LUTC PKT 10-04-1999
"
"
. "
~
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
, October 4, 1999
5:30 pm
:, "
City Hall
Cò.Ullcil Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes)
4.
COMMISSION COMMENT
5.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A
Sensitive Areas Code Amendment
B.
Entering Federal Way Entry Signs
6.
FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
SWManagement/Dept of Ecology Ordinance &
Manual Package
Open Cut of ROW vs Boring
Endangered Species Act Update
7.
ADJOURN
Action
Action
McClung/45 min
Matheson/l 0 min
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Jeanne Burbidge
Mary Gates
City Staff:
Stephen Clifton, Director, Community Development Services
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
253.66].4116
I'LU TRANSIOCT4lUTAWPD
"-
..
September 14, 1999 '
5:30pm " '"
" ',,'
00
0 \~,!;:i ';~o (/;g ~r' Ha 1~:
, ,",'i~::-~' CoúÍîcll ehambers~:
,,::,;:';;~~~!~~\;~;i:;1iio.t<:~:1i;"¡,;: ' ';-':i
',i;,.:V::" ,r"'!
';':";"""¡;,'~~
:,::t,l;1
;";~.. '
"'o',i.
, ::::":, ' :t"
,;;, ','
;" "
".
'"
SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (Chair), Committee Members Jeanne Burbidge and Mary Gates; Council
Member Linda Kochmar; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Assistant City Attorney Bob Sterbank; Deputy Director of
Community Development Services Kathy McClung; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Planning Intern Joel Howitt; Contract
Planner Tim McHarg; Administrative Assistant Sandy Lyle.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30pm by Chairman Phil Watkins.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the September 3, 1999, meeting were approved as presented.
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
4. COMMISSION COMMENT
There was no additional comment from any of the City Commissions.
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Telecommunications Code Amendments - Staff presented information about amendmenis to the
Telecommunications Code to the Committee. Pamela Krueger of Puget Sound Energy, Lisa Verner of AT & T
Wireless and Josh Loon of Airtouch Cellular discussed aspects of the code and the proposed amendments that they
believed were restrictive to new wireless technology, including the Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) devices being
implemented by Puget Sound Energy. The Committee deferred further discussion and action on amendments to the
Telecommunications Code unt1.1 the November 1, 1999, meeting when photographs, charts and maps would be
available in order to view the appearance of Personal Wireless Service Facilities (PWSF) and AMRs when affixed
to poles or towers.
B. Response to Benchmark Questions at September 3. 1999. Meeting - Staff provided the 1999 King County
Benchmark Report Data Worksheets #28, #30, #32, #34, #37, and #45 and the Land Use Indicators Table. This
information was in response to the Committee's request at the September 14, 1999, meeting regarding the City's
progress toward meeting housing targets. King County collects the information from all cities and unincorporated
areas in King County and consolidates them into one table for each indicator. The information is then published in
a yearly Benchmark Report. The Land Use Indicators Table shows the number of residential units for which
building permits were issued by jurisdiction by year (1995-1998) and also shows status of jurisdictions relative to
their 20 year housing targets. The 1999 report is expected to be published by the end of Septembér.
C. Added discussion re: Sign Code - Kathy McClung informed the Committee that the first batch of sign letters have
gone out. Also, in discussions with Ken Miller, it was discovered that some signs are in proposed construction
areas. Since the City would not want to be in a position to pay for a new sign to be replaced, the Committee agreed
to using conformance agreements and extending deadlines to effected businesses, if necessary, to save costs.
D. Added discussion re: policies on road connectivity - Quadrant requested that the land Use Committee review the
City's policies on road connectivity, Quadranchas some concerns about developing their properties where existing
roads (Weyerhaeuser to the north and 20th Avenue South to the south) meet those properties. The Committee
agreed that consideration of the request was more appropriate as a part of the annual Comprehensive Plan
amendments and update process. The deadline for requests for 2000 consideration is September 30, 1999.
3. FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held at 5:30pm in City Council Chambers on Monday October 4, 1999.
7. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50pm.
I:\LU-TRANS\sepI4LUS
.."
..
\
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Land Use and Transportation Committee
Kathy McClung, Deputy Community Development Services Director ~,
TO:
DATE:
September 27, 1999
RE:
Sensitive Areas Ordinance
The October 4, 1999 meeting will continue the recommendation discussion for sensitive areas.
Please add the attached materials to your notebooks.
History of Proposed Ordinance-
1. Planning Commission recommendation completed: December 1997
2. Land Use Committee deliberations: March 2, 16, and April 6, 1998. At the April 6th meeting, the
Committee recommended that a wetland inventory be completed prior to making any final
decisions.
