Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Planning Commission PKT 05-20-2015
City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION May 20,2015 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 1,April 15,and May 6,2015 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 6. COMMISSION BUSINESS • PUBLIC HEARING Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update—Proposed Text Amendments to the Federal Way Revised Code,Title 19, Division V, "Critical Areas" • PUBLIC HEARING Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWRC)Periodic Major Update and Citizen-Initiated Requests 7. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS 8. ADJOURN Commissioners City Staff Tom Medhurst, Chair Lawson Bronson, Vice-Chair Isaac Conlen,Planning Manager Hope Elder Wayne Carlson Margaret Clark,Principal Planner Tim O'Neil Sarady Long E. Tina Piety,Administrative Assistant Diana Noble-Gulliford Anthony Murrietta,Alternate 253-835-2601 www.capifederahvay.com K:\Planning Commission\2015\Agenda 05-20-15.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION April 1,2015 City Hall 7:00 8.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present:Tom Medhurst,Lawson Bronson,Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson,Tim O'Neil, Sarady Long,Diana Noble-Gulliford,and Anthony Murrietta. Staff present: Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner Stacey Welsh,Assistant Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant E.Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of March 4,and March 18,2015, were approved as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen introduced the new Community Development Director Michael Morales.The next Planning Commission meeting will be a briefing on the city center chapter of the comprehensive plan on April 15. COMMISSION BUSINESS STUDY SESSION—Proposed Amendments Related to the Regulation of Manufactured Home Parks Senior Planner Welsh delivered the staff presentation.The purpose of this meeting is to introduce the topic and gain comments and input from the community and Commission. Citizens expressed interest to the City Council to create a manufactured home park zone.The City Council placed the issue on the Planning Commission Work Program. The focus of the potential code amendments is consideration of ways to better address the interest of residents of mobile/manufactured home parks. Currently,staff is considering two options: Option#1 (Mayor's Recommendation): Adopt a manufactured home park(MHP)closure chapter in the zoning code that requires a park owner to prepare a relocation report and plan to assist park residents when a park is going to close. Option#2: Adopt a manufactured home park zone that is restrictive in the range of allowed uses(for example,allow an MHP,a detached single-family home,and other minor uses,but no multi-family allowed). K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04-01-15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 1,2015 There are eight MHPs in the city with 1170 spaces(Belmor,Camelot Square,Cedar Creek,Charwood, Parkwood Lane, Crestwood,Highline Park,and Laurelwood Valley). MHPs are allowed in single-family (RS)and multi-family(RM)zones.All existing Federal Way MHPs are located in RM zones. Staff reviewed the codes from over 25 other jurisdictions. Six have an MHP zone,three have closure requirements,but the majority regulates MHPs through other zoning designations and development standards. Staff considered the challenges faced by tenants when a park is closed;that the state will reimburse actual moving costs,but the need is greater that the funds available; and that park owners cannot be required to pay for relocation costs. Staff also considered that if an MI-IP zone was imposed on existing parks,owners may take action to preserve the value of the property,such as raising rent or converting to condominiums. The current state requirements state that the owner will provide a 12-month notice to tenants,post the park entrances,notify the Washington State Department of Commerce,and record the notice with the County Auditor.The Mayor's Recommendation(Option#1)would expand upon this by requiring the owner to obtain approval of a relocation report and plan from the city before they may close the MHP. Only after the approval of the relocation report and plan may the owner proceed with issuing the 12- month closure notice to tenants. Option#2(a new MHP zone)would limit the permitted uses to MHPs and other minor uses.Other uses may be allowed with a Process IV(Hearing Examiner)review.In addition, it would require additional amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning map. Ken Spencer, MHCW—He represents some 500 park owners. He feels some of the comments are inaccurate and requests they be revisited. He is not sure why the city is pursuing this issue if no MHP in the city has closed in the last 25 years and the city is unaware of any that plan to close in the near future.He feels the closure of a park should be borne by everyone in the community,not just the park owner. Ross Rongner—He represents landlords.He feels they are conciensous and present good places to live. Pam Raddysh—She lives in Parkwood Lane. She feels that rezoning to an MHP zone would maintain affordable housing. Only three homeowners in Parkwood Lane own the property in addition to the home. Many would not be able to afford to move if the park was sold.MHPs are hard to find. She presented the Commission with a letter from another owner. Molly Spiedel—She agrees with what Pam Raddysh said.The homeowners are proud of their park and most pay a rental fee. It would cost up to$30,000 to move one of the homes. What would happen if they cannot find a place to move it to?Would they lose their home? Clarence—He also lives in Parkwood Lane. It is a 65 and older park. The finance cost of moving is nothing compared to the mental anguish. Some would not survive the move,and where would they go? Lonnie Wall—He lives in Charwood Park.He stated the city has a severe need for affordable housing and MHPs provide that. Many in community are Latinos and they are afraid to come and express their views. He is also concerned about where affordable housing may be found. We need an MHP zone to protect affordable housing. Ishbel Dickens, National MHO Association—She works with homeowners. She commented that the City Council had directed staff to draft a proposal for an MHP zone that will preserve MHPs and the current proposal should be focused on that. The proposal should focus on protecting residents. She K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04-01.15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 1,2015 feels Option#1 is not in the best interest of the residents. It gives them only a few months to prepare to move,makes it sound like the owner must do a lot,and doesn't address finances.There are few places for the homes to move to and many are not capable of being moved.Option#2 is the only one that gives the residents true protection.There are other jurisdictions with MHP zones.Park owners may raise the rent,but they do so every year anyways. MHPs are the largest source of affordable housing in many areas.Many first-time homeowners and families purchase them. In addition,they are energy efficient. Paul Sherman—He lives in Belmor Park.He has noticed in the last several years many homes have been abandoned.People can't sell their homes due to a lack of value. Some won't meet the code requirements in other parks, and so can't be moved. Mark Sager, Belmor Park Ownership—He went over the background of how this issue started.The Belmor Park owners have no intention of closing the park. They have spoken to the residents and assured them there is no chance the park will close.They have made a deal with the residents that the Park Owners will give a three year notice if they plan to close and will rebate all the rent during that time. The agreement was signed by all the homeowners. They do have 94 vacancies and are in the process of encouraging new owners.Their business is suffering and any rezone would place them in default of their mortgage and it could be called overnight.They are asking the city to not put in place an MHP zone. Karen Pettingell—She lives in Belmor. She feels the word"city"in Option#1 is vague;what exactly is meant by"city"?She does not feel the options are mutually exclusive. She stated that moving a home is likely to damage it.Moving would mean moving costs,set-up costs,and likely damage repair costs.The Belmor Park owners are working to improve the park,but she still wants an MHP zone and supports Option#2. Tony Branson—He is an attorney who represents seven of the eight MHPs in Federal Way. Of the park owners he has spoken to,they do not support an MHP zone.An MHP is a business that is costly to run. Federal Way has a lot of development coming that may bring changes to the character of many of its neighborhoods.The changes may cause the MHPs to lose property value. Many of his clients are retired individuals who do not want their investment pulled out from under them.There are current state regulations that protect homeowners by requiring park owners to notify homeowners if they plan to sell.There are better ways of creating more useful affordable housing than a restrictive MHP zone. He has heard people say it is difficult to find space to move a home,but Belmor has 94 vacancies and he has found others.The cost is only$5,000 to$15,000(average of$7,500)to move a home. Jim Kostohnis—He lives in Belmor Park. He noted that many of the residents have been there a long time.He has noticed they are bringing in many new homes. Christina Dugoni, Charwood Managment—She stated this is a sensitive issue. Affordable housing is a current need. She manages six to seven parks and they are sensitive to the issues. The parks are an investment,not just homes. Option#2 would devalue the MHPs and she feels it would result in a taking because it would cause mortgages to come due. Charwood is a lovely park,but it has many older homes that cannot be moved. If a homeowner abandons their home,the Charwood park owners have to deal with it,even though they do not have the title.They have single-wide lots and it is very difficult to find homes that will fit.They could put a double-wide on two single-wide lots,but that would mean losing money. An MHP is an investment and the owners have been wonderful stewards. Betty Vopela—There is a lot to consider with construction and growth. She feels living in an MHP is a luxury because one has a yard and does not pay as much as a bachelor unit in Seattle. K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04.01.15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 1,2015 Mike Nugent—He lives in Belmor Park and is a past president of the HOA and part of the original request.Many cannot sell their home,they can only move,but they lose it if there is no place to go. He is happy with the agreement with the Belmor Park owners and no longer wants Belmor to be zoned as an MHP.He does however; support an MHP zone for other parks. Some have poor management and few to no amenities. Dave Best—He lives in Belmor Park. Since it has been over 25 years since any MHP has been closed, he doesn't understand why this issue is a priority.It seems more of a non-issue to him.He stated that when he moved into the park he understood he does not own the land. If this goes into effect,he would expect the rent to increase. Ginny Leach—She lives in Kloshe Ilahee. She hears pros and cons for each side. She commented that this is the home she wants to live in for the rest of her life. She doesn't want to live in a SHAG apartment. She feels 12 months would not be enough time to find a new place to live. Her home is unlikely to be moveable. Laura—She lives in Burien and is here on behalf of Highline Park.Her family has owned the park since she was 5 years old and she is turning 50 soon. She has seen many changes over the last 45 years.The burden of maintaining the parks have become more and more on the park owners.They want to provide a place for people to live at a reasonable cost and don't want to raise rents,but have to because of rising costs.One problem is homeowners who abandon their homes because then the park owner has to take on the cost of dealing with the home(back taxes, fire-sale,etc.).It is a great responsibility to own a park and there should be a balance of how issues are dealt with. Commissioner Elder acknowledged the fact that she was at many of the City Council meetings when Belmor Park homeowners brought forth the original proposal. She knows many who do or did live in Belmor. She attempted to help someone move out of the park and wasn't able to find a place they could move to. She has talked to people who have moved their homes and it cost them over$15,000. She stated that she recognizes that there are two sides to this issue and thanked everyone for their comments. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta would like further clarification on what is meant by"help owner move."He asked how much rent is charged and was told most rent is around$500. If a home is abandoned,can the park owner purchase and resell it?Mr. Sager replied that for the most part,abandoned homes have no value. In addition,they are ugly and people don't want to live in a new home next to an ugly old home.They have tried to purchase abandoned homes and renovate them,but haven't been able to sell them. They have also tried renting out homes,but it is not a good experience. Commissioner Carlson asked if staff has had a stakeholders group to discuss the options. Hearing that staff has not,he suggested a stakeholders group be formed.He was pleased to hear the work done by the owners of Belmor to provide more certainty.He doesn't feel all parks need to be zoned MHP. He would like to see specific code language for the options in order to make a more informed decision. What specifically will and will not be allowed. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford stated she is wrestling with this issue and agrees with Commissioner Carlson's comments and suggestions. She feels the options do not address the effect on property owners. The Commission needs to hear more of what park owners will face with the proposals. Does the landlord tenant law apply to park tenants?Assistant City Attorney Orthmann will research this question. Commissioner Long asked about the advantages for Option#1 and concurred the stakeholders group is a good idea. K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04.01.15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 1,2015 Commissioner Bronson commented that Option#1 requires the park owner to have a plan,but there is no timeline for the city's response. He suggests a timeline be included.He would like to be given an idea of the cost to clear the title of an abandoned home,the cost of disposing an abandoned home, and if hazardous materials must be dealt with,the cost of that. There was further discussion about the Commissioners need to have more specific information and the need for a stakeholders group of park and home owners. Staff will seek input from the Mayor regarding the creation of a stakeholders group. Some of the Commissioners would like to attend any stakeholders group that is created in order to better understand the issues. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. K\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04-01-15.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION April 15, 2015 City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Tom Medhurst,Lawson Bronson,Hope Elder, Wayne Carlson,Tim O'Neil, Sarady Long,Diana Noble-Gulliford,and Anthony Murrietta.Commissioner absent: none.City Council present: Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge and Council Member Martin Moore. Staff present: Community Development Director Michael Morales,Planning Manager Isaac Conlen,Principal Planner Margaret Clark, Senior Planner Matt Herrera, City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez,Assistant Attorney Mark Orthmann,and Administrative Assistant E.Tina Piety.Others present: Ilon Logan of Environmental Sciences Associates. CALL TO ORDER Chair Medhurst called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen asked if Commissioner might be available for a meeting on April 29. Administrative Assistant Piety will ask them via email. COMMISSION BUSINESS Study Session—Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code Division V—Critical Areas Senior Planner Herrera delivered that staff report.This is the second part of the study session wherein wetlands,frequently flooded areas and follow-up items will be discussed.The definition of wetland(s)has been updated to reflect the state's definition.The city's existing wetland regulations are upwards of 20 years old.Updated Best Available Science(BAS)documents were published in the mid-2000s and the proposed amendments reflect the updated BAS. In addition,amendments have been made to be consistent with other jurisdictional authorities e.g. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology. The proposed amendments use the Department of Ecology's(DOE)rating system(I, II, III,or IV)for wetlands which are based on their ability to be replaced,sensitivity to disturbance,and how they function. Category I wetlands include bogs,mature/old growth forests,those containing rare plant communities, and the highest functioning wetlands(i.e.water quality and flood storage). Categories II,III, IV wetlands K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04-15.15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 15,2015 are rated on how well they function.The city's current rating system does not consider water quality(or a habitat score), as do the DOE ratings. Wetland buffers will change with the change of ratings and BAS. The city's current categories and buffers are: Category I 200 foot buffer Category II 100 foot buffer Category III 25-50 foot buffer The proposed categories and buffers are: Category I(bogs&rare plants) 190 foot buffer could potentially increase to 225 feet if it scores high for habitat score Category I(forested&high function) 75 foot buffer could potentially increase to 105, 165,or 225 feet depending on the habitat score Category II 75 foot buffer could potentially increase as above Category III 60 foot buffer could potentially increase as above Category IV 40 foot buffer Existing regulations allow up to a 50 percent buffer reduction through buffer averaging,or with a buffer enhancement plan.The proposed edits will limit the buffer reduction and averaging to 25 percent. The proposed change reflects BAS that a more than 25 percent reduction begins to impact the wetland without the appropriate compensation.Direct impacts to wetlands require compensatory mitigation.The proposed required compensation for impacts reflect the DOE rules by ratios as shown on page 4 of the staff report. In addition,staff is proposal alternative mitigation measures.Fee-in-Lieu programs and wetland mitigation banks allow applicants to pay an agency or mitigation bank owner to provide mitigation off- site. Advanced mitigation allows applicants to establish mitigation prior to impacts. Staff is proposing a new section to the city's critical areas regulations for frequently flooded areas.All frequently flooded areas are located along the marine shoreline and regulated by the city's Shoreline Master Program(SMP).The new section cross-references the user to the SMP regulations in the code. Staff proposes the landslide hazard area buffer be increased to 50 feet.This is a standard that many jurisdictions are going to and also the recommendation from the city's geotechnical engineering sub- consultant.The 50-foot standard provides a conservative buffer and may be modified with a geotechnical engineer's recommendation.The applicant may also choose to stay out of the buffer and forego the engineering expense. In response to the Commissioner's request and questions: The Best Available Science bibliography is attached to staff report. The City is not obligated to accept a critical areas report from a Professional Engineer(PE)from another discipline. Constructing a ditch to connect to a fish bearing stream would require approval which the City would likely not provide. Commissioner O'Neil is a real estate agent and commented that his clients have had problems dealing with wetlands.What exactly is meant by"ability to be replaced"?It seems the tests for wetlands(and hence the cost to the client)go on and on,with each jurisdiction requiring a different test. He is concerned delineating wetlands by habitat functions could be cost prohibitive. Senior Planner Herrera replied that some wetlands cannot be replaced and hence,the proposed rating system. Some wetland biologists have commented that the city's current system actually adds costs because they must use our standards for the city permits and then DOE standards for DOE permits.Having the same standards should lead to fewer delineations and cost. K\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04.15-15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 15,2015 Commissioner Elder is concerned about the proposed fee-in-lieu and alternate mitigation measures and the effect they will have. Senior Planner Herrera commented that alternative mitigation measures are intended more for lower category wetlands that will not likely function well. In addition,since wetlands using the traditional methods of mitigation need to be monitored 5 to 10 years to be sure they are functioning;many fail for the lack of monitoring. Commissioner Long is concerned that the funds for the fee-in-lieu mitigation will be used outside of the city limits. Can we require the funds be used within the city limits?Senior Planner Herrera replied that would require an inter-local agreement with King County. The failure rate of traditional mitigation measures is higher than 50 percent. These are lower functioning wetlands and the fee-in-lieu funds would be used to help higher functioning wetlands.That higher functioning wetland may be in Auburn,but while not directly affecting Federal Way,it does affect us in that it affects the Puget Sound area overall. Commissioner Long is concerned over the cost of wetland mitigation, is there a state law that addresses how much of a wetland area must be mitigated. Senior Planner Herrera replied that the new regulations have area ratios and he is not aware of any case law that challenges the current ratios. Commissioner O'Neil asked staff to describe the process if he were to come in with an application that has a'/2 acre wetland on a 3 acre property and wants to mitigate. Staff described the process. A Commissioner had asked what happens if a ditch they dig attracts fish and later becomes fish-bearing. Senior Planner Herrera commented that staff would regulate as a fish-bearing stream. Commissioner Long asked what is size of the smallest wetlands regulated in the city. Senior Planner Herrera stated that the city currently does not regulate those less than 2,500 square feet.Ilon Logan of Environmental Sciences Associates stated they recommend jurisdictions change the regulation to less than 1000 square feet and a 40-foot buffer for smaller wetlands. Commissioner Long asked if there is a time table for King County to spend the fee-in-lieu funds. Senior Planner Herrera commented they will collect funds until they have enough to spend on a project. Chair Medhurst asked in regards to buffer reduction is the 25%a hard and fast amount or could it change. Planning Manager Conlen commented that the state DOE says that lowering the buffer reduction to less than 25%would likely cause a wetland to fail. It would be similar to filling in the wetland,but without compensation. Commissioner O'Neil asked if there is an advantage to a property owner to buy mitigation credits. Senior Planner Herrera replied that the property owner would not have to mitigate the wetland themselves.They would not have to have the wetland monitored for up to 10 years to ensure it survives. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked how does it benefit the city to allow a property owner to bulldoze a wetland in Federal Way and pay to improve one in Auburn. What about the special"bug"that lives in Federal Way? Senior Planner Herrera replied that mitigation is a discretionary permit. It is allowed if the only way to use the property is to impact the wetland.Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked whether the city can just say no. Senior Planner Herrera replied that the city cannot deprive someone the right to reasonably develop their land. K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04.15-15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 15,2015 Briefing—Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWRC)Major Update—Chapter Seven,"City Center" Principal Planner Clark delivered that staff report.Commissioner Long recused himself. The Policy Background has been updated and expanded relative to the goals of the GMA,PSRC VISION 2040's goals,and the Countywide Planning Policies(CWPPs).The proposed changes add an Urban Center Plan, update demographics,update actions and eliminate duplication.Information regarding the Town Center concept has been added.Principal Planner Clark went over the City Center existing conditions and efforts that have been made to stimulate development. The Concept Plan seeks to create: • A compact Urban Center and vibrant center of activity • City Center as social/economic hub • Central gathering place for community • Long-term growth—employment&housing • Housing opportunities close to employment • Environment that supports high-capacity transit(HCT)by locating residents and workers within convenient walking distance of HCT • Reduced dependency on automobiles • Improved auto circulation by completing the proposed street grid and creating smaller blocks • Pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the City Center • A network of public spaces connected to a citywide and regional system of open spaces,parks, and trails • Strategies to protect views such as Mount Rainier,especially for civic uses and public parks Several goals and policies were amended to reflect the city's current vision and plans for City Center revitalization.Per VISION 2040 requirements,goals and policies were added to address reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and managing natural drainage systems. A goal and policy was added for view protection to address build-out of the City Center and protection of views from civic buildings and uses. One e-mail was received from Sam Pace requesting that we add language from the GMA to an existing CWPP. We are unable to amend the county's language;however,we can address the language in our policies. One e-mail was received from JoAnn Milton,Vice President of Park Pals Off-Leash Dog Park, requesting that we add language about a second dog park in the comprehensive plan. I spoke to city Parks Director John Hutton and they may consider this as part of their next parks comprehensive plan update process. Commissioner O'Neil commented that the city has purchased 17 acres in the city center,what does this do to further the end goal.Principal Planner Clark responded that the city is seeking a developer for the site(a Request for Qualifications has been released)who will agree to develop the site in a manner that will meet the city's vision and ideally,spur further development. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked what about traffic mobility?Is the city planning a smaller street grid and do you have something that addresses the current gridlock. In addition,will not additional development negatively affect the gridlock?City Traffic Engineer replied that Chapter 3, "Transportation,"addresses much of this. Managing traffic will become more important as time goes on. In the near term,the city is planning a more robust traffic plan. Our existing service is adequate,but to maintain,we would have to greatly widen 320`'',which given how wide it already is,is not a viable option. Staff is researching alternatives,such as signal timing and freeway access on 324th. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta asked if staff has considered a grade separation on 320`''. Traffic Engineer Perez commented that staff has considered it.A grade separation would be very expensive and historically,the City Council has not supported the idea for financial and aesthetic reasons. K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04.15-15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 15,2015 Council Member Moore commented that the City Council has been working with staff on transportation and traffic issues. We are approaching the three year review of signalization recommended by WSDOT. Traffic patterns are constantly changing, so reviews and updates of signalization must be done to keep the traffic flowing efficiently. Commissioner Bronson commented that the city has no protected views.Director Morales replied that staff will be discussing view corridors in the new future, superficially from the proposed Town Center area.The city has spectacular views of Mt. Rainier from this area that should be protected. Commissioner Carlson commented that other properties near the City Center should be included in the protected view corridors. Planning Manager Conlen commented that view protection is difficult to address;a distinction should be drawn between protecting view from public property as opposed to private property because public property serves everyone. Commissioner Bronson disagrees,as a private owner;my view should also be protected. Alternate Commissioner Murrietta commented that if the intent is to have a downtown more like Bellevue's,then we need to accept that there will be negative factors,such as traffic and blocked views. Director Morales commented that one of our goals is to reduce the percentage of people who leave Federal Way to work.There are a number of policy questions to be debated, such as how we get those mass job creators to come here. Commissioner Noble-Gulliford commented that the street network map matches one done many years ago;when will this map come to fruition and how will we pay for it.Traffic Engineer Perez commented that one difference from the past is the proposal to have 324th cross the freeway. He commented that the city needs to focus on providing grid streets and perhaps bring back the ring-road concept. We need to shift to completing projects.He is unsure where the funds will come from. In the past the city has sought funds from developments,now we have a traffic impact fee. One suggestion is to use the traffic impact fee to create grid streets. Chair Medhurst feels Sam Pace is correct with his request and asked if staff has worked on adding this information.Principal Planner Clark replied that staff will develop the language. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS Director Morales addressed the Commission regarding the stakeholders' process for the manufactured home parks issue. Staff expects this to be a difficult process,with each side standing their ground for either property rights or renter rights.Even so,the purpose is of the stakeholders is to find common ground and report back to the Commission. Staff does not feel it would be appropriate to have decision makers as part of this process.There will be representatives from home owners and park owners. Staff is researching homeowner rates in manufactured home parks. Chair Medhurst commented that Commissioners would like to hear the input even if only as observers and not participants. Director Morales will research this request. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 04-15.15.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PLANNING COMMISSION May 6,2015 City Hall 7:00 ..m. Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson,Hope Elder,Tim O'Neil,and Sarady Long. Commissioner absent:Tom Medhurst,Wayne Carlson,Diana Noble-Gulliford,and Anthony Murrietta(all excused). City Council present: Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge. Staff present: Community Development Director Michael Morales,Planning Manager Isaac Conlen,Principal Planner Margaret Clark,City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez,Assistant Attorney Mark Orthmann, and Administrative Assistant E.Tina Piety. CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Bronson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None AUDIENCE COMMENT None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Planning Manager Conlen announced the next Planning Commission meeting will be on Wednesday,May 20,2015. Business will include two public hearings:critical areas code update and the comprehensive plan updates. The manufactured home park issue's first stakeholders meeting is scheduled for early June.Please let staff know if you want to attend a few weeks in advance so if there is a quorum of Commissioners planning to attend,staff will have time to advertise the meeting,per the Open Meetings Act. COMMISSION BUSINESS Briefing—Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWRC)Citizen-Initiated Requests Principal Planner Clark delivered that staff report.The FWRC requires the city to accept applications for amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan text and map on an annual basis.For this cycle,we have combined the annual update with the 2015 major update.The city received five site-specific requests to change the comprehensive plan designations and zoning,and one request for a text amendment. The Belmor request for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of six acres has been withdrawn. Site-Specific Request#1 (Lee/Princen)is to rezone property from Single-Family Medium Density to Single-Family High Density. Site-Specific Request#2(A&R Development,LLC)is to rezone property from Office Park to Community Business. Site-Specific Request#3 (Hiu Ok Peak)is to rezone property K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 05.06-I5.