liability insurance with combined single limits of liability
not less than $5,000,000 for bodily injury, including personal injury or death, products
liability, contractual coverage, operations, explosion, collapse, underground and property
damage; and
(c) Automobile liability insurance with combined single limits of liability not less
than $5,000,000 for bodily injury, including personal injury or death and property damage.
22.2 Mandatory Insurance Provisions. The comprehensive general liability insurance and
automobile liability insurance policies shall be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
(a) The City, its officers, elected officials, employees, and volunteers are to be
named as additional insured;
(b) Coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made
or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability;
Coverage shall not be suspended, canceled, modified or reduced except after thirty (30) days
prior written notice to the City delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested; and Coverage
ORD # , PAGE 13
shall be primary as to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or
self-insurance by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of
Franchisee's required insurance.
22.3 Verification of Covera�e. Franchisee shall furnish the City with certificates of
insurance and original endorsements evidencing the coverages required by this Section. The
certificates and endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage
on its behalf and must be received and approved by the City prior to the commencement of any work.
At the City's request, Franchisee shall deliver certified copies of all required insurance policies.
Section 23. Bond
Before commencing work within the City, the Franchisee shall post a bond in the form
attached as Exhibit B and in the amount of $100,000 to guarantee performance of the construction,
performance, maintenance or repair in accordance with any permits required and with any provisions
of this franchise. Procedures for submission and release of the bond shall be as provided by City
Code. In the event that the Franchisee fails to perform as required herein or by any permits required,
the City may perform the work as provided herein, and may have recourse to the bond in addition to
or in lieu of the remedies provided herein, at the City's sole discretion. Franchisee shall be entitled
to return of the bond, or portion thereof, as remains sixty (60) days after the expiration of the term of
the Franchise, provided the City has not notified Franchisee of any actual or potential damages
incurred as a result of Franchisee's operations pursuant to the Franchise or as a result of default
thereunder.
Section 24. General Provisions
24.1 Entire Agreement. This Franchise contains all of the agreements of the Parties with
ORD # , PAGE 14
respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Franchise and no prior agreements or
understandings pertaining to any such matters shall be effective for any purpose.
24.2 Modification. No provision of this Franchise may be amended or added to except by
agreement in writing signed by both of the Parties..
24.3 Assi ir�ent. Franchisee shall not have the right to transfer or assign, in whole or in
part, any or all of its obligations and rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the City.
Any assignee shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of any approved assignment, file written notice
of the assignment with the City together with its written acceptance of all terms and conditions of
this Franchise. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Franchisee shall have the right, without such notice or
such written contest, to mortgage its rights, benefits and privileges in and under this Franchise to the
Trustee for its bondholders, and to assign to an affiliate as part of a corporate reorganization.
24.4 Attornev Fees. In the event the City or the Franchisee defaults on the performance of
any terms in this Franchise, and the Franchisee or the City places the enforcement of the Franchise or
any part thereof or for the collection of any monies due, or to become due hereunder, in the hands of
an attorney, or files suit upon the same, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of all
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The venue for any dispute related to this Franchise
shall be King County, Washington.
24.5 No Waiver. Failure of either party to declare any breach or default by the other party
immediately upon the occurrence thereof, or delay in taking any action in connection therewith, shall
not waive such breach or default, but such party shall have the right to declare any such breach or
default at any time. Failure of either party to declare one breach or default does not act as a waiver of
such party's right to declare another breach or default.
ORD # , PAGE 15
24.6 Governing Law. This Franchise shall be made in and shall be governed by and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
24.7 Authori . Each individual executing this Franchise on behalf of the City and
Franchisee represents and warrants that such individual is duly authorized to execute and deliver this
Franchise on behalf of the Franchisee or the City.
24.8 Notices. Any notices required to be given by the City to Franchisee or by Franchisee
to the City shall be delivered to the parties at the following addresses:
Franchisee:
Zayo Group, LLC
400 Centennial Pkwy
Suite 200
Louisville, CO 98117
Attn: General Counsel, ZFTI
City:
City of Federal Way
Attn: City Attorney
33325 8�' Avenue South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Any notices may be delivered personally to the addressee of the notice or may be deposited in
the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the address set forth herein. Any notice so posted in the
United States mail shall be deemed received three (3) days after the date of mailing.
24.9 Captions. The respective captions of the sections of this Franchise are inserted for
convenience of reference only and shall not be deemed to modify or otherwise affect in any respect
any of the provisions of this Franchise.
24.10 Remedies Cumulative. Any remedies provided for under the terms of this Franchise
are not intended to be exclusive but shall be cumulative with all other remedies available to the City
at law, in equity or by statute.
Section 25. Severabilitv
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Franchise should be held to be invalid or
ORD # , PAGE 16
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Franchise.
Section 26. Ratification
Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this Franchise is hereby
ratified and affirmed.
Section 27. Effective Date
T'his Franchise shall take effect and be in full force thirty (30) days after its passage and
publication, according to law (see Effective Date below).
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of
2013.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MAYOR, SKII' PRIEST
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK, CAROL MCNEILLY, CMC
ORD # , PAGE 17
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
ACCEPTANCE:
The undersigned hereby accepts all the rights and privileges of the above granted License and
acknowledges that such rights and privileges are subject to and limited by all of the terms, conditions
and obligations contained therein.
DATED this day of , 2013.