3. Wetland inventory completed the fall and winter of 1998/99.
4. Wetland inventory results reported to LUTC on May 17, 1999.
Attached are letters received since May 17, 1999 on this issue.
1. Letter dated July 26, 1999 from the Department of Fisheries
2. Letter dated August 19, 1999 from the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development (DCTED).
3. Letter dated August 24, 1999 from Wm W MacPhail
The letters from the Department of Fisheries and DCTED both include comments beyond the scope
of what was intended for the sensitive areas code amendment in 1997. I have spoken with staff from
both agencies and explained that since we initially proposed these amendments, we have become
aware of some problems with application of our code, especially as it relates to streams. We are
proposing future amendments be completed in regards to streams and wellhead protection. They are
in agreement that the proposed amendments are a step in the right direction until other changes can
be made.
Also attached is the latest proposed changes to the draft ordinance from Dyanne Sheldon. She is
responding to comments made by the state. The major change she has made is to delete the 2500
square foot exemption for Class 1 wetlands. It is my understanding from her that class 1 wetlands
under 2500 square feet are rare.
STATE OF WJ\SHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
16018MillCreekBoulevard-MillCreek, WJ:ch'ng:on 98012-(425)775-1311 FAX (425j 338-1066
July 26, 1999
Kathy McClung, Deputy Director
Community Development Services
City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Dear Ms. McClung:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Federal Way Sensitìve Areas Ordinance.
The purpose of these comments is to help ensure that this ordinance meets the requirements and
the spirit of the Growth Management Act with regard to protection of fish and wildlife.
Congratulations on the progress you have made in this review process. The Washington
Department ofFish and Wildlife (WDFW) has a number of recommendations to further improve
protection of fish and wildlife in Federal Way, including the following:
.
Wetland protection: Wetlands are a key component of the natural hydrological cycle.
They absorb rain water, filter and purify it, and release it slowly into waterways and
underground aquifers over time. This decreases the frequency and severity of both floods
and dry periods and supplies clean water, along with providing many other benefits to
society. Wetlands are also extremely important to a wide variety of fish and wildlife
species. The proposed buffers to protect wetlands from degradation or destruction are 25
to 200 feet for the three wetland categories in the proposed classification system. While
these buffers meet the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) recommendations for
low-intensity land use areas, you could better protect these valuable habitats by adopting
the DOE recommendations for wetlands in high-intensity land use areas (see table):
State of Washington High-intensity Low-intensity
wetland category land use land use
Category I wetlands 300 feet 200 feet
Category II wetlands 200 feet 100 feet
Category III wetlands 100 feet 50 feet
Category IV wetlands 50 feet 25 feet (~nM~ .
¡\ECEIVED BY
T INITV rFc"/H CVJ~.T\,iT D>:Pt:;-)O Iff
ILli ,~;- Î:-J9q
With these buffers, the city's ordinance will reflect the best available science on wetland
protection in urban areas.
.
Buffer averaging: In this draft, required wetland buffers could be reduced up to 50% in
some circumstances. If given time for recovery, even damaged sites may have much
more potential for regeneration and recovery than is apparent. However, reducing a
buffer by 50% will eliminate the potential for recovery for half of the site. WDFW thus
recommends that if buffer reductions are allowed, a smaller figure be used.
.
Stream buffers: Government agencies at all levels have a responsibility to aid in the
restoration of declining salmon populations. The vegetative buffers protecting streams in
Marysville range from 50 for minor streams to 100 feet for major streams. These buffers
are below those WDFW considers necessary to protect their usefulness to fish and
wildlife, or even to protect against adverse effects to the quality and quantity of water
entering the streams. WDFW has conducted an exhaustive review of the scientific
literature regarding protection of riparian (streamside) habitats, and the buffer
recommendations resulting from this review constitute the best available science on the
subject. They are as follows:
Stream type (DNR water typing system) stream buffer
(feet)
Type 1 or 2 250
Type 3 (5-20 feet wide) 200
Type 3 (less than 5 feet wide) 150
Type 4 or 5 (with low potential for erosion or slope failure) 150
Type 4 or 5 (with high potential for erosion or slope failure) 225
Larger buffers may be required where priority wildlife species
occur.
In light of the strong emphasis that has been placed on protection of these valuable
habitats, WDFW strongly recommends that Federal Way increase its buffers, preferably
to the standards listed above, to accomplish this goal and reflect the best available
SCIence.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment. I hope these comments are taken in the
constructive manner in which they are offered. If you have any questions about these comments,
please feel free to call me at 425-379-2308.