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 6,2015 from Multiple Family to Community Business. Site-Specific Request#4(32020 Professional Building)is to rezone property from Professional Office to Office Park. The Mayor recommends approval of each of these site-specific requests. The text amendment request(Youngspring LLC)is to allow senior housing,including assisted living and nursing homes, in the Commercial Enterprise zone. The Mayor recommends denial of this request. Commissioner O'Neil asked what development does A&R Development plan.Mr.Frankovich of A&R Development stated they do not have specific development plan at this time, but expect it will be senior housing with mixed-use. They have not had any interest in the property in question,but believe a zoning change will generate interest in senior housing.The Vargas,who have property next to them,are also interested in changing their zoning to Community Business,but did not have the time to meet the deadline for this year's requests. Commissioner Long asked what is the closest senior housing development to the Youngspring property. Principal Planner Clark said she believes it is Mitchell Place. Currently,there is no residential in the Commercial Enterprise zone;there is multi-family residential to the south. Briefing—Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWRC)Major Update Chapter 3,"Transportation" City Traffic Engineer Perez delivered that staff report. Commissioner Long recused himself.The major changes to the chapter include: • Revise the Level of Service(LOS)Standard • Incorporate the adopted Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan • Include Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan • Restructure and update Goals and Policies • Link transportation goals to CIP project prioritization • Update maps and text Traffic Engineer Perez explained how the LOS standard currently works for automobiles,the current status of some intersections,and how LOS will be revised.The Mayor's proposal is to revise the LOS standard for signalized intersections and maintain the current LOS standard for unsignalized intersections. The amended chapter also includes LOS standards for bicycles,pedestrians,and transit. The proposal consolidates 11 goals into 6. It includes 6 new policies to support the goals and meet legislative requirements and eliminates 29 existing policies. Eliminated policies include those where the goal already states the intent,those redundant with the law,those no longer relevant,and those that are unmeasurable. Updated maps and text include: • Revised roadway cross-sections based on: • Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan • Updated LOS standard • Updated traffic forecasts • Updated project and program information • Includes new interchange at South 324th Street Commissioner Elder expressed concern over traffic and the Performing Arts&Conference Center (PACC). Specifically,she is concerned that patrons will not return if they are stuck in traffic the first time they visit the PACC. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with soon. She is concerned traffic could make K:\Planning Commissionl2015\Meeting Summary 05.06-15.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 May 6,2015 or break the PACC.Traffic Engineer Perez commented that he shares her concern. The major project to address this and other development in City Center is the proposed new interchange at South 324th Street Road work is expensive. It can take a long time to acquire funding(we still have not completely funded the Triangle Project). His plan is to start as soon as possible with any environmental work that must be done and then proceed with additional road work in phases. Commissioner O'Neil asked where the city gets its funding for road work. Traffic Engineer Perez replied that the city has been very successful obtaining grants and currently about half of our funding is coming from grants(approximately 20%federal and 30%state).The city's total revenue is approximately 3 million per year and we currently have 200 million worth of TIP projects.The City Council must consider all city projects,not just roadwork,when deciding how the revenue will be spent. Commissioner Bronson asked why the city is considering pursuing access to the freeway at South 324th. It is his understanding that the objection to freeway access at South 312th was its proximity to South 320th. Traffic Engineer Perez responded that objection is a misunderstanding. The objection to South 312th was that for it to work, South 312th would have to be widened through Steel Lake Park. Commissioner Bronson asked if the city has considered making South 320th two levels.Traffic Engineer Perez stated the city has considered it. It would be very expensive(the city would have to purchase additional right-of- way)and not aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Bronson asked if there are national standards for roadway cross-sections.Traffic Engineer Perez responded there are national standards,but they are designed for state highways,not local streets. Staff has taken these standards into consideration when developing the city's cross-sections. Commissioner Bronson asked if the roadway cross-sections have to be in comprehensive plan. It may make more sense to just have them in a different standards guide.Traffic Engineer Perez commented that the roadway cross-sections do not have to be in the comprehensive plan. Commissioner O'Neil asked if the city has considered having street-cars that would service commuters (say taking someone from the Twin Lakes area to the downtown Transit Center).Traffic Engineer Perez commented that the city has not considered street-cars.It would require a lot of research.He feels it would likely not be cost effective. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. K:\Planning Commission\2015\Meeting Summary 05-06.15.doc CITY OF _; Federal ral Way PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13,2015 To: Tom Medhurst—Federal Way Planning Commission Chair FROM: Matthew Herrera,AICP—Senior Planner Isaac Conlen—Planning Manager SUBJECT: Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBITA—Proposed Text Amendments to Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) EXHIBIT B—Public Participation Documents EXHIBIT C—Best Available Science Gap Analysis MEETING DATE: May 20,2015—Public Hearing I. BACKGROUND Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(4),the City of Federal Way is required to review and, if needed,update the Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO)on the same schedule as the comprehensive plan periodic update. These updates typically occur every eight years to ensure the ordinance and plan complies with requirements of the state's Growth Management Act(GMA).The deadline for this round of periodic updates is June 30,2015. The CAO consists of codified development regulations that are located within the zoning and development code.The purpose of the CAO is to protect and regulate the following five critical areas designated in the GMA: • Geologically Hazardous Areas; • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas; • Wetlands; • Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas;and • Frequently Flooded Areas. The City's CAO review and update will ensure the regulations meet Best Available Science(BAS) requirements pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION' A robust public participation plan was implemented for the update to the CAO and its companion document Chapter 9—"Natural Environment,"of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWCP). Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140,cities must provide opportunities for early and continuous public participation in the amendment to development regulations. In addition to the public hearing on May 20, participation methods included: 1. Introductory presentation and open house March 2014—The Community Development Department introduced the update process to the Planning Commission. The commission then hosted an open house with informational boards, large format maps, and staff on-hand to answer questions from the public. 2. Dedicated update page on the City website www.cio,q*deralway.com/criticalareas—This page provides background on the update and has been updated frequently throughout the process with supporting documents,copies of presentations and staff reports, and dates/content for upcoming meetings. 3. Notify me list—This electronic tool on the City website allows interested parties to sign up to receive periodic emails informing them of upcoming meetings and milestones on the update. 4. Online survey—Interested parties participated electronically on a City-sponsored Survey Monkey platform. Survey handout,questions,and responses are attached in Exhibit B. 5. Stakeholder group—The department assembled a stakeholder group consisting of members of the local real estate and developer communities,Master Builder Association,Muckleshoot and Puyallup Tribes,Friends of the Hylebos/Earthcorp,a Twin Lakes resident,and an at-large resident. Each member of the stakeholder group participated in a 30-minute telephone survey.Question and responses are attached in Exhibit B. 6. Informational meeting with City Council Sept 2014—A special public meeting with City Council provided information on the update and progress to-date. 7. Informational meetings with Planning Commission Sept. and Dec. 2014—Public meetings with the commission that provided background summary and progress to-date. 8. Community workshop January 2015—This workshop provided an opportunity for citizens to share their ideas in small breakout groups facilitated by members of the Planning Commission.Participants shared within their small group first and then had a representative report back to the entire audience at the end of the workshop.Notes from the workshop are attached in Exhibit B. 9. Planning Commission study sessions February, March, and April 2015—Three public study sessions to review and solicit comment from the commission and public on proposed edits to Chapter 9— "Natural Environment,"and critical area development regulations. III. CODE RESTRUCTURE In addition to meeting BAS requirements,the proposed update will result in a code structure that is easier to use by reformatting the nine zoning and development code chapters that represent the existing critical areas regulations into one distinct chapter titled Environmentally Critical Areas.This streamlined consolidation will provide a"one-stop shop"for permit applicants and review staff instead of the existing ordinance which is divided into nine separate chapters within the zoning and development code. Also,the existing"Regulated Wellhead"chapter has been moved from the critical areas regulations(as it is not a designated GMA critical area)to the better suited General Development Regulations. Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report May 20,2015 Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update 2 IV. EXISTING CRITICAL AREAS CODE ANALYSIS AND MAYOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES Following a request for qualifications,consulting firm Environmental Science Associates was hired,in part,to assist the City in review of existing codes and policies for BAS compliance.The consulting team, consisting of wetlands and fisheries biologists and geotechnical engineers,prepared a gap analysis matrix (Exhibit C)that identified specific development regulations that lack compliance and need attention. The remaining staff report subsections provide a summary of proposed changes made to the existing regulations attached in the draft ordinance Exhibit A.The following subsections correspond,in order,to each newly created article in Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC),Division V—"Environmentally Critical Areas." V.ARTICLE 1 ADMINISTRATIVE The administrative sections of the critical areas regulations generally apply to all critical areas 1. Unauthorized Alterations and Enforcement—This is a new section that provides guidance to both violators who conduct unpermitted activities and for the city staff charged with gaining compliance. This section provides code enforcement staff the ability to stop all work onsite(authorized and unauthorized)and require the violator to submit a restoration plan that returns the area to its previous state.The section also provides the ability to enforce monetary penalties. 2. Critical Area Report—This new section provides applicants and staff an itemized list of instructions of what needs to be submitted for proposed improvements within critical areas and/or their buffers. Each specific critical area will also have supplemental information that is listed in their respective sections that will be included within the report. 3. Exemptions—This new section provides an itemized list of activities that may occur in critical areas without permission from the Director of Community Development.Examples include:emergency activities;maintenance and repair of public infrastructure;maintenance,repair,remodeling,and additions to structures within the same building footprint;development on existing paved surfaces; recreation, education,and scientific research activities;and hand removal of invasive and noxious vegetation. This is a more extensive list than exists in the current regulations. 4. Partial Exemptions—This new section provides an itemized list of activities that do not require a land use permit but instead require written approval from the director.This allows the city to evaluate certain activities that require rudimentary review without going through a full permitting process. Examples include:public improvements and infrastructure; site reconnaissance for preparing land use applications and building permits;continuation of landscaping and gardening activities that were established prior to City incorporation; demolition of structures;restoration and enhancement;and vegetation maintenance. 5. Mitigation Sequencing—This new section requires applicants to demonstrate that reasonable efforts have been taken to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas.There are six sequencing steps that an applicant must respond to for any proposed alteration in a critical area:(1)avoid the impact; (2) minimize the impact;(3)rectify the impact; (4)reduce or eliminate the impact over time;(5) compensate for the impact;and(6)monitor the mitigation. 6. Mitigation Plan Requirements—This new section provides an itemized list for applicants and staff of requirements a mitigation plan needs to address. The plan will contain sections addressing: existing Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report May 20,2015 Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update 3 conditions and proposed impacts;proposed mitigation action(s);goals and objectives of mitigation;a review of Best Available Science supporting the mitigation; performance standards;detailed construction plans; monitoring program; contingency plan; and financial guarantee. 7. Critical Area Tracts and Designation On-Site Plans—This new section will require subdivisions of land that contain critical areas to place those critical areas in non-buildable tracts.A note on the plat document will identify the critical area(s)and limit any disturbance in the tract without approval from the City. Other developments requiring site plan and/or building permit approval that contain critical areas will be required to identify the critical area and buffer and attach the site plan to a notice on title that will be recorded at the King County Recorder's Office 8. Building Setbacks—This new section will require a five-foot building setback from critical area buffers.The building setback distance is intended to provide adequate room for construction,use,and access without infringing upon the critical area or buffer.Allowable alterations in the five-foot setback are landscaping,building overhangs,and fences and railings. 9. Critical Area Markers, Signs, and Fences—This new section will require applicants to mark boundaries(survey stakes)of critical areas and place signage and fencing along the outer edge of critical area buffers. VI.ARTICLE 2-GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Geologically hazardous areas consist of landslide hazard areas,erosion hazard areas,and seismic hazard areas. 1. Designation—The section now regulates development activities within 50 feet of a potential geologically hazardous area. This was increased from 25 feet per recommendations from the City's geotechnical consultant in order to meet Best Available Science requirements. 2. Landslide Hazards—New protection measures for those areas identified as a landslide hazard area will now have a 50-foot standard buffer. Clarification of how and where the hazard is measured is now provided.The new section also provides an opportunity for an applicant to reduce the width of the buffer or build within the hazard area if a geotechnical engineer can demonstrate the improvement will not lead to or create an increased slide hazard. 3. Erosion and Seismic Hazard Areas—New protection measures do not require a buffer for these areas, but instead require an applicant to obtain geotechnical engineer recommendation on the design of the improvement. 4. Additional Critical Area Report Requirements—This edited section provides clarification of additional geotechnical items that will supplement the critical area report. Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report May 20,2015 Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update 4 VII.ARTICLE 3 FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS Fish and wildlife conservation areas is a new section added to the critical areas regulations.This section is a required element to comply with GMA provisions. Staff has moved the existing streams and regulated lakes codes into this new section as these features are types of fish and wildlife habitat. Staff has also added new protection measures for endangered,threatened,sensitive species,and anadromous fish as mandated by the GMA. 1. Stream Classification and Buffers—New stream classifications replace the city's existing two-tiered major(fish or fish habitat)and minor(no fish and downstream natural blockage)with the state's Department of Natural Resource classification. a. Type F streams are those streams with fish or contain fish habitat and require a 100- foot buffer. b. Type Np streams are perennial non-fish habitat streams and require a 50-foot buffer. c. Type Ns streams are seasonal non-fish habitat streams and require a 35-foot buffer. Buffers remain unchanged for fish habitat and perennial non-fish habitat streams.A new reduced buffer of 35 feet is provided for non-fish habitat streams that are seasonal.The stream definition was edited to exclude ditches that were human created(e.g. irrigation and drainage ditches,grass lined swales,and canals)from regulation unless they are used by fish. 2. Stream Relocations—Relocation criteria has been edited to only allow this activity for public improvements,compensatory mitigation,or restoration projects. 3. Stream Bulkheads—Edits to this section remove the option of hard armoring and replace it with streambank stabilization. This change would only allow soft armoring and bioengineering methods to stabilize streambanks. 4. Culverts—Edits to this section will now require Hearing Examiner approval instead of administrative approval for placing streams in culverts. 5. Stream Crossings—This new section provides guidance for stream crossings which is absent from the existing regulations. 6. Stream Buffer Intrusions—Edits to this section require a stream buffer enhancement plan with any buffer intrusion request.All stream buffer intrusions will be reviewed administratively now instead of the existing requirement of a Hearing Examiner approval. 7. Regulated Lakes—Edits to the lake section allow dredging activities to prevent eutrophication of the lakes with director approval and clarify all lakes less than 20 acres' are regulated lakes. 8. Anadromous Fish Protection—New section provides limitations for development that affect water bodies used by anadromous fish,which are fish that are born in fresh water but spend most of their life at sea and then return to fresh water to spawn. 9. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Protection—New section requires a management plan for any development that would impact endangered,threatened,and sensitive species. Lakes greater than 20 acres in size are considered Shorelines of the State and regulated by the city's Shoreline Master Program. Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report May 20,2015 Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update 5 VIII.ARTICLE 4—WETLANDS'> 1. Identification and Clarification—Proposed adoption of the federal wetland delineation manual(Army Corps of Engineers)and regional supplement for all delineations that take place within the City. The state requires the Army Corps manual for all delineations.An itemized list of requirements is added for wetland delineation reports and codification of the best practice procedure of five-year validity for delineations. 2. Wetland Ratings—Proposed adoption of the 2014 Washington State Wetland Rating System of Category I through IV.Category I wetlands are considered the most valued wetlands and,depending on the particular type,impossible to replace within a lifetime. Category IV wetlands are often heavily disturbed,provide little habitat, and may be replaced. The proposed ratings are based on wetland functions including water quality,flood reduction,habitat value,and their ability to be replaced.The existing City rating system places emphasis on the overall wetland size/type and does not account for habitat value. It was found during consultant review of the existing regulations that the City's wetland rating system is antiquated and no longer meets the BAS requirements.The state rating system has already gone through a peer and public review process and the Department of Ecology has stated in the rating system document that it meets the needs of the BAS requirement under the GMA. 3. Alternative Mitigation—New options for offsite mitigation have been proposed.Alternatives include paying into a fee-in-lieu program or mitigation bank for impacts.Applicants that pay for offsite mitigation within a state and federally approved program would pay a fee that coincides with the wetland impact they are proposing and then the applicant is finished with their obligation.No future monitoring or obligation by the applicant would be required post-payment. 4. Wetland Buffer Impacts—Proposed amendments would allow these activities within wetland buffers with director's written approval and no formal land use permit: a. Trails; b. Stormwater dispersion and bioswales; and c. Encroachments when the buffer is already permanently impacted. 5. Small Isolated Wetlands—Existing regulations do not regulate wetlands that are 2,500 square feet or less.The State Department of Ecology no longer finds this an acceptable standard under BAS and the existing language exempting such wetlands has been removed. To mitigate this change,a proposed amendment has been added that no buffer will be required for wetlands that are 1,000 square feet or less. 6. Wetland Buffer Reductions—Opportunities for buffer reductions and averaging remain but the proposed amendments would limit reductions to no more than 25 percent of the width of the buffer. The existing regulations allow reductions of up to 50 percent.This limitation reflects BAS that concludes the reduction of buffers by more than 25 percent causes degradation of wetland functions without the appropriate compensation for the impacts. The proposed amendments also provide a list of requirements for the buffer enhancement plan needed for buffer reduction proposals which is lacking in the existing regulations. Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report May 20,2015 Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update 6 7. Wetland and Buffer Boundaries—A proposed addition to the regulations would clarify that boundaries of wetlands and buffers that are within tracts,easements,or shown on an approved site plan will remain intact regardless of future regulatory changes or natural migration. 8. Wetland Buffer Increases—Proposed amendments clarify when the director is permitted to require additional buffer width on a case-by-case basis for life safety and/or endangered species protection. 9. Wetland Definition—The proposed updated definition coincides with the GMA mandated definition of wetlands. 10. Wetland Mitigation—New standards that reflect State Department of Ecology mitigation rules are proposed.These rules would be administered if an applicant proposes to impact a wetland.Rules include ratios for creation,re-establishment,rehabilitation,and enhancement for impacts to wetlands. Also,the itemized list of items that must be provided within the mitigation plan have been amended. The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of existing mitigation ratios and proposed ratios.The first number specifies the acreage of required wetland mitigation and the second specifies the acreage of wetland impacted Existing Mitigation Ratios Proposed Mitigation Ratios Wetland Creation Enhancement Wetland Creation or Rehabilitation Enhancement Category and and Category and Re- Type Restoration Tyne Establishment Category I 6:1 12:1 Category I: Not Case-by- Case-by- (all types) High considered case case Conservation possible Value and Bogs Category I 6:1 12:1 24:1 Mature and Old Growth Forest Category I: 4:1 8:1 16:1 Based on Functions Category II Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Forested 3:1 6:1 Scrub/Shrub 2:1 4:1 Emergent 2:1 4:1 Category III Category III 2:1 4:1 8:1 Forested 2:1 4:1 Scrub/Shrub 1.5:1 3:1 Emergent 1.25:1 2.5:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report May 20,2015 Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update 7 11. Wetland Buffers—The buffer widths for the newly proposed wetland rating system are proposed to be modified. The proposed buffer widths reflect guidance from the State Department of Ecology for wetlands within Western Washington urban areas.The City's existing buffer widths do not consider the quality of habitat a wetland provides which is a BAS gap that the City's consultant team identified during review of the existing regulations.The proposed buffers include habitat rating scores associated with the State Department of Ecology's wetland rating manual. The tables below provide a comparison of existing buffer widths and proposed buffer widths recommended by Ecology. Existing Buffer Mdiths; Proposed BuffeWdths ",...F . Wetland Buffer Wetland Minimum Buffer Buffer Buffer Category Width Category Buffer Width w/ Width w/ Width w/ Width 5 Habitat 6-7 8-9 Points Habitat Habitat Points Points Category I 200ft Category I: 190ft 190ft 190ft 225ft Bogs and Wetlands of High Conservation Value Category I: 75ft 105ft 165ft 225ft Forested and Based on Function Score Category II 100ft Category II 75ft 105ft 165ft 225ft Category III 50ft(25ft if Category III 60ft 105ft 165ft 225ft wetland is under 10,000 square ft) Category IV 40ft 40ft 40ft 40ft IX.ARTICLE 5-CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS Critical aquifer recharge areas are six month, one year,five year,and ten year capture zones. Capture zones are based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to the City's public water source wells. No substantive edits were needed in this section.Edits clarify terminology and designation of capture zones. X.ARTICLE 6--FREQUENTLY FLOODED AREAS The state requires local Critical Areas Ordinances to include references to all five of the specified critical areas within their respective regulations,whether they occur or not.The City's frequently flooded areas are mapped in areas under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program along the Puget Sound shoreline and are not regulated under the CAO. The City is not proposing to update the Shoreline Master Program. Instead,we are proposing language in the critical areas regulations that will cross-reference to the shoreline regulations. Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report May 20,2015 Critical Areas Ordinance Periodic Update 8 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 19.05.070 G definitions. "Geologically hazardous areas" means areas which because of their susceptibility to erosion, landsliding, seismic or other geological events are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns. require specific studies to determine appropriate buffers or property use. Geologically hazardous areas include the following areas: (1) "Erosion hazard areas" are those areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service as having a moderate to severe. severe to or very severe rill and inter-rill erosion hazard_ due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow. This includes, but is not limited to, the following group of soils when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: Alderwood-Kitsap (AkF), Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (AgD), Kitsap silt loam (KpD), Everett (EvD), and Indianola (InD). Erosion hazards are also those areas impacted by shore land and/or stream bank erosion. (2) "Landslide hazard areas" are those areas potentially subject to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including, but not limited to, the following areas: (a)Any area with a combination of: (i) Slopes greater than 15 percent; (ii) Permeable sediment, predominately sand and gravel, overlying relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock,typically silt and clay; and (iii) Springs or groundwater seepage. (b) Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years ago to the present, or which is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. (c) Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion or undercutting by wave action. (d) Any area located in a ravine or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or flooding. (e) Those areas identified by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service as having a severe limitation for building site development. (4) (e) Those areas mapped as Class U (unstable), UOS (unstable old slides), and URS (unstable recent slides)by the Department of Ecology.'s Coastal Zone Atlas. (f) Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthflows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides on maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey or Washington State Department of Natural Resources. (g) Slopes having gradients greater than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic shaking. (h) Any area with slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and is measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. (3) "Seismic hazard areas" are those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table. (1) "Steep slope hazard areas" are those areas with a slope of 10 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet, a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top, and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief. 10 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 1. The following definitions are proposed to be removed, amended or added: 14.05.030 Definitions. areas as: _ ..• - - - - - - - - - .-- - • - - • • . . (5)Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish (9)Stfeams, e „ .. e. - 19.05.020 B definitions. "Best available science" means current scientific information used in the process to designate, protect, or restore critical areas, that is derived from a valid scientific process as defined by WAC 365-195-900 through 925. "Buffer" means an area that is contiguous to and protects a critical area which is required for the continued maintenance, functioning, and/or structural stability of a critical area. 19.05.060 F definitions. "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas" means those areas necessary for maintaining species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that isolated subpopulations are created as designated by WAC 365-190-130. These areas include: (1)Areas where endangered,threatened, and sensitive species have primary association; (2) Habitats and species of local importance, as determined locally; 13) Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; (4) Kelp and eelgrass beds, herring, smelt, and other forage fish spawning areas; (5) Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; (6) Waters of the state; (7) Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; and (8) State natural area preserves, natural resource conservation areas, and state wildlife areas. 9 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge, including experience with landslide evaluation. Q definitions: A • • . ,, . . criteria: (2) Has sufficient education and experience in geology and hydrogcology as may ho "Qualified professional" means a person with experience and training in the pertinent scientific discipline, and who is a qualified scientific expert with expertise appropriate for the relevant critical area subject in accordance with WAC 365-195-905(4). A qualified professional must have obtained a B.S. or B.A. or equivalent degree in biology,engineering, environmental studies, fisheries, geomorphology, or related field, and two years of related work experience. (1) A qualified professional for habitats or wetlands must have a degree in biology and professional experience related to the subject species. (2) A qualified professional for a geological hazard must be a professional engineer or engineering geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. (3) A qualified professional for critical aquifer recharge areas means a hydrogeologist, geologists geotechnical engineer, or other scientist with experience in hydrogeologic assessments. 