By:
Its:
K:\�Franchise�Franchise Form
ORD # , PAGE 18
Map Date: 1/4/2013
Cly� 0� City of Federal Way
� 33325 8th Ave S
Federal Way ZAYO FRANCHSE AREA Federal Way, Wa. 98003
(P)253-835-7000
(W) www.cityoffederalway.com
Exhibit A
Kent
II � �272ndSt �; ' f
II �d`rfd„ f
Des �� �P� ��
Moines' y
�
w �
��A � �
q r � � �
�� � o �. � S 288th St
♦ 9 � z :°- 1
.'. /,,� ►� Q� � l�s � ��
�s � _�
♦
I Qo��tad �
.p S 304th St �
♦/- `��f� ��y > (I
♦ y� L I
s a SW 312th St S 312th St `�' �
• • p�Q 1
� � W D as� /
� SW 320th St SW 320th St S 320th St ,�*
♦ � ■�
y y
♦ y� � Q 3 �
, '�f Q � 2 Federal �\ Auburn
� y y � S 324th St �ay �„
, a ;� �
� �z N Text a � i ,\
North Y � �v�
Sho'e PkW Tacoma ,, � SW Cary�qG S 336th St , I, �
� �'Or ��
r' N y .�.'�I
> y
� ,c > � �
♦ � a
°'' ¢' , °' r 1
� � S 348th St �
L � ♦, ; - � 4� ' �
�
av a �� �I
1 � �
�. SW 356th St
Z , �
T \ �
. C , y�� ��� fn
O , Z` �\7 Q
��� , '� �\�N .L.
� � �` � N
M � Qm ; ��0°'
o a�%e ♦ �� f
'?'�� e�y � �`sZ
5` dPO �� , ♦ .' _ � �' Q,a
,�,�ti`� �a9 � I i � � ,�c� �_
� a � I'` u�i���, � ` �
1 �
CITV OF
� Federal Way
Fifc Edgewood
VICINITY MAP
0 0.5 1
Miles
This map is intended for use
as a graphical representation.
The City of Federal Way makes
no warranty as to its accuracy.
�
N
EXHIBIT B
PERFORMANCE/MAINTENANCE BOND
ORD # , PAGE 20
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
PERFORMANCE BOND FOR
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS:
We, the undersigned Zayo, ("Principal") and ,�e
undersigned corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of and
legally doing business in the State of Washington as a surety ("Surety"), are held and firmly
bound unto the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation, ("City") in the penal
sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($100,000.00) for the payrnent of which we
firmly bind ourselves and our legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, jointly and
severally.
This obligation is entered into pursuant to the statutes of the State of Washington and the
ordinances, regulations, standards and policies of the City, as now existing or hereafter amended
or adopted.
The Principal has entered into an Agreement with the City dated to occupy rights-
of-way of the City of Federal Way, Washington within the specified Franchise Area for the
purposes of installation, operation, maintenance and repair of its Fiber Optic fixtures and related
equipment, cables, accessories and improvements in a portion of the rights-of-way within and
through the City of Federal Way.
NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall perform all the provisions of the Agreement in the
manner and within the time period prescribed by the City, or within such extensions of time as
may be granted under the Agreement, and shall pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors and
material men or women, and all persons who shall supply the Principal or subcontractors with
provisions and supplies for the carrying on of said work, and shall hold the City, their officials,
agents, employees and volunteers harmless from any loss or damage occasioned to any person or
property by reason of any carelessness or negligence on the part of the Principal, or any
subcontractor in the performance of said work, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless
from any damage or expense by reason of failure of performance as specified in the Agreement,
or from defects appearing or developing in the material or workmanship provided or performed
under the Agreement within the period not less than the term of the Agreement.
And the Surety, for value received, hereby further stipulates and agrees that no change, extension
of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed
thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligation on
this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any change, extension of time, alterations or
additions to the terms of the Agreement or to the Work.
Within forty-five (45) days of receiving notice that the Principal has defaulted on all or part of
the terms of the Agreement, the Surety shall make a written commitment to the City that it will
either: (a) cure the default itself within a reasonable time period, or (b) tender to the City, the
amount necessary for the City to remedy the default, including legal fees incurred by the City, or
(c) in the event that Surety's evaluation of the dispute is not complete or in the event the Surety
disputes the City's claim of default, the Surety shall notify the City of its finding and its intent, if
any, to interplead. The Surety shall then fulfill its obligations under this bond, according to the
option it has elected. Should Surety elect option (a) to cure the default, the penal sum of the
Bond shall be reduced in an amount equal to the costs actually incurred by the Surety in curing
the default. If the Surety elects option (b), then upon completion of the necessary work, the City
shall notify the Surety of its actual costs. The City shall return, without interest, any
overpayment made by the Surety and the Surety shall pay to the City any actual costs which
exceed the City estimate, limited to the bond amount. Should the Surety elect option (c), the
Parties shall first complete participation in mediation, described in the below paragraph, prior to
any interplead action.
In the event a dispute should arise between the Parties to this Bond with respect to the City's
declaration of default by the Principal, the Parties agree to participate in at least fow hours of
mediation in accordance with the mediation procedures of United States Arbitration and
Mediation ("USA&M"). The Parties shall proportionately share in the cost of the mediation.
The mediation shall be administered by the Seattle USA&M office, 4300 Two Union Square,
601 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101-2327. The Surety shall not interplead prior to
completion of the mediation.
DATED this day of , 20
COMPANY NAME
By:
(Name of Person Executing Bond)
Its:
(Title)
(Address)
(Phone)
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the
of that executed the foregoing instruxnent, and
acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said limited
liability company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she
was authorized to execute said instrument.
GIVEN my hand and official seal this day of , 20_
(typed/printed name of notary)
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington.
My commission expires
CORPORATE SEAL OF SURETY: SURETY
:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Patricia A. Richardson, City Attorney
Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Power of Attorney)
(Name of Person Executing Bond)
(Address)
(Phone)