Sincerely,
m~~~
Mark Goldsmith
Habitat Biologist (Priority Habitats and Species/Growth Management)
cc: Ted Muller, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
Millard Deusen, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife
Shane Hope, Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
906 Columbia St. SW . PO Box 48300 . Olympia, Washington 98504-8300 . (360)753-2200
August 19, 1999
The Honorable Ron Gintz
Mayor, City of Federal Way
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003
Dear Mayor Gintz:
Thank you for sending us the draft Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations proposed
for the City of Federal Way. We recognize the substantial investment of time, energy and
resources this document represents. This letter summarizes our comments on your draft
ordinance.
We have included the comments from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology)
with regard to the City of Federal Way's draft Environmentally Sensitive Areas regulations
into this letter. Although the Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED) coordinates the review of comprehensive plans and development
regulations, we rely on the advice of other agencies on some issues, especially in the
review of critical area regulations. Ecology is a good source of advice on how to include
best available science in developing policies and regulations to protect the functions and
values of critical areas as required by RCW 36.70A172(1).
We especially like the following:
DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS
Section 22-1356(c). Drainage Facilities
.
We concur with Ecology that the language in this section is well written in determining
whether specifically stated drainage facilities"... which were designed to impound or
convey water for an engineered purpose..." are not considered regulated wetlands
provided these facilities meet a set of detailed criteria listed in this section,
Section 22-1357. Wetland Classifications and Standard Buffers
.
CTED and Ecology commend the City for the proposed buffer widths. The ordinance
provides that category I and II wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 200 and
100 feet respectively. We encourage adoption of these standards. RECEIVED BY
~mA!li J~'ìV 'JE'/FLOPMENT DEP~RíMF:Nï
'\ ¡ 1(" n ,'"' 1qnn
'-I L . j!(';'i ,.:J ~}
0,....:;f\<--"8
-
t.1
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 2
Section 22-1357.5. Modification of Standard Wetland Buffer
.
The ordinance requires an applicant to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that
proposed buffer averaging would meet certain criteria. These criteria include, but are
not limited to, no effect on the water quality entering a wetland or stream, no adverse
effect on a habitat area within a sensitive area or buffer, and no creation of unstable
earth or erosion hazards,
Section 22-1358(e)(1). Mitigation Plan
.
The City requires mitigation plans to contain the following elements: environmental
goals and objectives, performance standards, detailed construction plans, timing, a
monitoring for a minimum of five years, a contingency plan, and performance bonding
in an amount of 120 percent of the costs of implementing each of the above elements.
We have noted a few concerns, which we recommend you address. They are as follows:
Chapter 22
Section 22-1. Definitions
.
The ordinance states regulated wetlands shall mean those areas greater than 2,500
square feet. Establishing a minimum size for regulating wetlands may be appropriate
for the lower value wetlands, but size alone is not a relevant factor in the determination
of a wetlands functions and values. We recommend there be no minimum size
exemptions for Class I and II wetlands, but that 2,500 square feet may be appropriate
for Class III and IV wetlands only.
Accordingly, we concur with Ecology's recommendation that you delete the exemption
from the City's wetland regulations of "areas defined as a regulated lake" and "Lower
Puget Sound 1 and 51." Ecology notes that vegetated wetlands occur along the
shoreline edge of lakes and require protection under the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA). Similarly, vegetated wetlands along Puget Sound's near shore are critical
habitat for Chinook salmon and should not be exempted by the City from protection
under the City's critical area ordinance.
.
The City's classification of streams into three categories: streams, major stream and
minor stream may create some regulatory confusion. Most jurisdictions apply the
Washington Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) Forest Practice Board's water
typing system for classification of stream types (WAC 222-16-030),
The ordinance provides that for "major streams" where a natural permanent blockage
precludes the upstream movement of anadromous fish shall be regulated to a lesser
buffer standard or 50 feet, and that these streams be categorized as a "stream,"
With this provision, you do not anticipate natural or man-made improvements and
restoration of the upland "major" stream to a normal flow pattern. By not regulating
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 3
land use for currently blocked streams to the higher protective standard provided for
"fish habitat," you would potentially adversely impact the stream's function for water
quality, sediment control, temperature and other habitat needs for anadromous fish.
The City may want to consider omitting this language from the ordinance.
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Section 22-1223, Jurisdiction
.
Ecology notes that the code applies to subject properties depending on the distance
from the regulated feature. You may consider increasing the distance "trigger" to
ensure that adequate buffers are protected. For example, (5) states the code applies if
a subject property is within 25 feet of any regulated lake, There may be a situation in
the City where a wetland associated with a lake extends the boundary of the wetland
more than 25 feet from the edge of the lake. A similar situation may arise when a
200-foot buffer is required on a Class 1 wetland, but the property is outside the 100-
foot limit as stated in (6) under See 22-1223.