19.05.180 R definitions. "Regulated lakes"means lakes that are less than twenty acres in size which are not regulated as shorelines if the state.Wetlands Nos. 8 21 1 26, 7 21 1 71, 11 21 3 9, 11 21 3 2, 14 21 3 5, 13 21 3 12, 9 21 1 38, 17 21 1 55, 20 21 1 57, and 20 21 1 61 as shown in the June 19, 1999, city - -- - . . - - •- - -.. , - --. Vegetated areas which are located in and around the margins of regulated lakes and fall under FWRC 19.175.020. shall comply with wetland regulations. 19.05.190 S definitions. "Stream" means 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 year-round. In a development, streams may run in culverts or may be channeled in a concrete, rock or other artificial conveyance system. - - . .- _ .._ •- •_ . _ _ , . •• . _ :_ feature was constructed to convey a natural stream which existed prior to construction of the Those topographic features that resemble streams but have no defined channels shall be considered streams when hydrologic and hydraulic analyses done pursuant to a development proposal predict formation of a defined channel after development. For the purpose 11 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments of defining the following categories of streams, normal rainfall is rainfall that is at or near the mean of the accumulated annual rainfall record, based upon the water year for King County as recorded at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. (1) Streams shall be classified according to the following criteria: (a) Type F streams are those streams that are used by fish or have the potential to support fish. (b) Type Np streams which are perennial during a year of normal rainfall and do not have the potential to be used by fish. Type Np streams include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel below the uppermost point of perennial flow. If the uppermost point of perennial flow cannot be identified with simple, nontechnical observations, then the point of perennial flow should be determined using the best professional judgment of a qualified professional. (c) Type Ns streams which are seasonal or ephemeral during a year of normal rainfall and do not have the potential to be used by fish. c2) For the purposes of this definition, "used by fish" and "potential to support fish" is presumed for: (a) Streams where naturally reoccurring use by fish has been documented by a government agency; or (b) Streams that are fish passable, as determined by a qualified professional based on review of stream flow, gradient and barriers and criteria for fish passability established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; (3) Ditches. Ditches are artificial drainage features created in uplands through purposeful human action, such as irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, and canals. Purposeful creation must be demonstrated through documentation, photographs, statements and/or other evidence. Ditches are excluded from regulation as streams, unless they are used by fish. "Streambank stabilization" means treatments used to stabilize and protect banks of streams from erosion. 19.05.230 W definitions. "Wetland"or "Wetlands"means these areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990,that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands. 12 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 2. The following Chapter 19.30 nonconforming citation is edited to reflect changes to Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (Housekeeping): 19.30.170 Special provisions for critical aquifer recharge areas fl eetion-areas: The provisions of this section will be followed regardless of any conflicting regulations of this chapter. Any regulations of this chapter which do not conflict with the provisions of this section are unaffected by this section. • :.- _ . _ _ .. _• . _ ' . -• review under FWRC Title 14, Environmental Policy, and Title 15, Shoreline Management. If a nonconformance must be corrected to comply with Chapter 19.18545 Article V FWRC, the applicant must, as part of the application for the development permit, submit all information that the city reasonably needs to review the correction. In addition, the city will not issue a land use approval or building permit until the correction is made. (1) A nonconforming use as defined in FWRC 19.185.040 19.145.480 may be continued unless the thresholds of FWRC 19.30.080 are reached, in which case it shall be terminated. (2) Regardless of the thresholds in FWRC 19.30.090, any use, applying for a development permit within Wellhead Capture Zones six months., 4-one year, 2 five year, or 3 ten year, must be brought into compliance with the protection measures specified in FWRC 19.185.060 19.145.500. 13 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 3. The following Chapter 19.105 General Development Regulations is amended to add regulated wellhead that was formally located within critical area regulations Chapter 19.180: Chapter 19.105 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Sections: 19.105.010 Building site. 19.105.020 Essential public facilities. 19.105.030 Lighting regulation. 19.105.040 Regulation of work hours. 19.105.050 Group homes. 19.105.060 Social service transitional housing. 19.105.070 Family day care. 19.105.080 Adult family homes. 19.105.090 Regulated wellhead 19.105.090 Regulated wellhead. Any well constructed after March 1, 1990, must comply with the siting criteria of Chapter 173- 160 WAC. Any improvement or use on the subject property erected or engaged in after March 1, 1990, must comply with the requirements in Chapter 173-160 WAC regarding separation of wells from sources of pollution. 14 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 4. The following Chapter 19.145 Environmentally Critical Areas is amended and adds new articles and sections. Existing Chapters 19.150; 19.155; 19.160; 19.165; 19.170;19.175; and 19.185 are now consolidated into this chapter. Chapter 19.145 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS Article I. Administrative Sections: 19.145.010 Purpose. 19.145.015 Administration. 19.145.020 Applicable provisions. 19.145.030 Jurisdiction. 19.145.040 e -- . . . • . '. • - -. Relationship to other jurisdictions 19.145.050 Liability. 19.145.060 Unauthorized alterations and enforcement. 19.145.070 Maps and inventories. 19.145.080 Critical area report. 19.145.090 Reasonable use of the subject property. 19.145.100 Bonds. 19.145.110 Exemptions. 19.145.120 Partial Exemptions. 19.145.130 Mitigation sequencing. 19.145.140 Mitigation plan requirements. 19.145.150 Critical area tracts and designation on site plans. 19.145.160 Building setbacks. 19.145.170 Notice on title. 19.145.180 Critical area markers, signs, and fences. 19.145.190 Physical barriers. 19.145.200 Time limitation. 19.145.210 Other requirements. Article II. Geologically Hazardous Areas 19.145.220 Applicability and designation. 19.145.230 Landslide hazard areas protection measures. 19.145.240 Erosion and seismic hazard areas protection measures. 19.145.250 Additional report requirements—Geologically hazardous areas. Article III. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 19.145.260 Applicability, designation, and classification. 19.145.270 Stream buffers. 15 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 19.145.280 Stream relocation. 19.145.290 Stream stabilization. 19.145.300 Culverts. 19.145.310 Removal of streams from culverts. 19.145.320 Stream crossings. 19.145.330 Intrusion into stream buffers. 19.145.340 Requirements for clearing and grading. 19.145.350 Regulated lake buffers. 19.145.360 Development waterward of the ordinary high water mark of regulated lakes. 19.145.370 Development within regulated lake buffers. 19.145.380 Regulated lake bulkheads. 19.145.390 Anadromous fish protection measures. 19.145.400 Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species protection measures. Article IV. Wetlands 19.145.410 Wetland identification and delineation. 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers. 19.145.430 Development within wetlands. 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers. Article V. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 19.145.450 Designation. 19.145.460 Classification of capture zones. 19.145.470 General requirements. 19.145.480 Prohibited development in six months and one year capture zones. 19.145.490 Development within critical aquifer recharge areas. 19.145.500 Capture zone protection measures. 19.145.510 Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in critical aquifer recharge areas. Article VI. Frequently Flooded Areas 19.145.520 Frequently flooded areas. 19.145.010 Purpose. The purpose of this division is to protect the environment, human life, and property from harm and degradation. This is to be achieved by precluding or limiting development in areas where development poses serious or special hazards; by preserving and protecting the quality of drinking water; and by preserving important ecological areas such as steep slopes, streams, lakes and wetlands. The public purposes to be achieved by this division include protection of water quality, groundwater recharge, shoreline stabilization, stream flow maintenance, stability of slope areas, wildlife and fisheries habitat maintenance, protection of human life and property and maintenance of natural stormwater storage and filter systems. 16 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 19.145.030 Jurisdiction. (1) Contains or is within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area; (2) Contains or is within 100 feet of a wellhead; (3)Contains or is within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a major stream; (1) Contains or is within 50 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a minor stream; (5)Contains or is within 25 feet of any regulated lake; (7) Is located within a critical recharge area or a wellhead protection area(one , five , or 10 year (1) The city shall regulate all uses, activities, and development within critical areas and the corresponding buffer and setback. (2) Critical areas regulated by the city include the following areas and their corresponding buffers: (a) Geologically hazardous areas; (b) Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (c) Wetlands; (d) Critical aquifer recharge areas; and (e) Frequently flooded areas. 19.145.040 . Relationship to other regulations. under any other applicable law, nor in any way decreases the responsibility of the applicant to comply with all other applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations. (1)These critical areas regulations shall apply as an overlay and in addition to zoning and other regulations adopted by the city. (2) When any provision of this title or any existing regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflicts with regulations in this division,the regulations which provide greater protection to the critical areas shall apply. (3) Compliance with the provisions of this division does not constitute compliance with other federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements that may be required. The applicant is responsible for complying with these requirements, apart from the process established in this division. 19.145.050 Liability. (1) The city is not liable for any damage resulting from development activities within critical areas. Prior to issuance of any building permits . •= .= •• = :. -•• -'• , use process, or subdivision approval, the applicant may be required to enter into an agreement with the city, in a form acceptable to the city attorney, releasing and indemnifying the city from and for any damage or liability resulting from any development activity on the subject property which is related to the physical condition of the --. ..:, • :. , -_ . -. . - . - . -wetland critical area. This agreement shall be recorded in with the King eCounty Recorder's Office;at the applicant's expense;and shall run with the property. 17 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (2) The city may also require the applicant to obtain insurance coverage for damage to city or private property and/or city liability related to any such development activity. 19.145.015 Administration. Except as otherwise established in this division, if a proposed development activity requires city approval, this division will be implemented and enforced as part of that process. 19.145.060 Unauthorized alterations and enforcement. (1) When a critical area or its buffer has been altered in violation of this division, all ongoing development work shall stop and the critical area shall be restored. The city shall have the authority to issue a stop work order to cease all ongoing development work, and order restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement measures at the owner's or violator's expense to compensate for violation of provisions of this division. (2)Restoration plan. All development work shall remain stopped until a restoration plan is prepared at the expense of the owner or violator and approved by the city. The plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional using the best available science and shall describe how the actions proposed meet the minimum requirements described in subsections(a) and(b). The director may, at the owner or violator's expense, seek expert advice in determining the adequacy of the plan. Inadequate plans shall be returned to the owner or violator for revision and resubmittal. (a) For alterations to critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of a critical area. These standards may be modified if the owner or violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained: (i) The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions:, (ii)The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; (iii) The critical area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration: and (iv) Information demonstrating compliance with FWRC 19.145.140 (Mitigation plan requirements) shall be submitted to the director. (b)For alterations to frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas,the following minimum performance standards shall be met for the restoration of critical area. These standards may be modified if the owner or violator can demonstrate that greater functional and habitat values can be obtained: (i) The hazard shall be reduced to a level equal to, or less than,the pre-development hazard: (ii)Any risk of personal injury resulting from the alteration shall be eliminated or minimized; and (iii) The hazard area and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation sufficient to minimize the hazard. (3)Site investigations. Site investigations necessary to enforce this division are authorized pursuant to FWRC 7.03.070. (4)Penalties.Any development carried out contrary to the provisions of this division shall constitute a public nuisance and subject to provisions of FWRC Chapter 7.03. 18 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 19.145.070 Maps and inventories. 0) Critical areas maps and inventories generally designate the location of critical areas within the city and are adopted by reference. (2) Area-wide inventories and documents identifying critical areas may not identify all critical areas designated under this section. Whether mapped or not,the provisions of this division will apply to all designated critical areas located within the city. Whenever there is evidence of a critical area located within or in proximity to a nonexempt action, the director may require a critical area report to determine the extent such critical area may exist. (3) Critical area maps and inventories are to be used for planning level purposes only and the actual presence/absence, type, extent, and boundaries of critical areas shall be identified in the field by a qualified professional according to the procedures, definitions, and criteria established in this division. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location and designation shown on the city's map and the criteria or standards of this division, the criteria and standards shall prevail. (4) The following maps and inventories, as amended, are used for identifying possible critical areas and their buffers. Additional state and federal maps and inventories may be used if necessary: (a) Federal Way critical areas map; (b) Lakehaven Utility District capture zone map; (c) Federal Way final wetland inventory report Sheldon and Associates, Inc. July 19, 1999; (d) Preliminary stream inventory, Federal Way gap analysis,November 29, 2001; and (e) Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife priority habitat and species maps. 19.145.080 Critical area report. (1)Unless waived or modified by the director in accordance with subsection (4), an applicant proposing activities where impacts or alteration of a critical area or its associated buffer and/or setback shall submit a critical areas report that adequately evaluates the proposal and probable impacts. (2)The critical area report shall be prepared by a qualified professional, incorporate best available science, and include the following items: (a) The name and contact information of the applicant, a description of the proposal, and identification of the type of approval (use process, subdivision, building permit)requested; (b) Vicinity map; (c)The dates, names, and qualifications of the persons preparing the report and documentation of any reconnaissance onsite; (d) A scaled site plan depicting critical areas, buffers, setbacks, and proposed improvements; (e) Photographs of the site and critical areas; (f) Identification and characterization of all critical areas adjacent to the proposed improvements; (g)A description of efforts made to apply mitigation sequencing pursuant to FWRC 19.145.130 to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to critical areas; (h)A copy of the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application(JARPA) if applicable; (i)Additional information required for the individual critical area; and (j)Any additional information determined by the director to adequately review the proposed activity. (3) Critical area reports may be reviewed by the city's third party consultant at the applicant's expense. 19 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 14) The critical area report may be waived or modified if the director determines: (a) There will be no alteration of the critical area or buffer; or (b)The applicant cannot obtain permission to access off-site critical areas or buffers. 19.145.090 Reasonable use of the subject property. (1)The provisions of this section establish a mechanism whereby the provisions of this division may be modified or waived on a case-by-case basis if their implementation would deprive an applicant of all reasonable use of the subject property. (2) An applicant may apply for a modification or waiver of the provisions of this division using process IV; except,that applications for projects on single-family residential lots may use process III. (3)The city may approve a modification or waiver of the requirements of this division on a case- by-case basis based on the following criteria: (a)The application of the provisions of this division eliminates all reasonable use of the subject property., (b)No feasible and reasonable onsite alternative to the proposal is possible such as changes to site layout and/or reduction of impervious improvements:, (c) It is solely the implementation of this division, and not other factors,that preclude all reasonable use of the subject property; (d)The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition that forms the limitation on the use of the subject property, nor in any way contributed to such limitation; and (e)The waiver or modification will not lead to, create nor significantly increase the risk of injury or death to any person or damage to improvements on or off the subject property. (4) If the city grants a request under this section, it shall grant the minimum necessary to provide the applicant with some reasonable use of the subject property, considering the factors described in subsections(3)(a)through (e) of this section. Any approval or waiver of requirements shall result in the minimum possible impacts to the function and values and/or risks associated with proposed improvements on affected critical areas. The city may impose limitations, mitigation under an approved mitigation plan, conditions and/or restrictions it considers appropriate to reduce or eliminate any undesirable effects or adverse impacts of granting a request under this section. 19.145.100 Bonds. The city may require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure compliance with any aspect of this division. 19.145.110 Exemptions. The following activities and developments are exempt from the provisions of this division and do not require approval from the director. All exempted activities shall use reasonable methods to avoid potential impacts to critical areas. An exemption from this division is not an endorsement to degrade a critical area or ignore risk from natural hazards. (1) Activities and development in response to emergencies that, in the opinion of the director, threaten public health, safety or welfare; or that pose an immediate risk of damage to property and that require remedial or preventative action in a timeframe too short to allow for compliance with the requirements of this division. The director will determine what, if any, mitigation shall be required to protect health, safety, welfare, and environment and to repair any resource damage. 20 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments g)Operation, maintenance, or repair of existing public improvements, utilities, public or private roads, parks,trails, or drainage systems if the activity does not further alter or increase impact to, or encroach further within,the critical area or buffer and there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the proposed operation, maintenance, or repair, and no new clearing of native vegetation beyond routine pruning. (3) Development involving or near artificially created wetlands or streams intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including but not limited to grass lined swales, irrigation and drainage ditches, detention facilities, and landscape features, except wetlands, streams, or swales created as mitigation or that provide habitat for salmonids. (4)Normal maintenance and repair, reconstruction or remodeling, and additions to existing structures that do not increase the previously approved building footprint. (5) Development within the footprint of existing paved surfaces that were previously approved. (6) Recreation, education, and scientific research activities. (7) Removal by hand of invasive and noxious vegetation. Removal by hand does not include using mechanical equipment or the use of herbicides. 19.145.120 Partial exemptions. The following activities are partial exemptions to the provisions of this division and require written approval from the director. (1)Essential public facilities,public utilities and other public improvements. The director may permit the placement of an essential public facility,public utility or other public improvements in a critical area if no practical alternative with less impact on the critical area(s) exist.The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the critical area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility and not pose and unreasonable threat to the health, safety, or welfare on or off the subject property. The intrusion shall attempt to protect and mitigate impacts to the critical area function and values. The "Public utility and other public improvements" shall not include improvements whose primary purpose is to benefit a private development, including without limitation interior roads or privately owned detention facilities installed within or during the construction of a residential subdivision, binding site plan, or other commercial development.The director may require supporting documentation to demonstrate compliance with partial exemption. (2) Site reconnaissance necessary for preparing land use or building permit applications.Any disturbance of the critical area shall be the minimum necessary to conduct the site reconnaissance and the area shall be restored to its previous condition immediately. (3)Normal maintenance and continuation of existing landscaping and gardens that were legally established prior to city incorporation. This partial exemption shall be documented by photographs, statements, and/or other evidence provided by the applicant. (4)Demolition of structures. The applicant shall submit a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan and apply for applicable demolition permit(s). (5) Restoration and enhancement which does not alter the location, dimensions, or size of the critical area or buffer and does not reduce the existing quality or functions of the critical area or buffer. The applicant shall submit a restoration and/or enhancement plan prepared by a qualified professional or as determined by the director. (6)Removal of invasive and noxious vegetation with mechanized equipment and/or with the use of herbicides. (7)Vegetation maintenance such as hazard tree removal, removal of nuisance vegetation, and 21 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments limited pruning for view preservation. The applicant shall submit a vegetation maintenance plan prepared by a certified arborist or registered landscape architect that includes the following: (a)A site plan at appropriate scale denoting the extent of the proposed vegetation maintenance activity; (b) Tree and vegetation location,type, and caliper of each tree within the area subject to the proposed vegetation maintenance activity:, (c) Identification of methods of vegetation maintenance(limited to hand tools and hand powered tools);and (d) Proposed tree and/or vegetation replacement shown on the site plan. 19.145.130 Mitigation sequencing. Applicants shall demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been examined with the intent to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas. When alteration to a critical area is proposed, such alteration shall be avoided, minimized, or compensated in the following order of preference: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing,to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact to the critical area by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; f4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (6) Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. 19.145.140 Mitigation plan requirements. When mitigation is required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the city a mitigation plan as a component of the critical area report. The mitigation plan shall include the following as determined to be applicable by the director: (1)Existing conditions and proposed impacts. A description of existing critical area and/or buffer conditions, functions, and values and a description of the anticipated impacts; (2)Proposed mitigation. A description of the proposed mitigation actions and mitigation site selection criteria; (3)Environmental goals and objectives. A description of the goals and objectives of proposed mitigation. The goals and objectives shall be related to the function and values of the impacted critical area and provide an analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project; (4)Best available science. A review of the best available science supporting the proposed mitigation and a description of the report author's experience to date in restoring or creating the type of critical area proposed; (5)Performance standards. A description of specific measurable criteria for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the mitigation project have been successfully attained and whether or not the requirements of this division have been met; (6) Timing. Mitigation shall be completed concurrently with project construction, unless a phased schedule that assures completion has been approved by the director; 22 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (7)Detailed construction plans. Detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps with slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawing appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. The plans shall include specifications and descriptions of the following: (a)Proposed construction sequence, timing, and duration; (b) Grading and excavation details; (c) Erosion and sediment control features; (d) Planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; and (e) Measures to protect and maintain plants until established; (8)Monitoring program. The mitigation plan shall include a program for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project. A protocol shall be included outlining the schedule for site monitoring and how the monitoring data will be evaluated to determine if the performance standards are being met. A monitoring report shall be submitted as needed to document milestones, success,problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The monitoring period shall be five years. The director may require a greater or lesser monitoring period depending on the overall scope of mitigation; (9) Contingency plan.The mitigation plan shall include identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken if monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met; and (10)Financial guarantees. The mitigation plan shall include financial guarantees, if necessary, to ensure that the mitigation plan is fully implemented. Financial guarantees ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measures shall be posted in accordance with FWRC Chapter 19.25 19.145.150 Critical area tracts and designation on site plans. (1) Critical area tracts shall be used to delineate and protect those critical areas and buffers below in development proposals for subdivisions, short subdivisions, or binding site plans and shall be recorded on all documents of title of record for all affected lots: (a) All landslide hazard areas and buffers, except those subdivisions utilizing lot size averaging methods pursuant to FWRC 19.120.110; (b)All wetlands and buffers;and (c)All fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and buffers. (2) Critical area tracts shall be designated on the plat.A plat note shall include the following restriction: Native preservation shall be preserved for the purpose of preventing harm to property and the environment, including but not limited to, controlling surface water runoff and erosion, maintaining slope stability, buffering, and protecting plants,fish, and animal habitat. Removal or disturbance vegetation and landscaping within the tract is prohibited, except as necessary for maintenance or replacement with approval by the City of Federal Way. (3) The city may require that any required critical area tract be dedicated to the city, held in an undivided interest by each property owner within the development with the ownership interest passing with the ownership of the lot, or held by an incorporated homeowners association or other legal entity which ensures the ownership, maintenance, and protection of the tract. (4) Site plans submitted as part of development proposals for use process I through V and building permits shall include and delineate all critical areas with their associated buffers and building setbacks. Site plans shall be attached to the notice on title required by FWRC 23 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 19.145.170. 19.145.160 Building setbacks. Unless otherwise provided, structures shall be setback a distance of five-feet from the edges of a critical area buffer. The following may be allowed in the building setback area: (1) Landscaping; (2) Building overhangs; and 13) Fences and railings six feet in height and less. 19.145.170 Notice on title. The owner of any property containing critical areas or buffers on which a development proposal is submitted or any property on which mitigation is established as a result of development, except a public right-of-way or the site of a permanent public facility, shall file a notice approved by the city with the King County Recorder's Office. The required contents and form of the notice shall be determined by the director.The notice shall inform the public of the presence of critical areas, buffers or mitigation sites on the property, and that limitations on actions in or affecting such critical areas or buffers may exist. The notice shall run with the land. 19.145.180 Critical area markers,signs,and fences. 11)Markers. Permanent survey stakes delineating the boundary between adjoining property and critical area tracts shall be set,using markers capable of being magnetically located and as established by current survey standards. (2)Signs. Development proposals approved by the city shall require that the boundary between a critical area buffer and contiguous land shall be identified with permanent signs. Permanent signs shall be a city-approved type designed for high durability. Signs must be posted at an interval of one per lot or every 150 feet, whichever is less, and must be maintained by the property owner or homeowners' association in perpetuity. The wording, number and placement of the signs may be modified by the director based on specific site conditions. (3)Fencing. Permanent fencing shall be required at the outer edge of the critical area buffer under the following circumstances: (a)As part of any development proposal for: (i) Plats; (ii) Short plats; (iii) Parks; (iv) Other development proposals, including but not limited to multifamily, mixed use, and commercial development where the director determines that such fencing is necessary to protect the functions of the critical area; (b) When buffer reductions are employed as part of a developmentproposal; (c) When buffer averaging is employed as part of a development proposal; and (d) At the director's discretion to protect the values and functions of a critical area. 19.145.190 Physical barriers. The applicant shall install a berm, curb or other physical barrier during construction and, if necessary, following completion of development of the subject property, to prevent direct runoff and erosion from any disturbed area onto or into a critical area. 24 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 19.145.200 Time limitation. The city may limit development activities which involve any clearing and grading to specific months of the year and to a maximum number of continuous days or hours in order to minimize adverse impacts. 19.145.210 Other requirements. The city may require other construction techniques, conditions and restrictions on development in order to minimize adverse impacts on critical areas. Article II. Geologically Hazardous Areas 19.145.220 Applicability and designation. (1)This section regulates development activities on or within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area. (2) Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, seismic, or other geological events. Areas susceptible to one or more of the following types of hazards shall be designated as geologically hazardous areas: (a) Landslide hazard; (b) Erosion hazard; and (c) Seismic hazard. (3) The director may permit development activities on or within 50 feet of a geologically hazardous area if the development will not be at risk of damage due to the geologic hazard and will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic or erosion hazard. 19.145.230 Landslide hazard areas protection measures. (1) Landslide hazard areas shall have a standard buffer of 50 feet. (2) Landslide hazard area buffers shall be measured from the top and toe, and along sides of the slope. (3)The width of the buffer shall reflect the sensitivity of the landslide hazard area and the types and density of uses proposed on or adjacent to the hazard. In determining the appropriate buffer width, the director shall consider the recommendations contained in the critical areas report. (4) Buffers and setbacks may be reduced or improvements may be located in a landslide hazard area when a qualified professional demonstrates to the director's satisfaction that the improvements will not lead to or create any increased slide hazard or be at risk of damage by the landslide hazard. (5) The buffer may be increased where the director determines a larger buffer is necessary to prevent risk of damage to proposed and existing improvements. 19.145.240 Erosion and seismic hazard areas protection measures. (1) Erosion hazard areas and seismic hazard areas do not contain standard buffers. (2)All proposed improvements within an erosion hazard area or seismic hazard area shall follow the recommendations within the critical area report to ensure the improvements will not adversely affect geologic hazards and the improvements are at minimal risk by the geologic hazard as stated by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist licensed in the state, as designed under anticipated conditions. 25 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 13) Proposed improvements within an erosion hazard area shall also demonstrate all of the following via the critical area report: fa) The improvement will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties and/or stormwater systems beyond predevelopment conditions; (b) The improvement will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and (c) The improvement will not adversely impact other critical areas. 19.145.250 Additional report requirements—Geologically hazardous areas. (1) Before approving any development under this section, the city may require the applicant to submit the following additional information to the critical areas report: (a) A geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist licensed in the state which describes how the proposed development will impact or be impacted by each of the following on the subject property and nearby properties: (i) Slope stability, landslide hazard and sloughing. (ii) Seismic hazards. liii) Groundwater. (iv) Seeps, springs and other surface waters. (v) Existing vegetation. (b)A site plan, in two foot contours,that identifies the type and extent of geologically hazardous areas onsite and offsite which are likely to impact or be impacted by the proposal. (c) Recommended foundation design and optimal location for roadway improvements. (d) Recommended methods for mitigating identified impacts and a description of how these mitigating measures may impact adjacent properties. (e)Any other information the city determines is reasonably necessary to evaluate the proposal. (2) If the city approves any development under this section, it may, among other appropriate conditions, impose the following conditions of approval: (a) The recommendations of the geotechnical report are followed. (b)A geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist be present on-site during all development activities. As an alternative, the city may require minimal site visits by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to establish proper methods,techniques and adherence to plan drawings. (d)Trees, shrubs and groundcover are retained except where necessary for approved development activities on the subject property. (e)Additional vegetation is planted in disturbed areas. (f)A letter by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist stating that they have reviewed the project plan drawings and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the geotechnical report. 26 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments Article III. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas 19.145.260 Applicability,designation,and classification. (1) This section regulates development in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas(FWCHA) and their associated buffers. FWCHAs in the city include (2)through (6) of this subsection.All areas within the city meeting one or more of these criteria,regardless of any formal identification, are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this title and shall be managed consistent with the best available science, such as the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Management Recommendations for Priority Habitats and Species. (2)Streams. Streams shall be classified in accordance with the Washington Department of Natural Resources water typing system (WAC 222-16-030)hereby adopted in its entirety by reference and summarized as follows: (a)Type S: streams inventoried as"shorelines of the state"under Chapter 90.58 RCW and the rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW; (b) Type F: streams which contain fish habitat:, (c) Type Np: perennial non-fish habitat streams; and (d)Type Ns: seasonal non-fish habitat streams. (3)Regulated lakes. Those lakes that are less than 20 acres in size and not regulated as shorelines of the state. (4)Areas with which state or federally designated endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association. (a) Federally designated endangered and threatened species are those fish and wildlife species identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the NOAA Fisheries that are in danger of extinction or threatened to become endangered.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should be consulted for current listing status. (b) State-designated endangered,threatened, and sensitive species are those fish and wildlife species native to the state of Washington identified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,that are in danger of extinction, threatened to become endangered, vulnerable, or declining and are likely to become endangered or threatened in a significant portion of their range within the state without cooperative management or removal of threats. State-designated endangered,threatened, and sensitive species are periodically recorded in WAC 232-12-014 (state endangered species) and WAC 232-12-011 (state threatened and sensitive species). The state Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains the most current listing and should be consulted for current listing status. (5)State priority habitats and areas associated with state priority species. Priority habitats and species are considered to be priorities for conservation and management. Priority species require protective measures for their perpetuation due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or tribal importance. Priority habitats are those habitat types or elements with unique or significant value to a diverse assemblage of species. A priority habitat may consist of a unique vegetation type or dominant plant species, a described successional stage, or a specific structural element. Priority habitats and species are identified by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. (6)Habitats and species of local importance. Habitats and species of local importance are those identified by the city of Federal Way, including but not limited to those habitats and species that, 27 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments due to their population status or sensitivity to habitat manipulation, warrant protection. Habitats may include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. 19.145.270 Stream buffers. (1)No development may take place within a stream or within the following buffer areas except as allowed within this division. Buffer widths shall be measured outward on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark or top of bank if the ordinary high water mark cannot be identified: (a) Type F Stream— 100ft. (b) Type Np Stream—50ft. 1c) Type Ns Stream—35ft. (2)The buffer areas established by this section do not apply to any segment of a stream that is presently within a culvert, unless that stream will be taken out of the culvert as part of development of the subject property. (3) Trails.The director may provide written approval for passive pedestrian recreation facilities designed in accordance with an approved critical area report and the following standards: (a)Trails are composed of pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width. Raised boardwalks and wildlife viewing structures composed of non-treated pilings may also be considered. (b)Trails are generally located parallel to the perimeter of the wetland and within the outer 25 percent of the buffer; and (c)Trails shall avoid the removal of mature trees. (4)Permanently altered buffer. The director may provide written approval for a buffer reduction when existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g. roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) and do not provide any buffer function. (5) The director may require increased buffer widths that are necessary to protect habitat, health, safety, and welfare on site specific areas as follows: (a) When the director determines that the buffer width is insufficient to prevent habitat degradation; (b) When a channel migration zone is present. The stream buffer width shall be measured from the outer edge of the channel migration zone; or (c) When the stream buffer area is within an erosion or landslide hazard area. 19.145.280 Stream relocation. (1) Relocation of a stream will be permitted only as part of a public project for which an essential public facility, public utilities, or other public improvements has been granted a partial exemption from the director or if the relocation is associated with compensatory mitigation or restoration project. Any proposed relocation is subject to all of the conditions and restrictions of this section. 12)As part of any request under this section,the applicant must submit a stream relocation plan with the critical areas report that shows the following: (a)The creation of a natural meander pattern (b)The formation of gentle side slopes, at least two feet horizontally to one foot vertically, and the installation of erosion control features for stream side slopes; 28 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (c)The creation of a narrow sub-channel, where feasible, against the south or west bank; (d)The utilization of natural materials,wherever possible; (e)The use of vegetation normally associated with streams, including primarily native riparian vegetation; (f)The creation of spawning and nesting areas,wherever appropriate; (g)The re-establishment of the fish population,wherever feasible; (h)The restoration of waterflow characteristics compatible with fish habitat areas,wherever feasible; (i) The filling and revegetation of the prior channel; and (j) A proposed phasing plan specifying time of year for all project phases. (4)The city will allow a stream to be relocated only if water quality, habitat and stormwater retention capability of the streams will be the equivalent or improved by the relocation. Convenience to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design may not be considered. (5) Prior to diverting water into the new channel, a qualified professional shall inspect the new channel following its completion and issue a written report to the director stating that the channel complies with the requirements of this section. (6) The amount of flow and velocity of the stream may not be increased or decreased as the stream enters or leaves the subject property 19.145.290 Streambank stabilization. (1) Streambank stabilization may not be located in or along a stream except as established in this section. (2) A request for streambank stabilization in or along the stream will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. (3) A request to install streambank stabilization in or along the stream will only be granted if the naturally occurring movement threatens existing improvements, unique natural resources, or the only feasible access to the subject property. (4) Streambank stabilization shall be achieved through bioengineering or soft armoring techniques in accordance with an approved critical area report. 19.145.300 Culverts. (1) Culverts are permitted in streams only if approved under this section. This section applies to culverts not associated with a stream crossing that are regulated under FWRC 19.145.320. (2) The city will review and decide upon applications under this section using process IV in Chapter 19.70 FWRC. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (3) The city will allow a stream to be put in a culvert only if: (a) Mitigation habitat is equivalent or improved from the pre-existing condition; and (b) It is necessary for some reasonable use of the subject property. Convenience to the applicant in order to facilitate general site design will not be considered. The applicant must demonstrates by submitting alternative site plans showing the stream in an open condition, that no other reasonable site design exists. (4) The culvert must be designed and installed consistent with the requirements of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW, 2013, Water Crossing Design Guidelines, as amended). The culvert must be large enough to accommodate a 100-year storm. (5)The applicant shall, at all times, keep all culverts on the subject property free of debris so as 29 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. The city may require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure maintenance of the culvert approved under this section. 19.145.310 Removal of streams from culverts. If development of the subject property requires city approval,the city may require the stream to be taken out of the culvert and restored to a natural-like configuration as part of the city's approval of development of the subject property. 19.145.320 Stream crossings. (1) Stream crossings will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements in this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (2)The use of existing crossings across streams or buffers is preferred to new crossings.New stream crossings may be allowed and may encroach on the required stream buffer if: (a) Bridges, stream simulation culverts, or other appropriate methods demonstrated to provide fisheries protection shall be used for stream crossings and the applicant shall demonstrate that such methods and their implementation will pose no harm to the stream habitat or inhibit migration of fish; (b)All crossings are constructed during the summer low flow and are timed to avoid stream disturbance during periods when use is critical to salmonids, if present; (c) Crossings do not occur over spawning areas used by salmonids unless the city determines that no other possible crossing site exists:, (d) Bridge piers or abutments are not placed within the ordinary high water mark:, (e) Crossings do not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the stream:, (fl Crossings are consistent with design requirements of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW, 2013, Water Crossing Design Guidelines, as amended); (g) Underground utility crossings are laterally drilled and located at a depth of four feet below the maximum depth of scour for the base flood predicted by a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington. Temporary bore pits to perform such crossings may be permitted within the stream buffer established in this division; (h) The number of crossings is minimized and consolidated to serve multiple purposes and properties whenever possible; (i) Disturbances to the stream buffer are adequately compensated by a stream buffer enhancement plan; and (j)No reasonable alternative exists to access the subject property. 19.145.330 Intrusion into stream buffers. (1)A request for an intrusion into a stream buffer will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements in this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (2) Stream buffer intrusions may be permitted with a buffer enhancement plan. The applicant shall demonstrate that the remaining or enhanced reduced buffer will function at an equivalent or higher level than the standard buffer. The plan shall provide an assessment of the following existing functions and conditions of the buffer and the effects of the proposed modification on those functions: fa) Habitat; 30 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (b) Water quality; (c) Stormwater retention capabilities; (d) Groundwater recharge; and (e) Erosion protection. (3)The city may approve a stream buffer intrusion based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or buffer area. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; and (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole; and (f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. 19.145.340 Requirements for clearing and grading. Any permitted clearing and grading activities within a stream or stream buffer area shall also comply with following requirements of this section. (1) Grading is allowed only during the dry season (May 1 to Oct 1).The director may extend or shorten the dry season on a case-by-case basis, determined on actual weather conditions. (2) The soil duff layer shall remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. Where feasible, any soil disturbed shall be redistributed to other areas of the project area. (3) The moisture-holding capacity of the topsoil layer shall be maintained by minimizing soil compaction or reestablishing natural soil structure and infiltrative capacity on all areas of the project area not covered by impervious surfaces. (4) Erosion and sediment control that meets requirements of FWRC Title 16. (5)All fill material used must be non-dissolving and non-decomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that would be detrimental to water quality or the existing habitat. (6) The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only if part of an approved development on the subject property. (7)The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after clearing and grading activities with native vegetation normally associated with the stream or buffer area. 19.145.350 Regulated lake buffers. (1)No development may take place within regulated lakes or within buffer areas from regulated lakes except as allowed in this division. (2)All areas landward 25 feet in every direction from the ordinary high water mark of a regulated lake are within the buffer area from a regulated lake. 19.145.360 Development waterward of the ordinary high water mark of regulated lakes. This section regulates structures, improvements and activities waterward of the ordinary high water mark of regulated lakes. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (1)Dredging and filling. Dredging activities necessary to prevent eutrophication may be authorized by the director with a critical areas report that demonstrates the appropriate need and method of dredging. 31 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (2)Structures and improvements. The only structures or improvements that may be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark of a regulated lake are moorage structures. The city will review and decide upon any proposal for a moorage structure waterward of the ordinary high water mark using process III. The city may grant a request under this section if the moorage structure is accessory to a dwelling unit or public park on the subject property and no significant habitat area will be damaged by its construction or use. A moorage structure, if permitted, may not extend waterward further than is reasonably necessary to function properly, but in no event more than 200 feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Moorage structures may not be treated with creosote, oil base or other toxic substances. The top of the moorage structure may not be more than two feet above the elevation of the ordinary high water mark. 19.145.370 Development within regulated lake buffers. No development may be located or take place within the buffer area from a regulated lake except as allowed in this section. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (1)Landscaping and clearing and grading. Except as otherwise specifically permitted in this section,the buffer area from a regulated lake may not be covered with an impervious surface. Installation and maintenance of normal residential or park-like landscaping may take place within the required buffer area; provided,that no fertilizers, pesticides or other chemicals or substances are applied within the setback area that will degrade water quality or hasten eutrophication of the lake.Development beyond installation and maintenance of normal residential or park-like landscaping may only be permitted within the buffer area if approved through use process III approval based on the following criteria: (a)The proposed development is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. (b)The proposed development will not increase or decrease the size of the regulated lake. (c)The proposed development will not change the points where any water enters or leaves the subject property nor in any way change drainage patterns to or from adjacent properties. (d)The proposed development will not be detrimental to water quality or habitats in or around the lake. (2)Minor structures and improvements. Minor improvements such as walkways, benches, platforms for storage of small boats and small storage lockers for paddles, oars, life preservers and similar boating equipment may be located within the buffer area if approved through use process I based on the following criteria: (a) The minor improvement will not adversely affect water quality. (b) The minor improvement will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. (c) The minor improvement will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. (d) The minor improvement will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. (3) Other intrusions. (a) Where the properties immediately abutting the subject property have dwelling units which extend into the buffer area,the applicant may construct a dwelling unit on the subject property that extends into this buffer area to the extent permitted in subsection (3)(b)of this section. (b) Where subsection(3)(a) of this section applies,the dwelling unit on the subject property may be no closer to the ordinary high water mark of the regulated lake than the average of the distance of the two dwelling units on the properties immediately abutting the subject property. If 32 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments one of the properties immediately abutting the subject property does not contain a dwelling unit or the dwelling unit on that abutting property is more than 25 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the regulated lake,the setback of the dwelling unit on that lot will be presumed to be 25 feet for the purposes of calculating the permissible location for the dwelling unit on the subject property under this section. (4)Revegetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface modification with appropriate vegetation. 19.145.380 Regulated lake bulkheads. (1) General. A bulkhead is permitted within or adjacent to a regulated lake subject to the provisions of this section. (2)Required permit. The city will review and decide upon an application under this section using process III. Responses to decisional criteria and design requirements within this section shall be included in the critical areas report. (3) Criteria. The city may permit a bulkhead to be constructed only if: (a) The bulkhead is needed to prevent significant erosion. (b) The use of vegetation or soft stabilization techniques will not sufficiently stabilize the shoreline to prevent the significant erosion. (4)Design features. A bulkhead may not be located between a regulated lake and a wetland. Changes in the horizontal or vertical configuration of the land must be kept to a minimum. The bulkhead must be designed to minimize the transmittal of wave energy to other properties. 19.145.390 Anadromous fish protection measures. (1)All activities, uses, and alterations proposed to be located in water bodies used by anadromous fish or in areas that affect such water bodies shall give special consideration to the preservation and enhancement of anadromous fish habitat, including, but not limited to the following standards: (a) Activities shall be timed to occur only during the allowable work window as designated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; (b)The activity is designed so that it will not degrade the functions or values of the fish habitat or other critical areas; (c)Any impacts to the functions or values of the habitat conservation area are mitigated in accordance with an approved critical area report. (2) Structures that prevent the migration of salmonids shall not be allowed in the portion of water bodies currently or historically used by anadromous fish. Fish bypass facilities shall be provided that allow the upstream migration of adult fish and shall prevent fry and juveniles migrating downstream from being trapped or harmed. 19.145.400 Endangered,threatened,and sensitive species protection measures. (1)No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or buffer with which state or federally endangered,threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or applicable state or federal agency. (2) Whenever activities are proposed adjacent to a habitat conservation area with which state or federally endangered,threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, such area shall be protected through the application of protection measures in accordance with a critical area 33 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments report prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the city. Approval for alteration of land adjacent to the habitat conservation area or its buffer shall not occur prior to consultation with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and other appropriate federal or state agencies. Article IV. Wetlands 19.145.410 Wetland identification and delineation. (1) Generally. Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this division shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements.All areas within the city meeting the wetland designation criteria are hereby designated critical areas and are subject to the provisions of this chapter. Wetland delineations are valid for five years; after such date the city shall determine whether a revision or additional assessment is necessary. (2)Evaluation. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 225 feet of the subject property, the director may require the applicant to submit a wetland report prepared by a qualified professional. The written report and the accompanying plan sheets shall contain the following information: (a) Critical area report information identified in FWRC 19.145.080. (b) Identification of all local, state, and/or federal wetland related permit(s) required for the proposal. (c) Documentation of fieldwork, including field data sheets, rating system forms, baseline hydrologic data, etc. (d) Description of the methodologies used to conduct the wetland delineations, rating system forms, or impact analyses, including references. (e) Identification and characterization of all wetlands and buffers on and within 225 feet of the subject property. For offsite areas with limited or no access, estimate conditions using best available information. (f)Provide the following for each wetland identified on and/or within 225 feet of the subject property. Acreage estimates, classifications, and ratings shall be based on entire wetland complexes,not only the portion present on the subject property: (i) Wetland rating and score for each function; (ii)Required buffers; (iii) Hydrogeomorphic classification; (iv) Wetland acreage; (v) Cowardin classification of vegetation communities; (vi) Habitat elements; (vii) Soil conditions based on site assessment and/or soil survey information; and (viii)To the extent possible, hydrologic information such as location and condition of inlet/ outlets, estimated water depths within the wetland, and estimated hydroperiod patterns based on visual cues (e.g. algal mats, drift lines, flood debris, etc.). (h) An evaluation of the functions of the wetland and adjacent buffer. Include reference for the method used and data sheets. 19.145.420 Wetland rating and buffers. (1)Rating. Wetlands shall be rated according to the Washington Department of Ecology wetland 34 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments rating system, as set forth in the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington—2014 Update (Ecology Publication#14-06-029, or as revised and approved by Ecology), which contains the definitions and methods for determining whether the criteria below are met: (a) Category I wetlands represent a unique or rare wetland type; are more sensitive to disturbance than most wetlands; are relatively undisturbed and contain ecological attributes that are impossible to replace within a human lifetime; or provide a high level of function. The following types of wetlands are Category I: (i) Wetlands of high conservation value that are identified by scientists of the Washington Natural Heritage Program/Department of Natural Resources; (ii) Bogs; (iii) Wetlands with mature and old growth forests larger than one acre; and (iv) Wetlands that perform functions at high levels(wetlands that score 23 points or more based on functions). (b) Category II wetlands are difficult,though not impossible,to replace, and provide high levels of some functions. Category II wetlands are those wetlands that score between 20-22 points based on functions. (c) Category III wetlands are wetlands with a moderate level of functions that score between 16- 19 points based on functions. (d) Category IV wetlands are wetlands with the lowest level of functions (scoring less than 16 points based on functions) and are often heavily disturbed. (2) Wetland buffers shall be measured perpendicular from the wetland boundary as delineated and marked in the field. Buffer widths are established as follows: Minimum Buffer Buffer Buffer Width ;Width Width Buffer Width Wetland Cateaory wetland (wetland wetland (wetland scores 3-4 scores 5 scores 6-7 scores 8-9 habitat habitat habitat habitat points) oints points) oints Category I: Bogs and Wetlands of 190 ft. 190 ft. 190 ft. 225 ft. High Conservation Value Category I: Forested and based on 75ft. 105 ft. 165 ft. 225 ft. function score. Category II 75 ft. 105 ft. 165 ft. 225 ft. Category III 60 ft. 105 ft. 165 ft. 225 ft. Category IV 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. (3)No wetland buffer is required for those isolated wetlands 1,000 square feet or less in total area. 35 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (4) All compensatory mitigation sites shall have buffers consistent with the buffer requirements of this section.Buffers shall be based on the expected or target category of the proposed wetland mitigation site. (5) Lighting shall be directed away from wetland buffers unless otherwise determined by the director. (6)All lots approved in a recorded subdivision or binding site plan that contain wetlands and their associated buffer in a Native Growth Protection Easement or tract may be improved pursuant to easement or tract boundaries established in the plat regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. (7) All wetland and wetland buffer boundaries shown on an approved use process decision and/or building permit shall be honored regardless of subsequent regulatory buffer increases or natural migration. 