Section 22-1244(c)(1). Reasonable Use of the Subject Property
.
The ordinance allows for an applicant to apply for a modification or waiver from the
provisions of this article on a case by case basis based on criteria listed, Language in
the following criteria should be changed, which currently reads: "The application of the
provisions of this article eliminates any profitable use of the subject property"
[emphasis added]. We recommend changing "any profitable" to "all reasonable" to be
consistent with current case law on constitutional takings. Otherwise, the property
owner could argue that any proposed use is a profitable use.
We understand that during the original development of this ordinance the City had been
looking at wetland issues only. Further, we also understand the City had been conducting
a wetland inventory and has not yet conducted a stream inventory but plans to in the
future. We have the following comments on issues that should be addressed when you
amend your Sensitive Areas ordinance to include all pertinent components of a critical
areas ordinance consistent with RCW 36,70A.Q30(5),
DIVISION 4. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS DEVELOPMENT
.
This section of the ordinance offers some good methods for regulating uses within the
geologically hazardous areas, The comprehensive plan also provides some good policy
direction to be met by the development regulations, The ordinance could be
strengthened by providing better integration of comprehensive plan policies with
development regulations,
Comprehensive plan Policies NEP 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 should guide
these regulations. For example, Policy NEP 51 states that, "the City should develop
special regulations that address construction on or near marine bluffs of Puget Sound.
Regulations should take into consideration landslide potential, drainage and vegetation
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 4
removal." Policy NEP52 further states, "proposals for development on or near marine
bluffs should substantiate, either through design or adherence to special development
regulations, that the development has less than a 25 percentage chance of failing by
collapsing, or becoming dangerous and/or uninhabitable due to slope movement within
a 50 year time period,"
Knowledge of the types of soils, the degree of slope, and the general size and depth of
the landslide feature is needed to establish a threshold distance by which a
development permit is required. Of concern is the 25-foot distance on or within the
area where development activities are proposed to occur. This may be an appropriate
distance for some geological areas, but not enough for others. Since slope tops
recede, property owners should not build to the edge of the slope (e.g. within 25 feet).
An appropriate sized buffer zone should be established from the edge of slope to
protect both structures and ~Iope integrity. Additional drainage requirements may be
necessary to ensure stability. The recommended dimensions of the buffer zone should
be determined by the geotechnical analysis conducted by a qualified expert.
DIVISION 5. STREAMS
Section 22-1311. Rehabilitation
.
This section provides the director of Community Development Services with the
discretion to require or not require an applicant to retain the services of a qualified
professional in preparing the restoration plan. The ordinance should list criteria
applicable in making this determination by the director. We would suggest that the
"may" be changed to "shall" to ensure stream rehabilitation projects are designed,
implemented and monitored using professional guidance.
In addition, Ecology has noted this section references maintenance of "inappropriate
vegetation." The City may want to provide a list of species it deems to be
"appropriate. "
.
The stream buffer widths should be increased to provide optimum benefits. The City is
currently proposing 1 00' buffers for "major streams" and 50' for "minor streams" from
"the top of each bank of a major/minor stream," Stream buffers need to be based on
stream type and width and should be delineated from the ordinary high water mark.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has conducted an exhaustive
review of the scientific literature regarding the protection measures necessary to
preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries and wildlife habitat and believes the Priority
Habitat Species Management Recommendations for Riparian Areas represents best
available science. These recommendations include the following stream classifications
and their recommended buffer widths for rivers and streams in western Washington:
Type 1 and 2.............................;....................................250 feet
Type 3 (5-20 feet wide)...................................................200 feet
Type 3 (less than 5 feet wide)..........................................150 feet
Type 4 and 5 (low potential for erosion or slope failure).......150 feet
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 5
Type 4 and 5 (high potential for erosion of slope failure)...225 feet
Larger buffer areas may be required where priority species occur.
We realize that it may not be possible to require buffers of these widths in all cases;
however, these standards can be applied on a case-by-case basis based upon site-
specific and watershed system information, such as identified fish and wildlife habitat
biological needs, site topography, hydrology and other factors,
DIVISION 8. REGULATED WELLHEADS
.
Federal Way's comprehensive plan clearly identifies areas susceptible to ground water
contamination (Policies NEP 1O, 11, 12 and 13). Upon completion of a wellhead
protection program, the City should have corresponding development regulations to
ensure these areas ~re protected. '
We have the following suggestions to strengthen your ordinance:
Section 22-1309. Culverts
.
The City may want to consider adding the following language: "The city will use a
,stream conveyance system, which must have natural stream bed materials in the
bottom to replicate habitat conditions in the natural stream channel. The preferred
conveyance facility is a bottomless arch culvert." Further, "if a artificial bottom culvert
is used, the city recommends an elliptical culvert due to the wider channel bottom."