19.145.430 Development within wetlands. (1) Generally. No development or improvement may be located within a wetland except as provided in this section. (2)Development within wetlands. The specific location and extent of development within a wetland must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment as determined through application of mitigation sequencing set forth in FWRC 19.145.130. The city will review and decide upon development within a wetland using process IV in Chapter 19.70 FWRC, based on the following criteria (a) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. (b) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards. (c) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. (d) It will result in no net loss of wetland area, function or value upon completion of compensatory mitigation. (e) The project is in the best interest of the public health, safety or welfare. (f) The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project. (g)The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (3)Requirements for compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation shall be used only for impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized and shall achieve equivalent or greater biologic functions. Compensatory mitigation plans shall be consistent with Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 2:Developing Mitigation Plans— Version 1, (Ecology Publication#06- 06-011b or as revised) and Selecting Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Approach (Western Washington) (Ecology Publication#09-06-32). (4)Mitigation.Acceptable methods to mitigate wetland impacts include creation, re- establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement of in-kind wetland types within the same drainage basin which results in no net loss of wetland area, function, or value. If approved by the city,the applicant may locate a portion or all of the compensatory mitigation using alternative mitigation including, but not limited to, an approved and certified in-lieu fee program or mitigation bank, and/or advanced mitigation if it is determined that off-site, out-of-basin, and/or out-of-kind mitigation would provide a greater overall benefit to the watershed and not result in adverse impacts to the city's stormwater management system and/or wildlife habitat. Alternative 36 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments mitigation methods are discretionary and may become an option following an operating agreement between the city and mitigation receiving area. (a)In-lieu fee. Credits from an in-lieu fee program approved under state and federal rules may be used at the discretion of the city and when all of the following are met: (i) The city determines that it would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts; (ii)The proposed use of credits is consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved in- lieu fee program instrument; and (iii)The compensatory mitigation agreement occurs in advance of the authorized impacts. (b)Mitigation bank. Credits from a wetland mitigation bank that is certified under state rules may be used at the discretion of the city and when all of the following are met: (i) The city determines that is would provide environmentally appropriate compensation for the proposed impacts; (ii)The proposed use of credits and replacement ratios are consistent with the terms and conditions of the certified bank instrument; and (iii) The compensatory mitigation agreement occurs in advance of the authorized impacts. (c)Advance mitigation. Mitigation for projects with pre-identified impacts to wetlands may be constructed in advance of the impacts at the discretion of the city and if the mitigation is implemented according to federal rules, state policy on advance mitigation, and state water quality regulations. (5) Wetland mitigation ratios. The following are ratios for providing creation, re-establishment, rehabilitation or enhancement of impacted wetlands. Ratios for rehabilitation and enhancement may be reduced when combined with 1:1 replacement through creation or re-establishment pursuant to Table la, Wetland Mitigation in Washington State—Part 1:Agency Policies and Guidance—Version 1, (Ecology Publication#06-06-11 a, or as revised). Creation, re- establishment, rehabilitation and enhancement definitions and intent shall be pursuant to Ecology Publication#06-06-11 a, or as revised. Category and Type Creation or Rehabilitation Enhancement of Wetland Re-establishment Category I: High Not considered conservation value possible. Case-by-case Case-by-case and bogs. Category I: Mature and old growth 6:1 12:1 24:1 forests greater than one-acre. Category I: Based on 4:1 8:1 16:1 functions. Category II 3:1 6:1 12:1 Category III 2A 4:1 8:1 Category IV 1.5:1 3:1 6:1 37 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments Mitigation requirements may also be determined using the credit/debit tool described in Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington: Final Report(Ecology Publication#10-06-011, or as revised) if approved by the director. (6) Compensatory mitigation plan. As part of any request under this section,the applicant shall submit a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional that includes the following minimum standards: (a) Contents of wetland delineation report identified in FWRC 19.145.410(2) (b) Compensatory mitigation written report and plan sheets that contain the following elements. Full guidance on report requirements can be found in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State- Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1) (Ecology Publication #06-06-011b, or as revised). (i)Description of how the project design has been modified to avoid, minimize, or reduce adverse impacts to wetlands. (ii) Description of the existing wetland and buffer areas proposed to be altered. Include acreage., water regime, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions. Describe impacts in terms of acreage by Cowardin classification, hydrogeomorphic classification, and wetland rating. (iii) Description of the compensatory mitigation site, including location and rationale for selection. Include an assessment of existing condition: acreage of wetlands and uplands,water regime, sources of water, vegetation, soils, landscape position, surrounding land uses, and functions, (iv) Description of the proposed actions for compensation of wetland and upland areas affected by the project. Include overall goals of the proposed mitigation, including a description of the targeted functions, hvdrogeomorphic classification, and categories of wetlands. (v) Description of the proposed mitigation construction activities and timing of activities. (vi) Discussion of ongoing management practices that will protect wetlands after the subject property has been developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs. (vii)Bond estimate for the entire compensatory mitigation project, including the following elements: site preparation;plant materials, construction materials, installation oversight, maintenance twice per year for up to five-years, annual monitoring field work and reporting, and contingency action for a maximum of the total required number of years for monitoring. (c) Scaled plan sheets for the compensatory mitigation that contains the following contents: (i) Surveyed edges of the existing wetland and buffer, proposed areas of wetland impacts., location of proposed wetland compensation actions. (ii) Existing and proposed topography measured at two foot intervals in the proposed compensation area. Existing and proposed cross sections of the proposed compensation area and impact area measured in one-foot intervals. (iii) Surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions, including an analysis of existing and proposed hydrologic regimes for enhanced, created, or restored compensatory mitigation areas. Illustrations of how data for existing hydrologic conditions were used to determine the estimates of future hydrologic conditions. (iv) Conditions expected from the proposed actions on site, including hydrogeomorphic types, vegetation community types by dominant species (wetland and upland), and future water regimes. (v) Required wetland buffers for existing wetlands and proposed compensation areas. 38 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (vi) Plant schedule for compensation area, including all species by proposed community type and water regime, size and type of plant material to be installed, spacing of plants,typical clustering patterns,total number of each species by community type, and timing of installation. (vii) Performance standards that provide measurable benchmarks reflective of years post- installation for upland and wetland communities, monitoring schedule, and maintenance schedule. (d)Alternative mitigation plans(in-lieu fee, mitigation banks, and advanced mitigation) shall provide items(a), (b)(i) and (ii) from this subsection, responses to FWRC 19.145.430(4) Mitigation. (a), (b), or(c), and any other information deemed necessary by the city to adequately consider the alternative mitigation proposal. (7)Monitoring. Mitigation monitoring shall be required for a minimum of five-years to establish that performance standards have been met. The mitigation plan shall include monitoring elements that ensure certainty of success for the proposal's natural resource values and functions. The applicant remains responsible for restoration of the natural resource values and functions if the mitigation goals are not obtained with the five year monitoring period. Additional monitoring and corrective actions may be required by the director in order to meet goals within the approved mitigation plan. 19.145.440 Development within wetland buffers. (1) Generally. Except as allowed in this section, no development or improvement may be located within a wetland buffer. (2) Trails. The director may provide written approval for passive pedestrian recreation facilities designed in accordance with an approved critical area report and the following standards: (a) Trails are composed of pervious surfaces no more than five feet in width. Raised boardwalks and wildlife viewing structures composed of non-treated pilings may also be considered. (b)Trails are generally located parallel to the perimeter of the wetland and within the outer 25 percent of the buffer; and (c)Trails shall avoid the removal of mature trees. (3)Stormwater management facilities. The director may provide written approval for stormwater management facilities limited to stormwater dispersion outfalls and bioswales within the outer 25 percent of the buffer of Category III and IV wetlands if the location of such facilities will not degrade the functions or values of the wetland. (4)Permanently altered buffer. The director may provide written approval for a buffer reduction when existing conditions are such that portions of the required buffer exist in a permanently altered state (e.g. roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) and do not provide any buffer function. The buffer may be reduced up to the area where the altered conditions exist. (5)Buffer averaging.The city will review and decide upon buffer averaging using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria that shall be added to the critical areas report; (a)The total area of the buffer after averaging is equal to the area required without averaging; (b)The buffer is increased adjacent to the higher functioning area of habitat or more sensitive portion of the wetland and decreased adjacent to the lower functioning or less sensitive portion; (c) The buffer at its narrowest point is not reduced to less than 75 percent of the required width; and (d) Unless authorized in writing by a consenting neighboring property owner, the averaging will remain on the subject property. 39 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 16)Buffer reduction with enhancement. Buffers may be reduced by up to 25 percent on a case- by-case basis; if the project includes a buffer enhancement plan that clearly substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve and provide additional protection of wetland functions and values. Buffer reductions may not be used in combination with buffer averaging. The city will review and decide upon buffer reductions using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland or buffer wildlife habitat; (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; (d) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions nor create erosion hazards; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property or the city as a whole; and (fl All exposed areas are stabilized with native vegetation, as appropriate. A buffer enhancement plan, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be incorporated into the critical area report. The plan shall assess the habitat, water quality, stormwater retention, groundwater recharge, and erosion protection functions of the existing buffer; assess the effects of the proposed modification on those functions; and address the six approval criteria of this section. (7)Buffer increases. The director shall require increased buffer widths, on a case-by-case basis, when a larger buffer is necessary to protect 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 the functions and values of the wetland, and/or protection of public health, safety and welfare. Such determination shall be attached as permit conditions. The determination must include but not be limited to the following criteria: (a)The wetland contains habitat for species listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, monitored, or documented priority species or habitats by state or federal agencies, and additional buffer is necessary to maintain viable functional habitat; (b) The adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion, and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or (c)The adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 30 percent. 40 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments Article V. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 19.145.450 Designation. This article regulates development located within designated capture zones. Six months, one year, five year, and ten year capture zones are designated as critical aquifer recharge areas under the provisions of the Growth Management Act(Chapter 36.70A RCW) and are established based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to the city's public water source wells. 19.145.460 Classification of capture zones. The Lakehaven Utility District(LUD) has designated four capture zones based on proximity to and travel time of groundwater to the city's public water source wells. (1) Six months capture zone represents the land area overlaying the six month time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD. (2) One year capture zone represents the land area overlaying the one-year time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in the six month capture zone. (3) Five year capture zone represents the land area overlaying the five-year time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in the six month and one year capture zones. (4) 10-year capture zone represents the land area overlaying the 10-year time-of-travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in the six month, one year, and five year capture zones. 19.145.470 General requirements. (1) Development that will not cause contaminants to enter the aquifer may be permitted in critical aquifer recharge areas. (2) The city shall impose development conditions to prevent degradation of critical aquifer recharge areas. Development conditions shall be based on all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment(AKART). (3)The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and recommendations of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, State Department of Ecology, State Department of Health, and Public Health—Seattle and King County. (4)The proposed activity must be designed and constructed in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), the Federal Way Addendum to the KCSWDM, and the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual (BMP manual), as amended. 19.145.480 Prohibited development in six month and one year capture zones. (1)Development that pose a significant hazard to the city's groundwater resources resulting from storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall be prohibited in six months and one year capture zone, except as specified in FWRC 19.30.170.These land uses and activities include, but are not limited to: (a) On-site community sewage disposal systems as defined in Chapter 248-272 WAC; (b) Hazardous liquid pipelines as defined in Chapter 81.88 RCW; (c) Solid waste landfills; (d) Solid waste transfer stations; 41 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (e) Liquid petroleum refining, reprocessing, and storage; (f)The storage or distribution of gasoline treated with the additive MTBE; (g) Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (except those defined under permit by rule for industrial wastewater treatment processes per WAC 173-303-802(5)(c)); (h) Chemical manufacturing, including but not limited to organic and inorganic chemicals, plastics and resins, pharmaceuticals, cleaning compounds, paints and lacquers, and agricultural chemicals; (i)Dry cleaning establishments using the solvent perchloroethylene; (j) Primary and secondary metal industries that manufacture, produce, smelt, or refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from molten materials; (k) Wood treatment facilities, including wood preserving and wood products preserving; (1)Mobile fleet fueling operations; (m) Mining(metal, sand, and gravel); and (n) Other land uses and activities that the city determines would pose a significant groundwater hazard to the city's groundwater supply. (2) The uses listed in subsection (1) of this section represent the state of present knowledge and most common description of said uses. As other polluting uses are discovered, or other terms of description become necessary, they will be added to the list of uses prohibited within this zone. 19.145.490 Development within critical aquifer recharge areas. (1)Any proposed development located in critical aquifer recharge areas shall submit a hazardous materials inventory statement with apermit, land use, or business license application. Ongoing operation and maintenance activities of public wells by public water providers are exempt from these requirements. (2)The city will review the hazardous materials inventory statement along with the permit, land use, or business license application to determine whether hazardous materials will be used, stored,transported or disposed of in connection with the proposed activity. The city shall make the following determination: (a)No hazardous materials are involved. (b) Hazardous materials are involved; however, existing laws or regulations adequately mitigate any potential impact, and documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance. (c)Hazardous materials are involved and the proposal has the potential to significantly impact critical aquifer recharge areas. The city may require a hydrogeologic assessment with a critical areas report to be prepared by a qualified professional in order to determine the potential impacts of contamination on the aquifer.The report shall include the following site and proposal-related information: (i) Information regarding geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the site, including the surface location of the capture zone in which it is located and the type of infiltration of the site. (ii)Groundwater depth, flow direction, and gradient. (iii) Location of other critical areas, including surface waters,within 200 feet of the site. (iv) Best management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management (IPM) proposed to be used, including: (A)Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects on nearby wells and surface water features; (B)Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to groundwater:, and 42 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (C) Predictive evaluation of changes in the infiltration/recharge rate. (3)A spill containment and response plan may be required to identify equipment and/or structures that could fail, and shall include provisions for inspection as required by the applicable state regulations. (4)A groundwater monitoring plan may be required to monitor quality and quantity of groundwater, surface water runoff, and/or site soils. The city may require the owner of a facility to install one or more groundwater monitoring wells to accommodate the required groundwater monitoring. Criteria used to determine the need for site monitoring shall include, but not be limited to,the proximity of the facility to production or monitoring wells, the type and quantity of hazardous materials on-site, and whether or not the hazardous materials are stored in underground vessels. (5) The city may employ an outside consultant at the applicant's expense for third-party review of the critical areas report, hydrogeologic assessment, the spill containment and response plan, and the groundwater monitoring plan 19.145.500 Capture zone protection measures. (1)Any new or existing use applying for a building permit, land use, or subdivision approval within six months and one year capture zones,which involves storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances shall comply with the following standards: (a)Secondary containment. (i)The owner or operator of any facility or activity shall provide secondary containment for hazardous materials or other deleterious substances in quantities specified in the International Fire Code. (ii) Hazardous materials stored in tanks that are subject to regulation by the Washington State Department of Ecology under Chapter 173-360 WAC (Underground Storage Tank Regulations) are exempt from the secondary containment requirements of this section; provided,that documentation is provided to demonstrate compliance with those regulations. (b) Design and construction of new stormwater infiltration systems must address site-specific risks of releases posed by all hazardous materials on-site. These risks may be mitigated by physical design means, or equivalent best management practices, in accordance with an approved hazardous materials management plan. Design and construction of said stormwater infiltration systems shall also be in accordance with the KCSWDM, as amended by the city of Federal Way, and shall be certified for compliance with the requirements of this section by a professional engineer or engineering geologist registered in the state of Washington. (c) The following standards shall apply to construction activities occurring where construction vehicles will be refueled on-site, and/or hazardous materials will be stored, dispensed, used, or handled on the construction site. As part of the city's project permitting process,the city may require any or all of the following items: (i)Detailed monitoring and construction standards; (ii)Designation of a person on-site during operating hours who is responsible for supervising the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials, and who has appropriate knowledge and training to take mitigating actions necessary in the event of a fire or spill; (iii) Hazardous material storage, dispensing, refueling areas, and use and handling areas shall be provided with secondary containment adequate to contain the maximum release from the largest volume container of hazardous materials stored at the construction site; 43 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (iv)Practices and procedures to ensure that hazardous materials left on-site when the site is unsupervised are inaccessible to the public. Locked storage sheds, locked fencing, locked fuel tanks on construction vehicles, or other techniques may be used to preclude access:, (v) Practices and procedures to ensure that construction vehicles and stationary equipment that are found to be leaking fuel, hydraulic fluid, and/or other hazardous materials will be removed immediately, or repaired on-site immediately. The vehicle or equipment may be repaired in place, provided the leakage is completely contained., (vi)Practices and procedures to ensure that storage and dispensing of flammable and combustible liquids from tanks, containers, and tank trucks into the fuel and fluid reservoirs of construction vehicles or stationary equipment on the construction site are in accordance with the International Fire Code; and (vii)Practices and procedures, and/or on-site materials adequate to ensure the immediate containment and cleanup of any release of hazardous substances stored at the construction site. On-site cleanup materials may suffice for smaller spills, whereas cleanup of larger spills may require a subcontract with a qualified cleanup contractor. Releases shall immediately be contained, cleaned up, and reported if required according to state requirements. (2) Development within all capture zones, which involve storing, handling, treating, using., producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials,or other deleterious substances shall comply with the following standards: (a) Fleet and automotive service station fueling, equipment maintenance, and vehicle washing areas shall have a containment system for collecting and treating all runoff from such areas and preventing release of fuels, oils, lubricants, and other automotive fluids into the soil, surface water, or groundwater. Appropriate emergency response equipment shall be kept on-site during the transfer, handling,treatment, use, production, recycling, or disposal of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances. (b) Secondary containment or equivalent best management practices, as approved by the director, shall be required at loading and unloading areas that store, handle,treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of hazardous materials, or other deleterious substances. (c) Fill material shall not contain concentration of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil as specified in the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA). An imported fill source statement is required for all projects where more than 100 cubic yards of fill will be imported to a site. The city may require analytical results to demonstrate that fill materials do not exceed cleanup standards. The imported fill source statement shall include: (i) Source location of imported fill:, (ii) Previous land uses of the source location; and fill) Whether or not fill to be imported is native, undisturbed soil. (d)All development or redevelopment shall implement best management practices (BMPs) for water quality and quantity, as approved by the director. Such practices include biofiltration swales and use of oil-water separators, BMPs appropriate to the particular use proposed, cluster development, and limited impervious surfaces. 19.145.510 Use of pesticides, herbicides,and fertilizers in critical aquifer recharge areas. Proposed developments with maintained landscaped areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area shall prepare an operations and management manual using best management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management(IPM) for fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide applications. The BMPs shall include recommendations on the quantity, timing, and type of fertilizers applied to 44 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments lawns and gardens to protect groundwater quality. Article VI. Frequently Flooded Areas 19.145.520 Frequently flooded areas. (1) Frequently flooded areas include all areas of special flood hazard as mapped within the city, and other areas that could be threatened by flooding. The areas of special flood hazard are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled"The Flood Insurance Study for Federal Way,"dated May 16, 1995, and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying flood insurance rate map(FIRM), and any revisions thereto. Based on the landscape of the city, frequently flooded areas occur only along the Puget Sound shoreline and are within the jurisdiction of the shoreline master program, FWRC 15.05 Shoreline Management. (2) Development in frequently flooded areas shall be subject to the provisions in Title 15. 45 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments 5. The following Chapters 19.150; 19.155; 19.160; 19.165; 19.170; 19.175; 19.180; and 19.185 are repealed: Chapter 19.1-0 Sec iens: 19.150.010 Administration. 19.150.020 Maps adopted. 19.150.030 Basis for determination. 19.150.040 Reasonable use of the subject property. 19.150.060 Bonds. 19.150.070 Dedication. 19.150.080 Exemptions. 19.150.010 dministfa ioih approval through process I, II, III, or IV, this division will be implemented and enforced as part of that process. (2) If subsection (1) of this section docs not apply, any determination of the director of 19.150.020--�naps-advp to: . . . . - - - . • , • e 1 1 1 1 .. The determinations regarding whether the subject property is regulated under this division, as determined based on environmental information and mapping possessed by the city as well as applicant, at the applicant's expense, to provide any information, mapping, studies, materials, that such information, studies, mapping, materi+ - - - •- - - I 1 1 1 • . . • . (1) The provisions of this section establish a mec •• - -. - . . • - - • -• • - may be modified or waived on a case by case basis if their implementation would deprive an 46 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments , - -_. , . . .. •_. . . . . - - : - ., • _ •. _ _. • . (3) The city may approve a modification or waiver of the requirements of this division on a case (a) The application of the provisions of this division eliminates all reasonable use of the subject PfereFti (b) It is solely the implementation of this division, and not other factors, which precludes all (c) The applicant has in no way created or exacerbated the condition which forms the limitation (e) The waiver or modification will not lead to, create nor significantly increase the risk of injury The city may require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure compliance with any aspect of this division. 19.150.070 Dedieatien- the city to ensure protection of steep slopes, wells, streams, regulated lakes and regulated (2) Normal and routine maintenance and repair of the following facilities, for which a (a) Existing drainage ditches; provided, however, that this exception shall not apply to any grounds; (b) Surface water facilities; provided, that such activities shall not involve conversion of any (c)Existing public facilities and utility structures or rights of way. area wide facilities or city wide systems. The maintenance plan shall idcntify the nature of the potential maintenance or repair activities, specifications for work which may occur within .. _ . _ _ . _. -• - - = - - - " _ -•- , --- -• . 47 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments timing of maintenance or repair activities, and process for contacting or notifying the city of pending maintenance or repair activities to ensure compliance with the approved plan. The public works director may require that an appropriate bond or security be maintained with the city to ensure restoration of disturbed areas. Chapter 19.155 Sections: 19.155.010 Responsibility of applicant. 19.155.020 Physical barriers. 19.155.030 Vehicle circulation areas. 19.155.0/10 Time limitation. 19.155.050 Other requirements. 1 I . • . The applicant shall install a berm, curb or other physical barrier during construction and, if necessary, following completion of development of the subject property, to prevent direct runoff 100 feet of a wellhead, a stream, a regulated lake or a regulated wetland. I The applicant shall locate all parking and vehicle circulation areas as far as possible from any . ... . . . - . . _ . 19.155700rimre-limitation.. The city may limit development activities which involve any land surface modification to specific months of the year and to a maximum number of continuous days or hours in order to ,d cts 1 1 1 • . . • . .. . . in order to minimize adverse impacts on geologically hazardous areas, wells, critical aquifer 48 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments • • _ • \ • . . Seetiensi 19.160.010 Limitations. 19.160.010 Limitations: residential, commercial or park use on or within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area if no reasonable alternative exists and only if the development activity or land surface modification (a) A soils report prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the state which describes how the proposed development will impact each of the following on the subject (i) Slope stability, landslide hazard and sloughing. (ii) Seismic hazards. (iii) Groundwater. (iv) Seeps, springs and other surface waters. (c) That a qualified professional engineer be present on site during all land surface modification activities. (d) That trees, shrubs and groundcover be retained except where necessary for approved 49 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments STREAMS Section 19.165.010 Setbacks. 19.165.020 Relocation. 19.165.030 Bulkheads. 19.165.010 Culverts. 19.165.050 Removal of streams from culverts. 19.165.060 Rehabilitation. 19.165.070 Intrusion into setbacks. 19.165.080 Additional requirements for land surface modification. 19 c n S _ ori v vccvnetba (1) No land surface modification or improvements may take place or be located in a stream or (a) The setback area for a major str am includes all areas within 100 feet outward from the (b) The setback area for a minor stream includes all ar as within 50 feet outward from the (2) The setback areas established by this section do not apply to any segment of a stream that is presently within a culvert, unless that stream will be to - . .• - -- . development of the subject property. 19.1665 02�� RelocatienT (1) Relocation of a stream on the subject property is permitted subject to all of the conditions and restrictions of this section. (2) A proposal to relocate a stream will be reviewed and decided upon using process IV in Chapter 19.70 FWRC. (3) As part of any request under this section, the applicant must submit a stream relocation plan, (a)The creation of a natural meander pattern. the installation of erosion control features for stream side slopes. (c)The creation of a narrow subchannel, where feasible, against the south or west bank. (e) The use of vegetation normally associated with streams, including primarily native riparian vegetation. (f)The creation of spawning and nesting areas, wherever appropriate. (g)The re establishment of the fish population, wherever feasible. (h) The restoration of water flow characteristics compatible with fish habitat areas, wherever feasible. (i)The filling and revegetation of the prior channel. (j)A proposed phasing plan specifying time of year for all project phases. 50 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (5) Prior to diverting water into the new channel, a qualified professional approved by the city shall inspect the new channel following its completion and issue a written report to the director section. (6) The amount of flow and velocity of the stream may not bo increased or decreased as the 19165— lkheads (1)A bulkhead may not be located in or along a stream except as established in this section. (2) A request for a bulkhead in or along the stream will be reviewed and decided upon using process III in Chapter 19.65 FWRC. . - m -- •••••••• .. stream must be kept to a minimum. 19:1-65.04-,170—Cu vents. 19.65 FWRC. by submitting alternative site plans showing the stream in an open condition, that no other (4) The culvert must be designed and installed to allow passage of fish inhabiting or using-ho stream. The culvert must be large enough to accommodate a 100 year storm. (5) The applicant shall, at all times, keep all culverts on the subject property free of debris and sediment so as to allow free passage of water and, if applicable, fish. The city shall require a bond under Chapter 19.25 FWRC to ensure maintenance of the culvert approved under this Lection. .! ! . .. If development of the subject property requires approval through process I, II, III, or IV of this title, the city may require the stream to be taken out of the culvert and restored to a natural like }6c 060 Dehabilita v:.rov—ncirnozircu ir: 51 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments possible, of the degradation of the stream or riparian zone, proposed corrective actions, including installation of native species within the riparian corridor, performance standards, monitoring schedule, planting plans, erosion and sedimentation control plans, and grading plans as necessary. The director shall require an applicant to retain the services of a qualified professional in preparing the restoration plan. These actions may be permitted or required at any time that a -- . _ _ .. , . . . • .. , - : --• . _ . . . 1 I (1) Essential public facilities, public utilities and othcr public improvements. The director of community development may permit the placement of an essential public facility, public utility or other public improvements in a sctback from a stream if he or she determines that the line or on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the setback area must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. "Public utility and other public improvcmcnts" shall . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Minor improvements. Minor improvements such as footbridges crossing the stream, based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of wildlife habitat within the stream or setback area; (f) It is necessary to correct any one of the adverse conditions specified in subsections (2)(a) through(e)of this section. (3) Other intrusions. Other than as specified in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the city stream setback areas only through process IV, based on the following criteria: afeal (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities; nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of significant open space; and (f) It is necessary for reasonable development of the subject property. 52 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments � • � If any land surface modification is permitted within the stream or stream sctback area, the - - habitat. (2) The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only if part of an approved Chapter-494;0 Sections: 19.170.010 Conformance with division. 19.170.020 Setback areas. A . * . 7. - - - 19.170.050 Rehabilitation. 19.170.060 Bulkheads. 1 I I . . . • . No structure, improvement nor land surface modification may bo constructed or take place within regulated lakes or within setback areas from regulated lakes except as allowed in this 19.170.020 Setback a All areas landward 25 feet in every direction from the ordinary high water mark of a regulated 1 I 1 1 . . • • • .. . .. . _ .. . . . .. . . - * _ no significant habitat area will be damaged by its construction or use. A moorage structure, if -_ .. -=, . . - - - - - - - - -• - - --- . - •• - --- , 53 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments Ii .. - . moorage structure may not be more than two feet above the ordinary high water mark. . wed lakes. (1) Landscaping and land surface modification. Except as otherwise specifically permitted in this section, the setback area from a regulated lake may not be covered with an impervious place within the required setback area; provided, that no fertilizers, pesticides or other chemicals or substances are applied within the setback area that will degrade water quality or hasten (a) The proposed land surface modification is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject PrePeFty. (b)The land surface modification will not increase or decrease the size of the regulated lake. (c) The land surface modification will not change the points where any water enters or leaves the subject property nor in any way change drainage patterns to or from adjacent properties. rd the lako (2) Minor structures and improvements. Minor improvements such as walkways, benches, platforms for storage of small boats and small storage lockers for paddles, oars, life preservers of community development based on the following criteria: (b)The minor improvement will not destroy nor damage a significant habitat area. (c) The minor improvement will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention (d) The minor improvement will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. (3) Essential public facilities and utilities. The director of community development may permit location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the setback area must constitute the minimum necessary (1) Other intrusions. (a) Where the properties immediately abutting the subject property have dwelling units which (b) Where subsection (4)(a) of this section applies, the dwelling unit on the subject property may be no closer to the ordinary high water mark of the regulated lake than the average of the 54 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (5) Rcvcgetation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas left exposed after land surface 1 n 17n nen � ilita �sr,-v�v��I�Celii.,visastf6ir. maintain a regulated lake by requiring the removal of detrimental materials such as debris, habitat-exists: 19. 70.060 Bul ead& (1) General. A bulkhead is permitted within or adjacent to a regulated lake subject to the . process III. (3) Criteria. The city may permit a bulkhead to be constructed only if: erasion: *. . . . Changes in the horizontal or vertical configuration of the land must bo kept to a minimum. The 55 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments Chapter 19.175 Sections: 19.175.010 Determination of wetland and regulated wetland. 19.175.020 Wetland categories and standard buffers. .. . . 19.175.010 Structures, improvements and land surface modification within regulated wetland buffers:. 1 1 \ . . .. (1) Generally. The March. 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Department of Ecology Publication No. 96 91) as set forth in WAC 173 22 080, as it exists as of November 1, 1999, or as subsequently amended, will be used for identification and delineation of wetlands within the city. Although a site specific wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be considered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another wetland that meets the criteria. Whore vegetation has been removed, a wetland may bo determined by the presence of hydric soils, as well as other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. (2) Evaluation. If the city determines that a wetland may exist on or within 200 feet of the subject property, the director shall require the applicant to submit a wetland report, prepared by a (2)(a) through (g) and (3) of this section. The director shall use the information required by subsections(2)(a) and(b) of this section to determine if the area is a regulated wetland and, if so, shall use the information required by subsections (2)(c) through (g) and (3) of this section to (a) An evaluation of whether the area in question is a regulated wetland under this section, FWRC 19.175.020, and the definition of"wetland" in FWRC 19.05.230. of the wetland and location of plant communities, and a detailed description of the method used (d) The wetland classification, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the U.S." • • _ , . . . . • - - control; groundwater exchange; open space and recreation; and educational and cultural opportunities. (3) Drainage facilities. Surface water ponds, drainage ditches, and other such facilities which were designed to impound or convey water for an engineered purpose are not considered (a) The drainage facility must have been intentionally human created. This is to differentiate 56 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments director upon a review, under subsection (2)(g) of this section, of the ecological functions and values of the site. . • Lt- --• -- • • • . - . - te, - - - • • --• .- .. -_ _. . . _. . . - - . . . ._ . Z. - -- (c) The facility must be actively operated as a surface water drainage facility. Abandoned subsection (2)(g)of this section,of the ecological functions and values of the site. boundary. In such a case, the expanded area may be considorod a regulated wetland by the values of the site. (e) The drainage facility was not designed or constructed as a requirement to mitigate previous wetland impacts. (f) The director finds that limited ecological functions and values do not warrant application of the city's wetland regulations. . . (a) Category I wetlands meet one of the following criteria: bogs and fens, mature forested wetlands, groundwater exchange areas, significant habitat or (iii)Have three or more wetland classes, one of which is open water. (b) Category II wetlands are greater than 2,500 square foot in area, do not exhibit the (i) Are contiguous with water bodies or tributaries to water bodies which under normal OF (ii)Are greater than one acre in size in its entirety; or .. characteristics of Category I or II wetlands. .. (b) Category II wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 100 feet. (c) Category III wetlands shall have a standard buffer width of 50 foot for wetlands that aro greater than 10,000 square feet in area, and shall have a standard buffer width of 25 feet for .. . ... 57 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments I .t (1) Generally. No land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement protect the wetland from any adverse effects or impacts of the access and to limit the access to (3)Rehabilitation. The director of community development may permit or require an applicant to rehabilitate and maintain a regulated wetland by removing detrimental material such as debris and inappropriate vegetation and by requiring that native vegetation be planted. These actions ('1) Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the city may approve any request to locate an improvement or engage in land surface modification within a shall be based on the following criteria: (a) It will not adversely affect water quality. (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat. (c) It will not adversely affect drainage or stormwater retention capabilities. nor to the city as a whole, including the loss of open space. (f) It will result in no net loss of wetland ar-a, function or value. (h) The applicant has demonstrated sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to carry out the project. (i) The applicant is committed to monitoring the project and to making corrections if the project fails to meet projected goals. (5) Required information. As part of any request under this section, the applicant shall submit a report, prepared by a qualified professional approved by the city, that includes the following infeffriatien+ (a)Mitigation plan. A mitigation plan shall include the following elements: (i) Environmental goals and objectives. (ii)Performance standards. ••• (iv)Timing. (v)Monitoring program for a minimum of five years. (vi)Contingency plan. (vii) Subject to the applicant's election of timing alternatives provided in subsection (5)(d) of this implementing the mitigation plan or the contingency plan, whichever is greater. (b) Mitigation. Mitigation of wetland impacts shall be restricted to restoration, creation or 58 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments wetland area, function or value. Where feasible, mitigation measures shall be designed to (c) Minimum acreage mitigation ratio. The following are ratios for providing restoration, acreage of wetland requiring restoration, creation or replacement and the second specifies the Grefitieff GategeFY nc nn Enhaneement Category I fati-tYPes) 64 Category II: Forested 24 64 SembiEhre43 21- Emergent 24 4 Category III: Forested 24 41- '4 -1- Emergent 1.25:1 2.5:1 The director may permit or require the above replacement ratios to be increased or decreased (d) Timing. All required wetland mitigation improvements, including monitoring, shall bo that will disturb regulated wetlands, or the applicant shall provide the performance and maintenance bond specified in subsection(5)(a)(vii) of this section. In either event, the applicant may not take any action that disturbs a regulated wetland or its buffer until the director has (e) Inspections. The applicant shall pay for services of a qualified professional selected and 59 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments i wetland buffers: (2) Buffer averaging. Buffers may be averaged only when the wetland or the buffer which is reduced buffers do not pose a detriment to the existing or expected habitat functions. Through process III, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director of community development that the proposed buffer averaging will meet all of the following criteria: wetland the buffer• s . the loss of open space. At no point shall the buffer width be reduced to less than 50 percent of the required standard buffer width, unless the buffer, in existing conditions, has already been permanently eliminated (3) Essential public facilities, public utilities and other public improvements. The director of or other public improvements in a regulated wetland buffer if he or she determines that the line or improvement must traverse the buffer because no feasible or alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the buffer must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of the public facility or utility. be located within the buffer from a regulated wetland if approved through process III, based on (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; (e) It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the subject property nor to the city as a whole. the standard wetland buffer width by up to 50 percent, but in no case to less than 25 feet, on a case by case basis, if the project includes a buffer . - - . . . .•_ . ' ' - . .. .. •. ., be demonstrated• (a) Existing conditions are such that the required standard buffer exists in a permanently altered state (e.g., roadways, paved parking lots, permanent structures, etc.) which does not provide any buffer function, then the buffer can be reduced for that portion where the intrusions are existing. 60 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (b) Except for Category I wetlands, existing conditions are such that the wetland has been permanently impacted by adjacent development activities, as evidenced by such things as property and, if so, may require additional buffer area on other portions of the perimeter of the sensitive area. (6) Modification. Other than as specified in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, the city may (a) It will not adversely affect water quality; (b) It will not adversely affect the existing quality of the wetland's or buffer's wildlife habitat; percent, and in no case shall the remaining buffer be less than 25 feet. The city may require, as a (7) Rcvcgctation. The applicant shall stabilize all areas loft exposed after land surface • - - - • • - , - - -- - .. . - -. •, • . • . - • .. . . - -- . .• •. - . (a) There is habitat for species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal agencies sensitive area. In such circumstances, the city may choose to impose those buffers, if any, associated with the condition or feature posing the threat in addition to, or to a maximum, 61 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments Chapter-1-9.180 Sections:- 19.180.010 ections:19.180.010 Criteria. 19.180.010 Criteria Any well constructed after March 1, 1990, must comply with the siting criteria of Chapter 173 160 WAC. Any improvement or use on the subject property erected or engaged in after March 1, 11.1 • . . . . Chapter 19.185 • • . . . Sections: 19.185.010 Limitations. 19.185.020 Classification of wellhead capture zones. 19.185.030 General requirements. 19.185.010 Prohibited activities in Wellhead Capture Zone 1. 19.185.050 Regulation of facilities handling and storing hazardous materials. 19.185.060 Performance standards. 19.185.070 Use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead protection areas. ' 85 notations. This chapter regulates any development activity, or division of land which requires review under FWRC Title 11, Environmental Policy, and Title 15, Shoreline Management, and which is located within designated wellhead capture zones. Wellhead Capture Zones 1, 2, and 3 arc designated as critical aquifer recharge areas under the provisions of the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW) and are established based on proximity to and travel time of have received a letter of completeness prior to the effective date of the amendments. I . • . The Lakehaven utility district (LUD) has designated three wellhead capture zones based on zone of any public water source well owned by LUD. (2) Wellhead Capture Zone 2 represents the land area overlaying the five year time of travel zone of any public water source well owned by LUD, excluding the land area contained in Wellhead Capture Zone 1. 62 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments (3) Wellhead Capture Zone 3 represents the land arca overlaying the 10 year time of travel zone Capture Zones 1 or 2. I • I . .. . . aquifer. recharge and wellhead protection areas. All conditions to permits shall be based on known, (3) The proposed activity must comply with the water source protection requirements and recommendations of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, State Department of .- . ., ii . . . . (1) Land uses or activities for development that pose a significant hazard to the city's _ .. . - - -. _: _ . . . ••:, . - -:, -• •-:, . •-:, . .. ._ -- - • Capture Zone 1, except as specified in FWRC 19.30.170. These land uses and activities include, . . - • - - - - •- - -• --= • . ., • • . . •I (h) Chemical manufacturing, including but not limited to organic and inorganic chemicals, chemicals; • • - • -. (m) Mining(metal, sand, and gravel); and hazard to the city's groundwater supply. 63 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments i i . -- • • • - - • - areas (Wellhead Capture Zones 1, 2, and 3) shall submit a hazardous materials inventory along with the land use application, to determine whether hazardous materials mccting the definition of FWRC 19.05.080 will be used, stored,transported or disposed of in connection with the proposed activity. The development review committee shall make the following dote .,tio . --- . • . . - :; _ - , (c) Hazardous materials are involved and the proposal has the potential to significantly impact critical aquifer recharge areas and wellhead capture zones; however, sufficient information is not available to evaluate the potential impact of contamination. The city may require a (i) Information regarding geologic and hydrogcologic charactoristicf of the site, including the surface location of the wellhead capture zone in which it is located and the type of infiltration of the site. (iii) Location of other critical areas, including surface waters, within 200 feet of the site. (iv) Best management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management (IPM) proposed to be us , (A) Predictive evaluation of groundwater withdrawal effects on nearby wells and surface water €eaturest (B) Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to groundwater; (C)Predictive evaluation of changes in the infiltration/recharge rate. ('1) A groundwater monitoring plan may be required to monitor quality and quantity of monitoring. Criteria used to determine the need for site monitoring shall include, but not be underground vessels. (5) The city may employ an outside consultant at the applicant's expense for third party review of the hydrogeologic critical area assessment report, the spill containment and response plan, and 64 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments i . 1 • •• requires review under FWRC Title 11, Environmental Policy, and Title 15, Shoreline producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances Fire Code. • • are exempt from the secondary containment requirements of this section; provided, that - - - - . risks of releases posed by all hazardous materials on site. These risks may be mitigated by hazardous materials management plan. Design and construction of said stormwater infiltration systems shall also be in accordance with the KCSWDM, as amended by the city of Federal Way, and shall be certified for compliance with the requirements of this section by a professional (c) The following standards shall apply to construction activities occurring where construction city's project permitting process, the city may require any or all of the following items: use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials, and who has appropriate knowledge and training to take mitigating actions necessary in the event of a fire or spill; - . . . .. . . - . _ - • I, - • - _ . -. , . . . _ . . . (iv) Practices and procedures to ensure that hazardous materials left on site when the site is • - -- •- •. - •- - , - . - -•. ._ - . ._ . .- - . -- •-- •--- ; • immediately, or repaired on site immediately. The vehicle or equipment may be repaired in (vi) Practices and procedures to ensure that storage and dispensing of flammable and combustible liquids from tanks, containers, and tank trucks into the fuel and fluid reservoirs of 65 Exhibit A Proposed Text Amendments On site cleanup materials may suffice for smaller spills, whereas cleanup of larger spills may require a subcontract with a qualified cleanup contractor. Releases shall immediately be • _ . • Environmental Policy, and Title 15, Shoreline Management, within all wellhead capture zones , • • , . - . _, • •- _, • -, • _, . -- •- _, - -, - - - 19.05.080 shall comply with the following standards: areas shall have a containment system for collecting and treating all runoff from such areas and preventing release of fuels, oils, lubricants, and other automotive fluids into the soil, surface the transfer, handling, treatment, use, production, recycling, or disposal of hazardous materials or handle, treat, use, produce, recycle, or dispose of hazardous materials, or other deleterious substances, meeting the definition of FWRC 19.05.080. (c) Fill material shall not contain concentration of contaminants that exceed cleanup standards for soil as specified in the Model ToxicG Control Act(MTCA). An imported fill source statement - �� • city may require analytical results to demonstrate that fill materials do not exceed cleanup standards. The imported fill source statement shall include: (ii)Previous land uses of the source location; and (iii) Whether or not fill to be imported is native, undisturbed soil. (d) All development or redevelopment shall implement best management practices (BMPs) for water quality and quantity, as approved by the director of community development services. the particular use proposed, cluster development, and limited impervious surfaces. • 1 1 • • . . • • . . . Proposed developments with maintained landscaped areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area which require review under FWRC Title 14, Environmental Policy, and Title 15, Shoreline Management, shall prepare an operations and management manual using best management practices (BMPs) and integrated pest management (IPM) for fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide applications. The BMPs shall include recommendations on the quantity, timing, and type of 66 Exhibit B Survey Flyer Aih, CITY OF Federal Way Critical Areas Survey The City of Federal Way invites you to fill out an online survey at https:llwww.surveymonkey.com/s/fwcao What is the purpose of this survey? The purpose of this survey is to collect feedback from Best available science means that policies and people who live,work, or own a business in Federal Way regulations must be based upon scientifically on how best to protect critical areas.The Was ington State Growth Management Act requires that the City update its proven methods and measures documented to regulations using"best available science."Th; City is protect critical areas. beginning to update the regulations and policie. that affect how and where development can occur near « tical areas. This update occurs every eight years and must se reviewed What are critical areas? by Washington State Departments of Commer e and Critical areas in Federal Way include marine habitats, Ecology. freshwater streams and lakes,wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologic hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat areas.To see if you live,work or own a business near an identified critical area, see the City's Critical Areas Map on the last page of this handout or at http://www.cityoffederalway.com/index.aspx?nid=321. t r J i‘ d4, Cutthroat Trout Credit:OSF,WS Wood Duck Credit Ingrid Taylar STREAMS AND LAKES Critical areas found within 200 feet of the Streams and lakes provide a natural drainage system in the city.They also provide opportunity for recreation and Puget Sound and along lakes greater than 20 habitat for fish and wildlife (such as coho salmon, cutthroat acres in size are designated as"shorelines of trout, beaver,wood duck and other diving ducks).There are the state"and are protected under the Cty's five major stream systems in Federal Way, including West Hylebos Creek, Cold Creek, Joe's Creek, Lakota Creek and Shoreline Master Program. These areas are Redondo Creek.The city also has several non-shoreline not part of this critical areas update.Lakes lakes within its City limits: Mirror,Twin, Panther, and Easter. designated as shorelines include,Steel,North, The City protects streams and lakes by maintaining a certain distance("buffer"or"setback") between the water's and Killarney lakes. edge and new development.The City also regulates stream crossings and relocations. mxt •^t} �, yaKat fir ' a ,. ;. 67 Exhibit B Survey Flyer tis a� -r, "�' �' a 4j. A 4 '• 4 .� h !' it Y \. _ tj A' v i .4110004.4400 4 • Pileated Woodpecker Credit Dick Daniels Lake in Federal Way Credit:ESA WETLANDS GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS By storing floodwaters,wetlands reduce flooding and AREAS minimize downstream erosion. In addition, the organic Geologically hazardous areas include the following: soils and vegetation in wetlands serve as a natural sponge, • Landslide-prone areas that represent a potential trapping and absorbing sediments; helping to improve and hazard to people and property. Inappropriate protect downstream water quality.Wetlands also provide development activities may disturb these areas to the important habitat for fish,waterfowl and wildlife (such point that land slides,erosion, high run off,and stream as cutthroat trout, great blue heron, songbirds, and siltation may occur. hummingbirds).Wetlands are located on private and public • Seismic hazard areas have a certain soil type near lands throughout the city and include Hylebos Wetlands a shallow groundwater table. During an earthquake, State Park and Fisher's bog.The City protects wetlands these soils become highly unstable and are unable by requiring buffers between new development and the to adequately support structures. wetland's edge and by regulating wetland alteration. • Erosion hazard areas where the soils are so erosion- A Q U I F E R RECHARGE AREAS sensitive that urban development is not appropriate. Thirty percent of drinking water in Federal Way is from • Steep slope areas are hillsides that are either naturally groundwater sources in and around the city. Groundwater unstable, or susceptible to instability when disturbed. is extracted from four aquifer systems that underlie the city. Geologically hazardous areas have been mapped along The City protects aquifer recharge areas by limiting certain much of the Puget Sound shoreline, along stream land uses(for example, septic systems and hazardous corridors, and in limited pockets throughout the city.The material facilities) in areas particularly sensitive to ground- City protects geologically hazardous areas by maintaining water contamination. a distance between the hazardous area and new structures. o`N?.., .,, ..�.�+ � ..t_ '`;',=¢..,,� 'i�z'>�a+.r'� ""y+t;�N.�`w'ai✓',r"Y#' :.g"^YMe.,`"sLA..r.,rt'""h`b t,4.u.,...�^.. ...... ..... ..._,........ s . 68 Exhibit B Survey Flyer / • ._ _. 2�', _fir,h, s,'E �"'�'' v'G..;ra"° ,.x 'fib �•., \. —,Great Blue Heron Credit:Kozarluha Wetland in Federal Way Credit:ESA FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT How long dol have to fill out the AREAS survey? Fish and wildlife habitat areas are located in open Surveys will be available from August 25 to October 31, spaces, parks and other natural areas throughout the city. 2014. These areas provide habitat for either resident species or seasonal migratory species or both. Fish and wildlife What will you do with the survey habitat areas in Federal Way occur mainly along streams, results? lakes and the Puget Sound coastline. Common fish and The results of the survey will be compiled in a report and wildlife species found in Federal Way are cutthroat trout, posted to the City's critical areas update webpage.The coho salmon, northern flicker, pileated woodpecker, great report is expected to be released in November 2014. The blue heron, eagles and resident or migratory songbirds. results will be used by the City to help inform revisions to the critical area policies and regulations. QUESTIONS? Contact Matt Herrera at(253)853-2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. For additional information see the CAO update webpage here: http://www.cityoffederalway.com/criticalareas. =' ' ss Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q1 Do you live in Federal Way Answered:50 Skipped:2 Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 80.00% 40 No 20.00% 10 Total 50 70 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q2 Do you live near a critical area? Please select any that apply: Answered:49 Skipped:3 Stream/Creek Wetland Lake(except Steel,North... Landslide/Steep Slope/Erosio... No,I do not live near a... I don't know Other(please describe) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Stream/Creek 20.41% 10 Wetland 30.61% 15 Lake(except Steel,North and Killarney protected under the Shoreline Master Program) 12.24% 6 Landslide/Steep Slope/Erosion Hazard areas 16.33% 8 No,I do not live near a critical area 30.61% 15 I don't know 10.20% 5 Other(please describe) 14.29% 7 Total Respondents:49 Other(please describe) Date 1 just North of Steel Lake 1/1/2015 6:52 PM 2 Dash Point State Park 10/27/2014 1:16 PM 3 Greenbelt 10/24/2014 11:49 AM 4 park 10/10/2014 11:34 AM 5 Fish and Wildife Habitat-Dash Pt.State Park 10/8/2014 11:00 AM 71 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey 6 I lived in Federal Way in the past.I see that Kitts Corner is being developed.I now live in Kent.Hooked at and 9/26/2014 3:22 PM took picture of the yellow sign that was posted at Kitts.No meeting date was ever posted on the property. 