The City may also want to consider indicating in the ordinance that it retains the option
to consider the use of new water crossing technologies as they emerge.
DIVISION 6, REGULATED LAKES
.
We agree with Ecology that the ordinance should list which lakes are "regulated" as
there are not that many lakes in the City. We were unable to locate any linkage to the
City's Shoreline Master Program. The ordinance should provide this reference for
consistency.
We have also reviewed the comments provided to you by WDFW and encourage the City
to give consideration to WDFW's recommendations.
Congratulations to you and your staff for the good work your draft revisions embody.
If you have any questions or concerns about our comments or any other growth
management issues, please call me at (360) 753-2951, Ike Nwankwo at (360) 586-9118
or Chris Parsons at (360) 664-8809. Additionally, Ecology has expressed its willingness to
work with Federal Way and provide technical assistance regarding sensitive areas. Please
contact Erik C. Stockdale senior wetlands specialist for Ecology's Bellevue office at
(425) 649- 7Q61
The Honorable Ron Gintz
August 19, 1999
Page 6
We extend our continued support to the City of Federal Way in achieving the goals of
growth manage ent.
MJN:lw
cc:
Kathy McClung, Deputy Director, Community Development Services
Erik C. Stockdale, Washington Department of Ecology
Millard S, Deusen, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Don Nauer, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
August 24, 1999
Cathy McClung
Deputy Director
Community Development Services
City of Federal Way
33530 1st Way South
Federal Way, Wa 98003
Dear Ms McClung,
Greg Fewins said that you would be the person that could get the following to the proper commitee which is
considering modification of the recently adopted wetlands issue in Federal Way. I understand thay are
considering adopting an exemption for small "wetlands". I would appreciate if they would take the
following scenario into consideration.
I have owned two building lots in Federal Way for about twenty years, (tax parcel #s 51532000-35, and
51532000-40), We had over the years fenced them in, paid the water and sewer assessment, landscaped
them into a park like setting, and needless to say, paid taxes on them, We had an offer to purchase them
about three months ago (approximately $200,000.), and upon going to the city for the start of a feasibility
study, there was a note in the file of "standing water", (A pond that we built for swans that we had at the
time) This note raised the wetlands issue wruch had to be addressed,
After conferring with Mr Fewins, I agreed to hire wetlands consultants to study the lots: Their indepth
analysis found three relatively small areas that are".. potential wetlands... ". Because of the current stand
the City has on wetlands, the bearucratic maneuvers were overwhelming for the buyers, and they backed out
of the sale. Needless to say, I was perturbed at the loss of the sale.
I submit this to ponder: There is probably not a single lot within 1/2 mile of the sound that could withstand
the analysis of the consultants without finding some".., potential wetlands..." The nature of the soil and
drainage to the sound will make pockets of these areas even if the most maticulously groomed lots, All the
lots around ours with the exception of the one just to the south have been built on, and every one, without
exception has had to address a drainage issue, Adding to the problem on our lot is the fact that the city
drains the entire upper part of Marine View Drive into the lot directly above ours, and during a rain, even a
light rain, the water runs through the city culvert, and cascades into our lots. I had a drainage and retention
area installed at the north end of the lots that was approved by the county before Federal Way was a city,
and regrading my lots would likely remove most of the"", potential wetland..," area, but the note is still in
the file, and with the current stand on the issue, my lots are virtualy not marketable.
If this problem is addressed as Mr Fewins indicated was proposed, that small areas would be exempt, my
problem would be addressed, as well as many others that are in the same predicament. IfI am "ordinanced'
out of the use of my lots, the city will stand a major expense in purchasing same, and I am sure that my
situation is not unique,
I appreciate your time wading this, and I hope I made my point. I urge you to adopt the exemption of small
wetlands from the current ordinance. If I can offer any more insight into this problem, I will be more the
willing to do it. ~
RECEIVED BY,
rl'\~~~~I'~lrìV n::' 'CI ("'\PW::~T Dt:P""PiMEN1
!~UG :3 01999
ATTACHMENT A
DY ANNE SHELDON'S RECOMMENDA nONS
CHAPTER 22
ARTICLE L GENERALLY
Sec. 22-1. Definitions
Regulated wetlands shall mean those wetlands, as described below, which are subject to the
provisions ofthis code ftfeftS greater than 2,500 3éJ.tlMe feet in Mea thltt ttt'e intlntiltted ôr 3attlrltted
6) :5tlrfaee ôr grôtlfld Hitter Itt a ffeqtlene) and timlttion 3tlffieieflt to :5tlPI'HH't, ftfI:d thltt tinder fIOfftlal
e:irel:lm3tftfiee3 tie 3t1pl'ert, a pre. a1enee of . egetlttien 1) l'ieall) atiftl"teti to for life: in 3ltttlrltted 3ôil
eontiition3. \Yetland3 geflerall) ineltlde :5Hamp:5, mM:5he3, 60g3, afld :5imilar area:5. Hith the
exeeption of
Regulated wetlands are classified into the following categories:
(1) Category I wetlands Me greater tßftfI: 2,599 :5éJ.t1Mefeet Ïfl Mea and meet one of the following criteria:
a.
contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as
endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or
contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological
functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat
bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or
unique educational sites; or
b.
c,
have three or more wetland classes~ one of which is open water.
(2) Category II wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area, do not exhibit the characteristics of
Category 1 wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria:
a.
are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances
contain or support a fish population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or
are greater than one acre is size in its. entirety; or
b.
are less than or equalto one. acre in size in its entirety and have two or more wetland classes, with
neither class dominated by non-native invasive species
(3) Category III wetland are greater than 2,500 square feet in area and do not exhibit those characteristics
of Category 1 or 2 wetlands.
The following areas, as shown in the King County Wetlands Inventory Notebook, Volume 3 South, shall
be regulated by the City's Shoreline Master Program, but not regulated by the provisions of this code,
unless vegetated wetlands are present:
c.
(1) Lower Puget Sound Beach;
(2) Lower Puget Sound 1 and 51; and
(3) Areas defined as a regulated lake, by the City's Shoreline Master Program. Vegetated wetlands which
are located around the margins of regulated lakes maybe subject to the provisions of this Chapter.
Altftôtlgk a 3ite 3l'ee:ifie H etland ffl!t) Mt meet the eriteria cle3eribed above, it "¡till be een3iderecl a
re:gtllltteel H etlanel if it i3 mneti6ft611) re1ltteel 16 ftfI:ether ',(etlftfl:cl that meets the eriteria.
Rl."gtilared Wetlands shall mean those areas greater thftfl: 2,500 3éJ.tlare fcet in Mea that are
inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
1
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. .. ith the exeeption of the folio.. ing areag gho dn in the King Co\1nt) Wetlanth
In. enteJl')' Notebðôk, V ðltlffle J Sotlth:
(1) Lo.. er Ptlget So\1na ßefte:h;
(2) Lo.. er Ptlget So\1nel 1 ana 51, ftfia
(3) Are:ag eldinea fig a regtllate:ellake,
The Methoðolog) in the Jftfltlftf) 1989 Federal Man\:lal for Ielentif) ing ana Delineating J\:Ifigaietioftfll
..etlftftag ftfId gtll:m:e¡tlent United Stateg Ami) Corpg of Engineerg reg\:llfttof) gtlielanee ktterg March 1997
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology publication
#96-94) as stipulated in WAC 173-22-080 will be used for leg\:llfttof) delineations of wetlands within the
City.
Stream shall mean a course or route, formed by nature, including those which have been modified
by humans, and generally consisting of a channel with a bed, banks or sides throughout
substantially all its length, along which surface waters naturally and normally flow in draining
from higher to lower elevations. A stream need not contain water vear round. In a developing
setting, streams may run in culverts or ftt'e maybe channeled in a concrete, rock or other artificial
conveyance systems. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals. surface
water runoff facilities or other artificial watercourses unless they are used bv a-l6ettl resident or
migratory fish l'ol'\:Ilfttion or, the feature was constructed to convey natural streams which existed
prior to construction of the watercourse.
Major stream shall mean any stream, and the tributaries to any stream, which contains or
supports, or under normal circumstances contains or supports ffiettl resident or migratory fish
POI'JI:Ilfttion. If there exists a natural permanent blockage on the stream course which precludes the
upstream movement of anadromous fish. then that portion of the stream which is downstream of
the natural permanent blockage shall be regulated as a maior stream.
Minor stream shall mean any stream that does not meet the definition of Major Stream.
ARTICLE XIV
ENVIRONMENT ALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
DIVISION 2. ADMINISTRA nON
Sec. 22-1244, Reasonable use of the subject property.
(b) -An applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of the provisions of this article using process IV;
Exceptthat applications for projects on single family residentialJotsplatted prior to the incorporation
of the City may use process I.
DIVISION 5. STREAMS
Sec. 22-1311. Rehabilitation.
The director of community development may permit or require the an applicant to rehabilitate or maintain a
stream by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, gentiment sediment and inappropriate
invasive, non-native vegetation ftfId b) req\:liring the plftflting of nati. e . egetation. Approval of stream
rehabilitation shall be based on a review ora planco11taining, at a minimum, an analysis of existing conditions,
identification of the source, ifoossible, of the degradation of the stream or riparian zone, proposed corrective
actions, including installation of native species. withinthe riparian corridor, perfonnance standards, monitoring
2
schedule, planting plans, and grading plans as necessary. The director mtty shall require an applicant to retain
the servicesofa qualified professional in preparing the restoration plan. These actions may be permitted or
required at any time that a condition detrimental to water quality, stability of stream banks, degradation of
existing naturally vegetated buffers, or instream habitat exists. Intrusions into regulated steep slopes and
associated setbacks will be allowed for purposes of approved stream rehabilitation projects.
Sec. 22-1312, Intrusions into setbacks.
(c) Other intrusions. Other than as specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the city may approve any
request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within stream setback areas only
through process II, based on the following criteria:
1. It will not adversely affect water quality.
2. It will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area.
3. It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities.
4. It will not lend to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards.
5. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the
city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space or scenic vista.
6. I6is necessary to correct anv one of the adverse conditions specified in subsections (1 )through (5) of
this section.
DIVISION 7. REGULATED WETLANDS
Sec. 22-1356. Determination of wetland and regulated wetland.
(c) Drainage Facilities. Surface water ponds, drainage ditches, and other such facilities which were designed
to impound or convey water for an engineered purpose are not considered regulated wetlands under this article
provided theYO1eetall ofthe following criteria:
(I) The drainage. facility must have been intentionally human created. This is to differentiate
from those wetland sites that .are accidental consequences of development actions, such as
road construction or culvert placement. Such sites may be considered regulated wetlands by
the director upon a review of the ecological functions and values of the site.
(2) The-drainage facility must have been originally constructed on uplands (non-wetland areas).
Ifthedrainage.facility is located within a straightened, channelized, or otherwise disturbed
natural watercourse, it may be considered a regulated wetland by the director upon review of
the ecological functions and values of the site.
(3) The facilitymU,st be actively operated for use as a surface water drainage facility.
, AbandoneddrainagefacHitiesmay be considered regulated wetlands by the director upon a
review of the ecological functions and values of the site.
(4) Wetland conditions have not.expanded beyond the originally constructed drainage facility
boundary. In such a case the expanded area maybe considered a regulated wetland by the
director upon reviewofthe ecological functions and values ofthesite.
(5) The drainage facility was not designed or constructed asa requirement to mitigate previous
wetland impacts.
(6) The director finds that limited ecological functions and values do DOt warrant application of
the City's wetland regulations.
See, 22-1357. Setback al èas. Wetlandeate2ories eIassifieati6fts and standard buffers,
3
(a) Regulated wetlands are classified into the following categories:
(1) Category I wetiandsðrcgre:ttte:r diM 2,500 3qtlflfe feet ill. ftrt:ti Md meet one of the following criteria:
a.
contain the presence of species or documented habitat recognized by state or federal agencies as
endangered, threatened or potentially extirpated plant, fish or animal species; or
contain the presence of plant associations of infrequent occurrence, irreplaceable ecological
functions, or exceptional local significance including but not limited to estuarine systems, peat
bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or
unique educational sites; or
b.
c.
have three or more wetland classes~ one of which is open water.
(2) Category II wetlands are greater than 2,500 square feet in area, do not exhibit the characteristics of
Category 1 wetlands, and meet one of the following criteria:
a.
are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal circumstances
contain or support a fish population, including streams where flow is intermittent; or
are greater than one acre is size in its entirety; or
b.
are less than or equal to one acre in size in its entirety and have two or more wetland classes, with
neither class dominated by non-native invasive species
(3) Category III wetland are greater than 2,500 square feet in area and do not exhibit those characteristics
of Category 1 or2 wetlands.
c.
(b) Standard buffer widths for regulated wetlands are established as follows:
(1) Category I wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 200 feet.
(2) Category II wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 100 feet.
(3) Category III wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 50 feet for wetlands that are greater than
10,000 square feetin area, and shall have a standard buffer width of25 feet for wetlands that are
between 2,50010 10,000 square feet in area.
Sec.
Modification of standard wetland buffer.
(a) Buffer Averaf!inf!. Buffers may be averaged only when the wetland or the..buffer which. is proposed. to be
reducedseftJitiveáreat6be: befferedcontains habitat types which have been so permanently impacted that
reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. The applicant must.
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the proposed buffer averaging
will meet the following criteria:
ReducedbufferswiU not affect the water quality entering a wetland or stream;
Reduced buffers will not adversely affect significant habitat areas within a wetland se:n3iti.c
ftfett or the buffer;
1.