7 Puget Sound Shoreline 8/29/2014 12:51 AM 72 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q3 How often do you or your family visit natural areas, parks, or open spaces within the city? Answered:48 Skipped:4 Once every couple of... Once a month Once a week Daily ■ Not often 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Once every couple of months 12.50% 6 Once a month 31.25% 15 Once a week 25.00% 12 Daily 10.42% 5 Not often 20.83% 10 Total 48 73 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q4 How important to you are streams, wetlands, habitat and other critical areas in terms of your sense of place, quality of life, or vision for Federal Way's future? Answered:48 Skipped:4 Very important Somewhat important Indifferent ' Somewhat unimportant Very unimportant 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Very important 64.58% 31 Somewhat important 31.25% 15 Indifferent 2.08% 1 Somewhat unimportant 0.00% 0 Very unimportant 2.08% 1 Total 48 74 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q5 How important is fish and wildlife species diversity to you and your vision of Federal Way? Answered:47 Skipped:5 Very important Somewhat important Indifferent , Somewhat ' unimportant Very unimportant 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Very important 59.57% 28 Somewhat important 31.91% 15 Indifferent 4.26% 2 Somewhat unimportant 4.26% 2 Very unimportant 0.00% 0 Total 47 75 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q6 What level of importance do you place on open space? Answered:45 Skipped:7 • Very important ," + Somewhat important Indifferent I Somewhat unimportant Very unimportant 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Very important 77.78% 35 Somewhat important 20.00% 9 Indifferent 2.22% 1 Somewhat unimportant 0.00% 0 Very unimportant 0.00% 0 Total 45 76 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q7 West Hylebos Wetlands and Fisher's bog are unique and rare wetlands located in Federal Way. How important is wetland protection to you? Answered:46 Skipped:6 Very important Somewhat important Indifferent Somewhat unimportant Very unimportant 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Very important 69.57% 32 Somewhat important 28.26% 13 Indifferent 0.00% 0 Somewhat unimportant 0.00% 0 Very unimportant 2.17% 1 Total 46 77 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q8 How concerned are you about the possiblility of each of the following hazards? Answered:46 Skipped:6 Coastal erosion e<. S7 Landslides r x% Earthquakes Flooding 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 111 Extremely Concerned • Somewhat Concerned • Not Concerned Extremely Concerned Somewhat Concerned Not Concerned Total Coastal erosion 28.89% 44.44% 26.67% 13 20 12 45 Landslides 42.22% 46.67% 11.11% 19 21 5 45 Earthquakes 41.30% 54.35% 4.35% 19 25 2 46 78 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Flooding 25.00% 54.55% 20.45% 11 24 9 44 79 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q9 In your opinion, which of the following measures are the most effective in dealing with environmental protection (please rank the following): Answered:44 Skipped:8 Laws and regulations Voluntary compliance Financial or other... Acquisition of land or... 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 Total Score Laws and regulations 43.18% 25.00% 20.45% 11.36% 19 11 9 5 44 3.00 Voluntary compliance 11.36% 18.18% 18.18% 52.27% 5 8 8 23 44 1.89 Financial or other incentives 13.64% 18.18% 47.73% 20.45% 6 8 21 9 44 2.25 Acquisition of land or easements 31.82% 38.64% 13.64% 15.91% 14 17 6 7 44 2.86 80 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q10 Would you say that the benefits of critical area regulations outweigh the costs to comply? Answered:45 Skipped:7 Yes,benefits outweigh the... d Benefits sometimes... No,benefits do not outwe... I don't know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes,benefits outweigh the costs to comply 51.11% 23 Benefits sometimes outweigh the costs to comply 26.67% 12 No,benefits do not outweigh the costs to comply 11.11% 5 I don't know 11.11% 5 Total 45 81 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q11 The city code currently requires most types of new development (new buildings, additional impervious surfaces, new decks, etc.) to be located a certain distance from a critical area, referred to as a buffer or setback. These setbacks or buffers (when vegetated) protect water quality, provide habitat for wildlife, and protect the stream bank or steep slope from erosion. Please indicate whether, in your opinion, the City should be more or less restrictive when protecting critical areas: Answered:42 Skipped: 10 Yi i Stream ■ setbacks:... ■ High value I wetland buff... 1111 Common ' wetlands:... _■ 82 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Lake setbacks:Dev... Steep slopes ' and erosion... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Yes,the City should be more restrictive • No,the City should be less restrictive • No change needed,this requirement seems appropriate In Not sure Yes,the City No,the City No change Not Total should be should be needed,this sure more less requirement restrictive restrictive seems appropriate Stream setbacks:Development must be located 50-100 feet back from either 45.24% 7.14% 38.10% 9.52% side of a stream 19 3 16 4 42 High value wetland buffers(for example,bogs,mature forest):Development 51.22% 4.88% 31.71% 12.20% must be located 100-200 feet back from the edge of a wetland 21 2 13 5 41 Common wetlands:Development must be located 25-50 feet back from the 58.54% 2.44% 26.83% 12.20% edge of a wetland 24 1 11 5 41 Lake setbacks:Development must be located 25 feet from the edge of the 57.50% 0.00% 27.50% 15.00% water 23 0 11 6 40 Steep slopes and erosion hazard areas:Development can be located within 63.41% 2.44% 19.51% 14.63% 25 feet of a steep slope or erosion hazard area only if it can be proved that it 26 1 8 6 41 would not lead to increased slide or erosion hazards and that there is no othe 83 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q12 What environmental/conservation activity do you see as the most important need for Federal Way (please rank the following)? Answered:41 Skipped:11 Improving critical are... Educating property owners Educating developers Acquiring land for open space _■ Planting vegetation... Planting trees Structural projects to... Removal of invasive plants 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total Score Improving critical area regulations 21.95% 17.07% 12.20% 19.51% 12.20% 0.00% 4.88% 12.20% 9 7 5 8 5 0 2 5 41 5.37 Educating property owners 4.88% 26.83% 17.07% 9.76% 12.20% 17.07% 9.76% 2.44% 2 11 7 4 5 7 4 1 41 5.00 Educating developers 14.63% 17.07% 17.07% 12.20% 0.00% 9.76% 14.63% 14.63% 6 7 7 5 0 4 6 6 41 4.73 Acquiring land for open space 36.59% 9.76% 9.76% 9.76% 7.32% 2.44% 9.76% 14.63% 15 4 4 4 3 1 4 6 41 5.39 Planting vegetation along streams 4.88% 7.32% 19.51% 17.07% 14.63% 14.63% 12.20% 9.76% 2 3 8 7 6 6 5 4 41 4.29 Planting trees 4.88% 7.32% 9.76% 14.63% 19.51% 17.07% 12.20% 14.63% 2 3 4 6 8 7 5 6 41 3.90 Structural projects to lessen the impact of 12.20% 7.32% 9.76% 9.76% 9.76% 9.76% 24.39% 17.07% hazards 5 3 4 4 4 4 10 7 41 3.90 Removal of invasive plants 0.00% 7.32% 4.88% 7.32% 24.39% 29.27% 12.20% 14.63% 0 3 2 3 10 12 5 6 41 3.41 84 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q13 How did you hear about this survey? Answered:43 Skipped:9 Federal Way website Federal Way permit counter City Council Meeting Planning Commission... Community II Center Friend/Colleagu e Other(please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Federal Way website 53A9% 23 Federal Way permit counter 0.00% 0 City Council Meeting 2.33% 1 Planning Commission Meeting 0.00% 0 Community Center 4.65% 2 Friend/Colleague 2.33% 1 Other(please specify) 41.86% 18 Total Respondents:43 Other(please specify) Date 1 email from city 1/7/2015 7:06 PM 2 FW Mirror 1/4/2015 3:57 PM 3 Contact by FW Community Development 10/29/2014 3:58 PM 4 through EarthCorps and Matt Herrera 10/28/2014 2:34 PM 5 Earthcorps 10/27/2014 1:22 PM 6 EarthCorps 10/24/2014 11:55 AM 7 West Hylebos Wetlands Newsletter 10/24/2014 11:22 AM 85 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey 8 EarthCorps 10/24/2014 11:21 AM 9 From Friends of the Hylebos people 10/14/2014 1:53 PM 10 EarthCorps 10/9/2014 1:22 PM 11 earthcorps 10/9/2014 12:41 PM 12 Chamber 10/9/2014 11:33 AM 13 Chamber newsletter 10/9/2014 2:39 AM 14 email 10/2/2014 8:25 PM 15 received in my e-mail box 10/1/2014 3:25 PM 16 Buckaroo email 10/1/2014 9:37 AM 17 Spoke w/David Pater who refered me to Doug Gresham at Dept of Ecology.Need to see Critical Area ma.Did 9/26/2014 6:54 PM you submit a JARPA document?Do you need to have an environment asssessment.Also talk w/Margaret Clark re:Development regs. 18 staff 8/29/2014 1:02 AM 86 Exhibit B Critical Areas Survey Q14 Please provide any additional comments you would like to share with us regarding critical area regulations and protections: Answered:15 Skipped:37 Responses Date 1 Setbacks do not establish a level protection as intended.If further regulations are implemented the city should 1/7/2015 11:50 AM consider Performance Based regulations that determine a measurable level of protection. 2 Our parks are jewels and treasures in Federal Way.We must do all we can to protect them and by doing that we 10/28/2014 2:34 PM insure a high quality of life for our citizens. 3 Question 9 went to 1,2,3,4 and could not change it.Question 11 is not clear 10/27/2014 1:22 PM 4 Federal Way is becoming much too overdeveloped.Although there are already numerous vacant buildings and 10/24/2014 11:55 AM lots,developers continue to tear down our forested areas to build blocks of concrete.This has been very upsetting to me. 5 Look at the historical photos of Federal Way showing how we've changed the environment.While our city 10/24/2014 11:22 AM continues to grow it is imperative that we save a place for wildlife! 6 Once critical area control is lost it cannot be replaced! 10/14/2014 1:53 PM 7 anything we can do to improve Federal Way Is appreciated. 10/10/2014 11:40 AM 8 Development is going to grow and more and more people will continue to come here.Please protect our critical 10/9/2014 12:41 PM areas and require Low Impact Development as well to lessen the impacts.Thank you. 9 With long-term population growth,Federal Way will become a more prominent urban center.Conserving and 10/9/2014 10:17 AM restoring community treasures like the Hylebos now will be the legacy we leave for future generations. 10 We live east of 1-5,so have a Federal Way address,but are not in the city limits. 10/8/2014 3:47 PM 11 Way too long and complicated. 10/3/2014 12:48 AM 12 I was unable to rank my answers! 10/1/2014 9:37 AM 13 I heard that the regs.that would impact the development of Kitts were changed to allow the development to 9/26/2014 6:54 PM proceed.I have no confirmation of this,and I do know that every 8 years the City does a re-write of it's Regs.It just seems like a coincidence if in fact the change in Regs has been made to support development in the Kitts Corner area.I don't know if this is true or not.The underlying issue for me is that the Kitts Corner area has been wild for many years.I am sure there their are well established populations of all kinds of wildlife.If the development impacts birds that are nesting,your work may be interrupted until the end of August,or even later, when all of the chicks are fledged.I would check with Manissa Kung on this.I understand that there are many reasons the city wants to develop the property.To me,none of these reasons are more important than maintaining the Kitts in it's wild state.The wildlife are our charge.Where will they go when they are no longer able to maintain themselves in a developed Kitts?We can adapt to loss of our homes and profound environmental change.They can't. 14 Puget Sound Shoreline setback needs to b 50 ft,and should include the stringline tool as an option. 8/29/2014 1:02 AM 15 We are property owners adjacent to proposed Creekwood development,and are very aware of erosion and 8/27/2014 8:54 AM landslide potential.The parcel in question is shown to be almost entirely erosion hazard area in city critical areas map.We are extremely concerned about grading and development of fragile area,and frankly stunned that the city is allowing this to happen.We have been staying very tuned in to plans as they unfold. 87 i�'1, ►.JL. , 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW Suite 200 www.esassoc.com l.J Seattle,WA 98107 206.789.9658 phone 206.789.9684 fax Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews memorandum date January 12,2015 to Matt Herrera,City of Federal Way from Reema Shakra,Environmental Science Associates subject City of Federal Way Critical Areas Ordinance: Stakeholder Interviews The City of Federal Way identified the following 8 stakeholders to be interviewed by phone on the topic of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance Update: 1. Lori DeVore,Real Estate Agent 2. Margery Godfrey,Chair of the Friends of the Hylebos Advisory Committee 3. Russ Ladley,Puyallup Tribe,Resource Protection Manager 4. Bill McCaffrey,Developer 5. Thomas Moehlman,Twin Lakes Resident 6. Peter Townsend,Property Owner 7. Karen Walter,Watersheds and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Tribe 8. Alex Wilford,Masters Builders Association Reema Shakra and Spencer Easton with Environmental Science Associates(ESA)spoke with each stakeholder individually and asked a series of 10 questions over a 20-30 minute phone call in November 2014.Table 1 below lists the 10 questions in the left hand column and summarizes the answers by individual,organized alphabetically along the top row. 88 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Table 1.Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Puyallup Tribe,Resource Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Committee Protection Manager Muckleshoot Tribe Association cce do you Very important Lowest importance when Important. Very important Very unimportant as far as it Peter has asked his consultant Not applicable/no comment Very important place ol::He'oitov;l ng ^; compared to the other options If you don't give property applies to the critical areas to review the questions and to ,rrpor:art,,or listed in this question owners that are paying taxes ordinance.I think the CAO is provide feedback in December. the ability to develop their much more important than Peter answer only certain a. Ability to develop private property you just generate so developing your own property. questions based on his property much animosity that this interests/concerns.See below. wouldn't go anywhere. 1. I value open space also Important Very important Important Open space is an open word Important.Depends on how Open space,wetland but it's very important. you define it but it's important. protection and stream and lake protection are all important because we believe that a. Open space healthy communities and happy communities are important to the building industry. 1. I _,'2,1 1 or lrnpo-tance do you Very Important—most of us Very important Very important Important Very important Very important. See above 3iaCe.an the (very realize the value of having ocrtanr,.:npor°ant ao, sensitive areas(for example, rnportani). the Hylebos).We need to keep a. Wetland protection natural habitat.We have wildlife around that we aren't trying to eliminate. 1. i. a ._ 00 or, Very important Very important Very important Important Very important Very important. See above Water systems is a circulatory system of our planet and if we a. Stream and lake protection don't protect and keep it clean then we are going to have considerable health issues and other considerable issues.The next great battles are going to be over water and who's downstream.We are starting to see this issue now.So we have to take care of our aquifers,and of course,our wetlands,streams and lakes which feed into our aquifers. 2. How important is fish and Fairly important It is important to maintain our It's important everywhere in These seem like two different Very important The streams/drainages on Fish diversity is very important. From the building industry's wildlife species"diversity"to ecology and our health.It is Washington.We should work questions. Peter's property likely do not standpoint it would depend on you and the quality of the very important to maintain the towards preserving what we have fish as they can't climb up how you would define environment in Federal Way? nature in our area and also have and try to get back to Species diversity can get a little their property. diversity.But as an overall [Diversity means a wide variety ensures protection of the food where we once were. crazy.For example,a snail concept,the building industry of wildlife(birds,amphibians, chain.Everybody eats off of found in Central Valley, supports healthy ecological small mammals)living in a mix something(plants off the California has starved farmers systems. of habitat types throughout the earth,bees from flowers);we cutting a big swath of Central city] can't get rid of our apex Valley off from irrigation;this predators;and we have to has crippled families.When it's protect our pollinators.We reasonable I support it.But have to maintain our diversity many times too much • 89 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Puyallup Tribe,Resource Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Committee Protection Manager Muckleshoot Tribe Association because it all works together, importance is placed on it but simply put,it's the circle of life. it should not come at a cost to human life."Quality of the environment"a loaded question in my mind. 3. How concerned are you about Somewhat concerned It is very important to address No specific concerns.People Somewhat concerned—I don't Somewhat concerned,mostly We have concern but we don't Everything described here are All of these listed in question 3 the possibility of the following coastal erosion,flooding and should be well aware of this think we want to regulate it because there aren't a lot of have a major issue to give all natural processes.Other are'somewhat of a concern.' hazards(very concerned, When I look at our coastline,I landslides.They are all tied natural process. unnecessarily.I think there's large,high bank areas in input to you on it than earthquakes,these types Especially when you take them somewhat concerned,not see that we have a lot of trees. together.For example, some natural erosion that we Federal Way.There are some of hazards tend to create fish into consideration with how concerned)and why: We hear now and then that landslides can result from can have over time. but it's not a huge amount like habitat.They're important. they affect building materials a. Coastal erosion there was some sliding but our coastal erosion with loss in it would be in some other cities From a fisheries perspective, structure fin terms of the whole coastline is lined with slope or vegetation that holds with a high bank coastline. we would be concerned about building code],and people's trees and I think our people the soil. actions taken to interfere with safety.You shouldn't put have been very careful.For these natural processes as they someone or something in that reason I'm not alarmed.I create fish habitat harms way. would be alarmed if I saw trees opportunities. However,if I come down.I live on the water were a person living on a bluff I and I walk the beach and have might be concerned about seen that people have left the erosion and my house falling trees intact.I think we are in into the Sound. fine shape. 3. How concerned are you about I'm somewhat concerned for See above Landslides are mostly I find it hard to answer Somewhat concerned basically We have concern but we don't See above. Landslides are more of concern the possibility of the following the same explanation I just avoidable until geological questions like this.I don't see for the same reason as coastal have a major issue to give at this current time.It affects hazards(very concerned, gave above.I don't think we predication gets more this as a big issue in Federal erosion. input to you on it where you can build.It affects somewhat concerned,not are headed toward any advanced.The Oso landslide is Way.Lower end of concern the buffers based on the concerned)and why: disaster. an example where people in geotech report.It's important a. Landslides the know knew about the risks to look at these areas and take but whether or not they were them into consideration for able to effectively convey that development. to the public will be debated for a while. If we think it's a landslide hazard we will need to economically incentive it so that people do not build near them. 3. How concerned are you about Not concerned If we keep pumping our Earthquakes are going to Obviously I'm concerned about Somewhat concern.We've had See above. Earthquake risk is more of a the possibility of the following aquifers than we may see more happen regardless of our earthquakes but not aware several but we haven't had a regional concern than for just hazards(very concerned, earthquakes.I know it makes actions.I see this more as a how this specifically affects huge one. the city.How would you do somewhat concerned,not lands sink. building code and design issue Federal Way.I'm not aware of something about this? concerned)and why: Not as much concern as rather than environmental areas in Federal Way that are b. Earthquakes flooding,coastal erosion and issue. widely prone to earthquakes. landslides This seems to be a regional issue and not something • specific to Federal Way.I'm an architect and am familiar with requirements.The existing rules usually already have a tremendous error factor built in them. 3. How concerned are you about I'm not concerned Flooding is the hazard I deal Moderately concerned.I have Not concerned.I think the City We are concerned with See above. Flooding is definitely a the possibility of the following with the most often.Flooding a piece of property that was in of Federal Way has a pretty flooding but I'm already concern.We sit on the WRIA 9 90 • Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehiman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Puyallup Tribe,Resource Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Protection Manager Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Association Committee Muckleshoot Tribe hazards(very concerned, is almost 100%avoidable a drainage basin that was full good stormwater management dealing with the surface water forum and SWIFT so we take somewhat concerned,not through planning,unlike so there were more control program. people at FW. on issues that apply to concerned)and why: earthquakes.I have concerns requirements that we had to flooding. c. Flooding about this hazard but no meet and we did.I think its sympathy for when it happens. fine to keep away from flooding areas. 4. Are you familiar with the No No No No Yes Yes. No,skip to question S regulations the City has in place for regulating land use impacts on critical areas(wildlife habitat, wetlands, flood and landslide hazards, streams,lakes)collectively known as the City's critical areas ordinance? a. Are there regulations in the N/A N/A N/A N/A No,because it's not enforced. KC Surface water is a difficult Most of the critical area N/A ordinance that are This assertion is based on one to comply with. regulations I have reviewed in particularly difficult for observation of illegal activities. King,Snohomish,and Pierce property owners or It provides the ability to Counties were written such developers to comply with? provide adequate protection. that there was allowances for If yes,what are they? reasonable uses and variances. There are opportunities for property owners and developers to comply with this ordinance.Another way of looking at this is how well are the owners and prospective developers familiar with attributes of a property before they develop.You can't have too much information.In some jurisdictions,the ordinance is buried on the webpage so property owners can have a legitimate argument that they didn't know the information was out there.Some jurisdictions have an FAQ for the CAO to help clarify the code and its applicability.Visibility and accessibility are two things that are key components to recommend to the City. b. Do you think it provides N/A N/A N/A No No,same reason as above. I haven't read it in a long time N/A adequate protection to and would have to go back and critical areas?If no,why look at it.This is an important not? follow-up.One problem we have with areas that have been urbanized for a long time is we have stream systems that are no longer connected from a fish perspective.The majority 91 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ i.adley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehiman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Puyallup Tribe,Resource Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Committee Protection Manager Muckleshoot Tribe Association of City regulations that rve seen don't take that into account.They have a stream system that has portions that are piped or otherwise not open-flowing and the stream classification is based predominantly on known fish use.The problem is that a lot of streams were never directly evaluated for their fish use when GMA started.A lot of times what was done were spot checks or map exercises. People didn't take into account whether there was a blocking culvert downstream.If fish can't get through,is it because of a natural barrier downstream or because there are pipes downstream that prohibit the access?That begs the question of whether or not you have potential fish habitat. If you don't know the connectivity between critical areas,within stream systems and wetlands,and you don't have a good methodology by which to assess potential fish habitat,your critical areas ordinance is going to be weak. Where there are fish passage blockages,the next project that comes along can add to the blockage and effectively benefitting from the previous blockages.Most of these projects never provided mitigation.One thing King County tried to deal with in their CAO was to address the presumed fish use issue,so their CAO is a good reference. Washington State Department of Transportation is working on a fish passage barrier on 99 on the West Fork Hylebos right now.That has implications for folks up and down stream. One thing I usually propose where potential fish habitat issues may exist is for folks to 92 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Puyallup Tribe,Resource Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Protection Manager Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Association Committee Muckleshoot Tribe look at the physical criteria from WAC 222-16-031.The WAC says if you have a water body at least 2 feet wide and a stream gradient of 16 percent or less,you have to presume it's fish habitat,particularly for areas upstream of known human-created fish passage barriers.The basis of this WAC if from several thousand data points collected throughout Washington which collected •the streams'physical conditions where salmonids were found using electroshockers. I've seen people make statements of intermittent flow and provide no data,other than that it was dry the day they assessed the site.What we kept finding was a situation where the more you looked,the more you found the fish.If you've got back to back days of rain where you have high flows, you can find fish in places you wouldn't normally find them the rest of the year because they're using those areas as refugia so they don't get swept downstream.This is important in urban streams.Some areas that the ordinance assumes aren't fish-bearing streams in fact are,and in some they could get there if there was passage.Most critical area regulations try to make it black and white,yet there's a lot of gray area.The question is whether the Federal Way CAO addresses these issues or not. My guess is there's a gap there.We should look at it and see if this has been addressed or not and how they're characterizing fish-bearing waters. If it just says yes fish or no fish based on limited data,then it's weak.The CAO needs to consider whether fish 93 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Russ Ladley Karen Walter Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehiman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Puyallup Tribe,Resource Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Protection Manager Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Association Committee Muckleshoot Tribe could be there.Does the City have a barrier assessment?If that's in there,that's great.Is it being applied correctly?If it's not there,it definitely should be added and is an area for improvement. c. Do you think the ordinance N/A N/A N/A N/A No See above. N/A is being properly implemented?If no,what needs to be improved? 5. If you aren't very familiar with No No I've heard a lot of people gripe I am aware of incidences No Not heard anything I don't know of any direct harm I have not.That being said we the ordinance: about losing too much where the code has harmed to people.I haven't heard are still moving out of a lull a. Have you observed or property to wetlands,that the property owners. from anyone in Federal Way with a recession.So I don't heard of incidences where buffers are too restrictive,and Drainage detention about this. know the likelihood of being property owners have been not being able to do what they requirements have gone up by affected by the CAO without harmed by these think is property maintenance almost a third.Automatically knowing the rate of building regulations?If so please in streams(like excavate across the board,the activity in the city at this time. explain. stream beds).People used to retention/detention ponds excavate in streams in the 50s have grown by a third.It is and 60s and think that since generally considered to be they used do it they should be ridiculous by the engineers I able to continue doing it in work with.And it's an example perpetuity. of a blanket ordinance or rules I've heard a lot from the being passed to answer a people that live around 373a— specific need in one place. in the lower Hylebos.They Generally speaking there are seem to be quite vocal. arbitrary/bureaucratic decision-making that takes place which takes land out of development.This increases the cost of housing which decreases affordable housing. And the key is building housing that is affordable.If two lots are taken out of the • subdivision then those costs are spread across the remaining lots which increase the cost of housing. b. Have you observed or No I would need to explore this a View allowances that result in No.I haven't dealt with the Yes.Two Examples provided: Not heard anything I don't know of any offhand, Same as above heard of incidences where little more.But I have concerns tree cutting. specifics of the ordinance.I We live on a protected wetland but if it happened the Tribe critical area resources have for the development on the Maybe wetland fill had no problem with it myself. (Lake Lorene).The HOA wants may not necessarily be been damaged?If so south side of the intersection (unauthorized fills)but that's My projects haven't involved Lake Lorene to look like a golf notified. please explain. of 336'and 11`h where there more towards the City of critical areas so I can't speak to course;spectfically,they were signs for Hylebos Milton. this specifically. encourage homeowners to cut Wetlands/Stream.It appears down trees and have lawns that they are taking out all the that go directly to the lake vegetation and putting in which is in direct opposition to offices or something.I'm wetland protections.And the concerned about the wetlands City refuses to enforce that in but I haven't walked the site.I any way and is basically understand the city needs the supportive of the HOA doing 94 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Puyallup Tribe,Resource Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Masters Builders Committee Protection Manager Muckleshoot Tribe Association money from development what they want with the which might explain the high private lake.I've observed rise apartments on 320`s,next specific instances of people to the Safeway.We should cutting down trees along the consider the implications of wetland and after speaking development on infrastructure, with them,I found out that sewer system,roads,and they went to the HOA because carbon.I think the school they assumed the HOA has district wanted the money control over what happens on which is why that property was the lake.And the HOA basically sold to build apartments. says to them,yes you can cut down the trees,we don't care, rather than saying we don't have the authority to allow you to cut down the trees on a protected wetland/lake. The HOA went to the City of Federal Way asking to cut down 30 trees in the wetland area of Joe's creek(15-20 were in the stream/wetland setback and some were on land without setback requirements) and the City actually approved their cutting down many of these trees until I came in and said no,this is a wetland and the City came back after I spent time with the Planning Department and they said you can't cut down all these trees. There are requirements that have to be completed.This didn't go down well with the HOA because I kept them from cutting down trees they wanted to cut.This was three years ago. The HOA had implemented a program where they were going to spray herbicides on the emergent vegetation around the lake that would not be in compliance with the Clean Water Act/state permit requirements.I filed an intent to sue against the HOA and the company that was going to spray the herbicides.I'm not opposed to removing invasive species but they were going to do a blanket spray along the entire shoreline that would 95 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey RKaren Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford • Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Masters Builders Questions Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Puyallup Tribe,Resource Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Committee Protection Manager Association Muckleshoot Tribe have removed all of the vegetation.The lawsuit against the company is resolved and I can share that information. The one against the HOA hasn't been resolved. 