Reduced buffers will not result in unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards;
and
2. ReducedbufferswilI not be detrimental to any other public or private properties,
including the loss of open space or scenic vistas.
In no instances shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50% of the required standard buffer width, unless
the buffer. in existingconditions.hasalreadv been permanentlv eliminated throughorevious legal actions. The
total area contained within the buffer after averaging shall be equal to the area required for standard buffer
4
dimensions.
(b) Reduction of Standard Wetland Buffer Width. The director of community development may reduce the
standard wetland buffer widths by up to 50%, but in no case less than 25 feet, on a case-by-case basis where one
ofthe following conditions can be demonstrated:
1.
existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer exists in a permanently altered
state (e.g. roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) which does not provide
any buffer function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the intrusions are
existing.
except for Category I wetlands, existing conditions are such that the wetland has been
permanently impacted by adjacent development activities, as evidenced by such things as
persistent human alterations or the dominance of nonnative invasive species.
2.
a project on an existing single family lot platted prior to the incorporation of the City, where
imposition ofthe standard buffer would preclude reasonable use of the lot, and the project
includes a buffer enhancement plan, using appropriate native vegetation, which clearly
substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to
provide for additional protection of wetland functions and values.
The director shall have the authority to determine if buffer averaging is warranted on the subject property to
obtain additional buffer area on other portions of the perimeter of the sensitive area.
3.
(c) Buffer Increases. The director shall require increased environmentally sensitive area buffer widths on a
case by case basis when the director determines that a larger buffer is necessary to protect environmentally
sensitive area functions, values or hazards based on site specific conditions. This determination shall be
supported by appropriate documentation showing that additional buffer width is reasonably related to protection
of environmentally sensitive area functions and values, or protection of public health, safety and welfare. Such
determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination shall demonstrate that at least one of
the following factors are met:
There is habitat for. state or federal listed species present within the sensitive area and/or its buffer,
and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat;
There are conditio.nsor features adjacent to the buffer, such as steep slopes or erosion hazard
areas, which over time may pose an additional threat to the viability ofthebuffer and/or the
sensitive area. In suchqircumstances the City may choose to impose those buffers, if any,
associated with the condition or [eature posing the threat in addition to, Or to a maximum,
beyond the buffer required forthesubject sensitive area.
5
¡r~
~~ FlY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 22, 1999
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use & Transportation Committee
FROM:
,~.--~
Derek Matheson, Assistant to the City Manager: \:
SUBJECT:
Federal Way Entry Signs
Baclæ:round:
Earlier this year, a project group from the 1998-99 Advancing Leadership class proposed that the
City install new signs to demarcate the city limits and replace the current "Entering Federal Way"
signs located on 16 arterials. The group presented two designs to the City Council's Finance,
Economic Development & Regional Affairs Committee (FEDRAC). The Committee endorsed
the project in concept and asked staff to work with the Advancing Leadership group to develop
criteria and alternate designs for consideration. The resulting criteria and designs were reviewed
by the community at a forum in July. A preferred design was forwarded to the Arts Commission
with three different variations in text. The attached sign represents the Commission's
recommendation.
At FEDRAC's direction, this item is being brought back to the City Council for final approval.
The signs will be manufactured and installed using existing funds.
Staff Recommendation:
Forward the attached sign to the full City Council for approval.
Attachments:
1. Arts Commission recommended entry sign
2. Entry sign criteria
~
'f
I"
~.
r
~
i
CITY OF t
~': ~a: ,.. C" RFn
~AY
SIGNS FOR CITY ENTRY AND DOWNTOWN
(Revised September 22, 1999)
CRITERIA
.
City Entry Sians Criteria
. Use City Logo (provides City identity continuity)
. Circular sign (Advancing Leadership theme and distinctive)
. Legible (ability to read quickly when drive by)
. Simple and with two font types maximum (easier to read)
. Avoid multiple messages (less confusing and easier to read)
. Messages viable for the long tenD (signs will be up for many years)
. Colors blue, green and white (keep City colors, simplifies, less costly)
PROCESS
.
Sian alternatives evaluation meetina
. Invite people interested in the subject iTom the City Council, Arts Commission,
Chamber of Commerce and Advancing Leadership
Review process to date and costs for City entry sign and for downtown sign
Review and revise criteria above
Detennine alternatives to consider
Vote on sign alternatives (using dots)
Make recommendations to City Council
.
.
.
.
.
.
Arts Commission review
.
LUTC Committee (signs for street right-of-way)
. Review recommendations of committee and costs
. Make recommendations to City Council
.
City Council
. Approve signs and installation
I:\signs.sum