6. Have you received a permit from No No No No Yes,is years ago. The permit center is pretty No,neither personally or on No the City that required a critical good to work with behalf of the Tribe. areas review?If yes, a. How would you rate your N/A N/A I heard from one other person N/A Very good experience,basically N/A No,but I do work with a experience with the Permit that they went through the because I knew what the number of people that do Center compared to your permitting process and they regulations were so I complied submit permits and I haven't expectations(better,the thought it was cumbersome. with them prior to doing any heard anything negative or same,or worse)? But they weren't very used to work on my property. positive.But the reasons for applying for a permit.People I am familiar with the code this might be similar to answer need to know that they're based on my own research and 65 above. entering a huge bureaucracy information the City provided. when they're requesting a permit.Also,the concept of mitigation on their property is an abstract notion for many. b. What worked well? N/A N/A N/A N/A The Planning Department is N/A N/A very accessible.If you take a set of blue prints in there they might write some questions on it.They'll sit down and go over the blue prints with you and discuss any questions you might have.The planning process was the best part of the permit. c. What didn't work well? N/A N/A N/A N/A As far as my own personal N/A N/A experience with my property I thought it was very well organized.When I've had conversations with the Department about other people's permits I've had less success.For example I asked the City to let me know before the tree cutting along Joe's Creek was going to happen but one day if find that the work has already started.So I asked the people cutting the trees to see their permits.They said they had obtained permits so I went over to the City and they said that no permit was issued. I can't blame that totally on the City and there was a new person at that time and I don't think she understood the 96 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Puyallup Tribe,Resource Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Protection Manager Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Association Committee Muckleshoot Tribe requirements very well. 7. What would you suggest the City I still hear people being It's not like it was 50 years ago Buffer averaging or if someone Nothing off the top of my No.It seems pretty well We will give more input on this Protection of private property What we are always driving for could do to improve protection frustrated compared to other where you dump a little oil in is willing to pay for banking head.I haven't had a terrible protected. rights includes not impairing is clarity and clear direction. of private property rights(e.g., cities with the permit process the sewer system and it opportunities.This is especially experience with the permitting the Tribe's federally protected Administrative flexible that flexible regulations,simpler in general.I have not heard wouldn't make a difference. the case if their particular process. treaty right,which is a gives the permitting office a permitting,etc.)? anything specific to critical We have so many more people property doesn't have the right property right.It also includes chance to choose a orb or c is areas.I understand that it's and our impact on the amount of space to allow for When Federal Way comes up responsibility to downstream not ideal.Instead,the code due to the lack of City staff. environment is so desperate. on-site mitigation then offsite in the marketplace people say areas. should establish options that The issues include response We can't let people do mitigation for a fee is okay. that they stay away from make it clear what will be times and length of time to get freewheeling things that they Federal Way but I haven't had allowed(for example,as long a permit.I hear it from people want.I believe in personal Fragmented habitat that experience.Generally the as applicant meets one of developing commercially and property rights.I'm glad I have restoration areas cost a lot of City is not regarded as friendly these three:a,b or c then the residentially that it's more them.The United States is free money collectively when we to development. project is allowed).Don't set it difficult to develop in Federal choice and free speech and I could have better value in big, up so that its dependent on way.On the commercial side, believe in that.But we have to sizable restoration sites.Small, the permit staff to determine I've heard that it's still not very take a closer look at the isolated habitats cost more but what meets the code or friendly toward commercial impacts—you can't just do provide less value. doesn't.Provide predictability developments in terms of the anything you want(drill for oil in terms of what will be process itself. or put up a high rise).We need The Spring Valley area near satisfactory in meeting the to ensure that people still have 373rd has so many different code. They need to be business property rights but we need to restoration areas already that friendly because we are step in where it invades our the City should work on buying working on economic aquifers and streams—I know more properties that abut this development.Federal Way still we've got plenty of water,but area.When homeowners put has a reputation for being we want to ensure our water is up their properties for sale the difficult to build and develop good and clean and we have to City should buy in.This would in.We need to make it regulate it. be better than maintaining friendlier to help us with our We've got 37 parks and its fragmented mitigation areas. growth and our economic wonderful and I think we There have been recent development. should be known as the city of property acquisitions located parks and gardens.The mayor north and south of 373`d,and I is doing a good job.I think we know the Montessori school need to take a look at the wants to sell now. direction we are going.The City is so hungry for money—I Offsite restoration site should had talked to them about be within the subbasin.If it's in issuing permits for marijuana the Hylebos,it should stay shops and I don't think we within the Hylebos. should be known as the city for coming to get high. Off-site mitigation areas I think we have good private applies to other critical area property rights now but we features(not just habitat). should take a good look at it. Maybe we should have looked at the school district before what they did to the barn property.Maybe the City said yes for the income. 8. What more could the City do to There has been some I'm always for more of this. Property acquisitions Not versed enough to answer Enforce the regulations that What I've seen on our property The City has had some None that I'm aware of. protect critical areas in addition education forums from time to this question. are available. is that critical areas have been voluntary programs but I think to state-mandated regulations time in the past but I would say The city should purchase Economic incentivizing—I It's pretty straightforward-I will adequately protected they're pretty small.Friends of (e.g.,voluntary programs, if they have one the general properties to develop parks don't see a lot of people send an email that the Hylebos pre-dates the City. property acquisition,etc.)? public doesn't know about it and nature trails.The City engaging in just voluntary demonstrates their lack of The City has done some 97 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Puyallup Tribe,Resource Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Protection Manager Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Association Committee Muckleshoot Tribe unless they go to the City's should promote environmental programs.Tax reduction or enforcement. property acquisition,but I website.Most people don't do science education. something of this nature would don't know how big or small that.Educational seminars are interest a lot more people. their program is.I've seen a important and would be Background: Bring it to the person's wallet. couple of bulkhead projects valuable if people knew about The Bridges property(used to come through where folks them. be an old dairy farm,still have needed to do repairs,and I cows numbered stalls)was don't know if the City went out Ways to more effectively purchased about 1 year ago.It there to look at the unique advertise can include flyers, added more property that was setting and see if there's brochures sent to businesses, contiguous to another piece of something else that could be and promoting through the property—in order to create a done. realtors(real estate walkable trail from companies).I think we are Commencement Bay up underutilized for getting the through Federal Way.The word out about property and properties we've purchased issues like this.It would be an (Enticknap and Bridges inexpensive way to spread the properties)are helping word. establish connections(similar to the existing SPA trail in the city).It will be a beautiful nature walk.Like the Wonderland Trail.It would be nice if we have more trails(I think it's been discussed with the City Parks Department and FON). We should do something with these properties in terms of environmental education,like starting our own environmental science curriculum utilizing our own resources—like Brooke Lake (which is in the Hylebos wetlands). Federal Way is in the perfect position to encourage education.We can connect with the Evergreen State College or start a chartered environmental science high school.We can work with the curriculum advisors to adding this topic.We certainly have people that are interested in it. The environmental science industry is a huge growth area. 98 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Puyallup Tribe,Resource Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Masters Builders Committee Protection Manager Muckleshoot Tribe Association 9. There will be changes made to the ordinance but they are expected to be limited.The following are some potential changes focused on complying with new state requirements and improving process.Do you support any of these changes? Do any of these changes cause concern? • Adding a list of regulated This would be very valuable.It In agreement with this I would support this.People Without knowing specifics I'm In favor It depends on what's in it.We That's always a good thing. Clarity is key here so be very activities that trigger City would eliminate a trip to the should be able to pull out the for fewer regulations.Anything have 4 acres on the Puget You can't do a bad thing by clear on what is the regulated review permit counter.That's really list so that there are no that impedes the development Sound.We try to be good communicating things to activity. smart. surprises.Maybe include a processor costs money citizens.We are concerned people. brief explanation as to why it's increases housing costs. about takings.I'm a CPA.I a regulated activity. want to play fair with the environment.We've got shoreline property and now its 200 feet and what will we do if it goes much farther?The average person doesn't have this issue but for people that do there might be a legal issue. I'd like to see a list of these activities. • Adding provisions that Clarity is always valuable.I'm In favor of this This is good See above.We have to be very In favor Again it just depends on what Certainly,you have to have the This is fine but have clear address unauthorized in real estate and the offer careful about imposing too goes in there.The devil is in stick with the carrot.You have language and time frames to alterations and letter we write up is a roadmap many costs on development. the details.I've asked a to have some consequence for ensure predictability enforcement so there's no question about consultant to look at these people's actions other than what we do for each questions on my behalf. "oops." circumstance.So I think clarity always expedites and lowers frustration.So I would agree that this would be a good thing to do. • Adding standards that My concern with this would be Yes,I support this Yes—Corps of Engineers gets See above—sounds like a good In favor Yes,that's fine.All of this is Definitely support. Same as above require restoration after if someone had something and away with this all the time.I'd idea.What constitutes damage within reason.Usually emergency activities there was enforcement to like the citizens to know what to critical area frankly can get consultants come in at the high repair,would the person have they're in for. overstated. level.Come in at a moderate the means to do the repair and level and not too high.I prefer if they do were required to do that you get it right in the first it,would they be in worse place. financial shape.But probably logic would dictate that someone would want their property restored to protect it, and for aesthetic reasons.But there might be a situation where someone doesn't have the means to do that. 99 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Russ Ladley Karen Walter Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Masters Builders Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Le Questions . Puyallup Tribe,Resource ader Association Committee Protection Manager Muckleshoot Tribe • Requiring all regulated Seems like this would be I agree with this Absolutely,this is the whole I'm not heavily in favor for In favor Definitely support. One concern we would have activities to show they've helpful for an architect working DNR package.You're deepening any of these with this regulation is that if followed mitigation with the client on arranging a borrowing an agreed-upon and regulations. you are putting the burden on sequencing steps structure on a site.If that's tried and true policy. the applicant to prove that (avoidance,minimization, clearly written then probably they've met this requirement restoration,etc.) some wasted time could be then you would be creating eliminated. delay in the permitting I think we walk a fine line with process.Cleary identify how property rights and with being the applicant would meet this good stewards of critical areas. requirement so that it is clear I think clarification is always a when they have met it rather good idea;however,I would than relying on permit staff to need more information to make that determination–this really answer this question will help avoid any confusion. because I deal with real estate. By putting the burden on the Clarification is important but City then you have stated that property rights are also there no other alternatives and important.I don't think people it avoids any confusion with should create a hazardous this requirement.The builder situation or destroy critical wants predictability to help areas.But what I'm hearing is meet their expected time that this takes away some of frame. the ability for property owners to have some control.It potentially gives it away.This raises a red flag and I would need more information. • Allowing the use of in-lieu- I'm for curb appeal as we are I am not a fan of in-lieu-fee —It's an alternative but the Not in favor.If you are going to I'm opposed to an in-lieu-fee Again if it's within reason.I In principal,I'm not objecting We are good on this one. fee programs,off-site driving through neighborhoods programs–I think this should Corps and EPA make this a spend the money then it program in a small area like don't have any problem with to any of these things.In mitigation,or advance and commercial areas.Trees be reviewed.It's like a carbon nightmarish bureaucratic should be on your own this because in my particular that. practice I have questions.You mitigation to mitigate for and shrubs are important.This tax–it's not good idea. process.Be sure to keep it in property. case I live on a regulated have to have a really good wetland impacts raises a red flag for me. the same basin. wetland and if someone else handle on what's going on in on this wetland were allowed your area watersheds.You to put in mitigation in another need to know all these area then my particular components,the connectivity, property would suffer while quite a bit about the people at the other site would hydrology,what's going on gain.I would have a net loss with water quality,etc.You and others would have a net need to have a really good gain. handle before you can start trading apples and oranges Advance mitigation–I think it around.Advanced mitigation should be installed before the sounds great but I rarely see it development occurs. done in practice.It's hard to get it done. 100 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Karen Walter Russ Ladley Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehlman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Questions Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Puyallup Tribe,Resource Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Masters Builders Committee Protection Manager Muckleshoot Tribe Association • Expanding geologic hazard This raises a red flag for me. Maybe we should do this too.I Yes,I have no issue with this Current regulations sound fine In favor;in fact a lot of new Steep slope setback for King I agree with all of these.Oso is Yes,just so long as there are area standards to include Because the geotech knows think it's a good idea.Good to now.But the interpretation of development has very County is 15 feet and FW is 25 a great example of why you avenues for amendments to performance standards, what's important and what have clarification. steep slopes gets a little crazy.I progressive building code feet.Why is there a might want to do these things. this code section.Or maybe geotech studies,and an isn't and it should be left to had a house on a lot that was restrictions.I'm in favor of difference? the city would consider doing a established setback each individual situation all fill.One corner slightly setbacks in geologic sensitive In terms of Oso-related issues; full study to identify areas of exceeded a 15%slope.It was areas. we've got a manmade critical concern in the city(like fill,not a natural slope(it was area associated with some preparing SEPA for a large filled as part of the subdivision I'm in favor of regulation that houses behind our lot.When area).This will help narrow the improvements 10 years earlier) prevents people from building they cleared those lots they time frame for preparing and then you have to deal with in geologic sensitive areas or pushed the dirt down and geotechs.It will also help all the requirements.If you just areas with slide problems. created a 40%slope.Where homeowners selling their pulled back during the grading does the 40%start and where properties so that people can process it wouldn't have been does it end—this needs to be see that yes this is a sensitive a problem. cleared up.When I asked the spot and will need to be taken permit center they weren't into consideration. able to provide an answer.We need examples.Do you measure the slope even when there are houses in between? You should be able to figure it out without going to a geotech.Other than that we get on pretty well with the city. 10. Do you have any questions?Is None I have a strong opinion for Better explain all the science The property I'm developing I know in one particular I'm concerned about the One thing that's going to be In doing this CAO update,the there anything else you would environmental education.We behind buffers to potential right now has critical areas instance a development was definition of streams.We've important is how the City City has not updated the SEPA like the City to explore or have 37 parks which have applicants and property (streams and wetlands)and I stopped because of an active got two streams.One on the keeps track of things.Can you exemption thresholds so you anything else you would like to wonderful potential for owners.I get a fair amount of have to talk to the city about it eagle nest inside the east side has virtually no run show that you're moving in a might want to be aware of how suggest or add? providing a teaching phone calls asking why the this afternoon.I might be able development area.The eagle off.When the consultant did forward direction,or have you any changes here may create experience.We have a buffer is 35 feet or 50 feet.I to provide more specific ended up dead from having the wetland analysis—it was issued so many variations and complications for the City. microcosm here for just about haven't looked at the City of feedback on these questions been shot.This is the kind of delineated and it was too had so many violations that everything.Hollie Shilley is in Federal Way to see what after that conversation. thing that warrants a close look small.If you don't have a even if you implement charge of the Schools Salmon literature they have on this at any kind of regulations that wetland you can't have a restoration projects you've Release program and has done topic but it helps to have an are established.If some kind of stream below but maybe he taken multiple steps back?I a great job(300 students were explanation of what you are illegal activity happens,and I was generalizing.I think don't know if they have the part of the latest release).I'd trying to achieve with the know this case is difficult to there's issues where the small means to track this or not.We like to see us build on things buffer zones.Explain why the prove because it was all amount of water flowing could have trouble even getting the like that.We can educate the owner should be held to that circumstantial but there should be just called drainage water City to comply with SEPA by children and then they can distance;particularly when we be some kind of consequences as opposed to being called a notifying the Tribe sufficiently. influence their parents about are trying to recover listed for the developer.It's stream.I think it's too general Tracking is really important. it.I'd like to see us explore this. anadromous fish species. absolutely horrible when and too much of a catch all.It Were you able to get full things like that happen. catches everything.When they compliance?Did people put in Sharing the bibliography will be My next idea relates to dug the sewer line it loosened mitigation plans,were they useful as part of ESA's BAS information I read about the soil and caused some successful,where did they go? review.You really need to monarch butterflies which runoff. They may have some of that define your management doesn't apply in Washington information,but I don't know. objectives for the buffer zones state but is related.Counties It's important because the land because it's different for want to spray and destroy use piece is getting different species(for example, milkweed which happens to be emphasized more with bear versus fish)but the a plant that is important for stormwater permits.There's layperson won't understand the monarch butterfly.This has an expectation and that without hearing an impacted the monarch requirement now about doing explanation. populations.There have been low-impact development several instances in 101 Exhibit B Stakeholder Interviews Margery Godfrey Russ tadiey Karen Walter Alex Wilford Lori DeVore Chair of the Friends of Bill McCaffrey Thomas Moehiman Peter Townsend Watersheds and Land Masters Builders Questions Puyallup Tribe,Resource Real Estate Agent the Hylebos Advisory Protection Manager Developer Twin Lakes Resident Property Owner Use Team Leader Association Committee Muckleshoot Tribe Washington with similar There does need to be a way to problems for bees where they incentivize having these rely on specific plants to features on your landscape and survive.The cause is similar near your properties so they with issues from pesticides are preserved.Maybe that destroy the habitat and property owners could get the bees ability to hive. credit for having them and I think that if I would want to keeping them intact or see anything improve in the enhancing them.They'd have city it would be the use/ to sit down and talk with the outcome of pesticides(for County Assessor's office. example,used in City road There should be financial ROW).It's important to look at incentives to encourage people the practices by the City's to make sure they're Maintenance Department to protecting critical areas.So it's see that the pesticides they not a place to dump grass use are more environmentally clippings,your old couch,etc. friendly. Everyone benefits from protecting features where they're functioning as best they can. Additional Comments None provided None provided None provided None provided None provided What do people do about their None provided None provided shoreline view?I think what you should do(this came up in our meeting)is add a de minimis provision.Property owners mow to the top of the slope.In theory you are not supposed to cut a twig but obviously if you want a view you want to cut some trees. The City should put together some de minimis provision about maintaining some views of the Sound.Whether it's a critical areas or shoreline jurisdiction I'd like to bring this up.Every property owner cuts down trees to maintain the view. King County does have this but it's somewhat vague.You need to recognize reality.Otherwise you've got your head in the sand.Imagine trying to stop someone from keeping their view. 102 Exhibit B Public Workshop CITY OF Federal Way 3g We need your help updating the goals and policies that protect the --iitit -.' . ' , city's natural resources and geo- logically hazardous areas. Critical t'..104.'I 4s ztl;" areas include: wetlands, streams, <. ,\ aquifers, fish/wildlife habitat areas, .-_ steep slopes, and landslide hazard -7 #' `` / = areas. ,I Join the commission, city staff, and neighbors for an evening of brain- storming and discussion on how "`- best to protect these community ,-,. w-Itk"''..",i: ''-- w , assets L, . When? Where? i F. Exhibit B Public Workshop www.federalwaymirror.com January 2,2015 [7] Kochmar Residents A receives i to Nome Accer s WALL A TABLE :„ Resin new House workshop Categories Listed &Ceramic Decor •Mirrors WALL&TABLE DOES NOT INCUICE SEASONAL DEPARTMENT WALLS.TABLE committee on zoning •Decorative Balls •minima assignments regulations `" cR%flu le NiV •Adhesive Vinyl Wali Art FROM STAFF REPORTS FMS.SWF REPOSES M •Polyresin&Pottery ,•Lamps&lampshades Decor Sale^^ Linda Kochmar,R-Fed- The Federal Way Plan- •Candles,nameless LED Candles, Foo E"reign.,BOWLf , eral Way,was given new Commission invites •Ceramic Decor Sale Fragrance Warmers&Diffusers �' y FEATURING TABLETOP DECOR.PLATES. INCLUDES FLORAL PLANTERS VASES /, committee assignments the public to a 90-minute SERVING DISHES.PITCHERS CUPS.SALT ITEMS PRICED H.99 A UP &OTHER POLYRFSN a POTTERY DEC' recently in preparation for public.mxkdtopaspart of e& '�L DOCSNRMICLUDE CERAMIC DECOR DOES NOT NCLUDEcoma a..MUCKS, the 2015 legislative session. The update to etre Criti- " DOCS NOT INCLUDE VOTD'ES,VAL.PACKS OR EMG0.wCE WAX A Ola •Pillows.Rugs al Throws n DECORATIVE DRAWER PULLS . Kochmar will serve on cal Areas Ordinance.The three House committees: meeting will be held at 6:30 ITEMS LABELED THE SPRING SHOP'AND VALENTINE'S ARE NOT INCLUDED IN HOME ACCENTS SALE Business and Financial p.m.Wednesday,Jan.7 in Services,Capital Budget the Federal Way City Hall All Items Labeled and Transportation. Coundl Chambers,33325 Stied Group OF L , ( DB 4, "I was honored by my Eighth Ave S. committee as The program will Nemo Accents spring s - signmentsfrominduchabsiefopen Nwkid t. House leadership . hoose and breakout ��u O�� 40�0F� 4'b') and am looking eivt 4, sessions with dA ti- forward to assum- t mins,business own- N76/ing my new role ars c�mIst:ioners •Statuary •Gating Balls on the Capital and staff to discuss •Garden Planters•Garden Wall Decor&More Budget commit- how best to protect ""'x0S""""'"°`"'"`"':'°""°""°"` Undo EadEFnar •I Love Trus tee;'Kochmar theeity�city's environ- •Stem FloralFIFINBI NledFeArt said."We have mental resources. Naturals Most Categoriesd� .4CCoosoont' a lot to tackle Critical areas are 3OX OFF 2.66 ••All ArtlstC duringreads the upcoming ses- resource lands that include °""'"` a'a'°` S� a sion, ut I'm dedicated to wetlands,fish and wildlife A 50%OFF )f1 j Tmwbw rMt """DO E"�THREADS a�NaT tR , acroau N„ONCRO making the 30th District habitat areas and aquifer Flowering Tools aRoR�mrs 30SAtO F a better lace for current zones. •Polled ikes a i- 9Cso P recharge Floor Plains GreeneBushes LY residents and future gen- Critical areas also a n-s R DOH NOT MADE PORED FREES .Premium Poly Ewa NWomn® erations.We made several indude the city's polars- My. .floral Stems �.1 a Smart Foam great strides last year and daIly hazardous areas such �I"IFF see sasFLom omawaER. ` "w m" °0 "°"''°WOWS ��®FF I'm hoping to do even as steep slopes,landslide more for our communities prone hills and frequently ,'' Crafting in 2015." flooded areas. F r. Kochmar has served The city's Critical Areas Categories Listed •Cu,n,11renes Categories listed on both the Business and Ordinance are zoning regu- 4.4,L' ( 50%OFF AT"MIE.re:TofM.MEor1Y Acrylk Pant 30%0FF •Monk Toe,Gems, C „,,,,.w Chips a Stones Financial Services and lotions that limit develop- H'' ,O1AAw» Transportation commit- menton and near resource • Frames =`,•.-P''' •Packaged Craft Feathers ALWAYS OFF tees,but Capital Budget is areas and potentially � HARKED M«,IOWOUR ENTRE •ortbe,,T`Posters ail i/ ,CNldren's •Candle Was,Candle Gel a Glycerin Soap CHOOSE a new assignment. hazardous environments. IONTABLETOP OF MARC A FASHION a Malted prints G Adhily _BUTTER.GOATS MK OINE OIL While she's never These regulations affect �F`orono O r" g�iSS IESLUT ?rite Palm I D meth CO°A a SOAP AOOCUCUMBER°t served on the committee, both public and private •Ready-Made RAGE 6F •T-SMrISS55.SR:on TNF NAmRDMICH Kochmar did bring back property Open Frames •Shadow Bores,Display Cases a Has Cans - •OLRSM,CEDH,M.I. AININCFANANT T.OLOFS TOOTH DDDLESHIRTS.I"MEAFTR TANK TOPS significant dollars to the The ordinance is in the •Rubber 30th District for various process of being updated in Stamps a Setsl• ---,.."7-:„. Irl SWIM — projects following the pas- accordance with state lawFACIPaom ND P. • •Art Pencils Most Categories Used sage of the 2013-15 capital and must be 49%OFF •Slake,Cutdebus', ar Pastel Sets 30'OFF P8Spellbinders• ,i<rn nTNSMKEDSEMaI, 30% budget this June. •Scrapbook Ribbon a Fibers Die Cutting products - F J - Among these were$2 Cits•nn participation is °w"a Pon Stalo.f.Sinal •� ``!L'c4' '32 a AO Add Free Matb08fdS million for Federal Way's vital to the FAGITOKKW ""° t 11 y{ WHITE CORE LAOS CORE METALLIC .Foam boards j Performing Arts and y The Planning Commis- IIF'O •Stickers a 3 D Slickers ,T yk� 199« ,,, 8:�,.. �.., t + I Aucaou Conference Center,$1 mil- skin is seeking public Input •passe. •wpwr�s m welts er. t t •Act Brush I lion for the King County prior to making its pecans- „D a„NN wm • ”•�''" �t'',td° •sus 1,1l 2•Padt Canvas � '� I r mo I al IMS. Sets Boys and Girls Club and mendations to the City 10;IFFMmN {t�,�l'yt'; L�.11 5.99 1.99 i'E"'SPACED $225,000 for the Triangle Council. I Park ADA upgrades in For more information on Mehl MIIFIr9 k •Home Farago.Fi111C Milton. the Critical Areas Ordi- •TImeIIEm �C�a•Rtesorles UsedDecor Fabric •CHOOSE FROM PRI. . ece wMGTHF DFDm FRS 50%OFF •3Wments WDOY FROM tw04AMKRORBER MMS.ASOLMNFM3 The 2015 legislative ses- nonce update,please visit T F A''' flemems •FaWic al .......... sion is scheduled to begin wwwdtyoffederalway.com/and/or contact - aµSscNS«F,: ` It'IFF FX S'[RUMORS 311%—OFF Jan.12. eritiealarrerand/oreontad WO NNOW'TIS,„, f r"y THE Rat �t 1FF •CahtoPdnls For more information Malt Herrera,senior plan- •Traditions. GRATIFICATION r about Kochmar,visit www. nee at 253-835-2638 or ATRIBAL H""'•*T °Ew°"raSSRN°A.om.'°OR•21%•CD, ••Wartaa a Whit• aSolids �� or Warm a White* .Home Decor a�uus AMAREL PRINn representativelindakoch- mattherera cltyoffeder- •the Jewelry Shope' _ Batting a Apparel Trim I mar.com. away. •Blank LOOK VAIN & Jewelry Sloane. N wwm^poet"' by the Yard y PIMA `F .N arTMONDa ^�5s°° •"' i99xra 31P OFF 3 Of WHIPLASH: It Can Happen in Seconds •DISCOUNTS PROVIDED EVERY DAY;MARKED PRICES REFLECT COMPARABLE PRICES OFFERED BY OTHER SELLERS FOR SIMILAR PRODUCTS. But Last for Weeks! MIST i FREE first day STORE HOURS:5: �0 H OR°NAN We rA woo TMwwxyHlrARY 9 A.M.-a P.M. (mon foam wu SA[cr o ROW IN CLOSED SUNDAY OFF chiropractk services SUCTION T.:nr;R:,wO GOMMMAT POMAHOODIONS including... Cap.. �ottemrrtC •Conwaas°n wiLhthe Dator•OnhopedicnumllgGala muton O rgDIerP1ito •«.MyEPtdwamaonnwhement•BepardaeDacronfndings •FEDERAL WAY:Enchanted f arkway South& 6540 Valid through January ld,2DM A $250 value South 348th Street if 15 - 5,050 05 . Call 253 8381441(Federal Way)today! .,,w.Aa.., •P•....• `SomemSaii°nsapRly VdwLhru kb 5,200 ...v..mim ••..." PE A n�Op.1 n the Campus Square Shopping Center (253)661-9946 w A ONANW.a..m, �+a. .„,w — rEAR N WN•••,H^aa INOTONN..a.. OOwpNtkaR¢WbiaL.rlw cora 2201 SW 356th St I�•� "��pm AP �D www.pearsonchiropractic.com Federal Way 98023 4, SHOP OUR SITE — HOBAC OBEY.COM + Exhibit B Public Workshop CITY OF 41111/11 Federal Way Critical Areas Public Workshop January 7, 2015 Breakout Group Summary Breakout notes from flip charts Team 1 - Reema Important Natural Features • Trees, streams,lakes 11 years ago used to have 1OOs of frogs now 1 or 2 (Lake Lorene), (Joes Creek)these are all related(lakes- streams) • Hylebos Creek • Greenbelt(Blueberry Farm 356`h near Pac Hwy)notice frogs 11 years ago—but decreasing over time frog population are indicators • Birds,trees • Variety of park and their maintenance: See bunnies,coyotes,raccoons, eagles,osprey, woodpeckers. Why am I seeing them now? Which Natural Features Do you want to see? • More BPA—type trails • More restoration at Joes Creek not necessarily w/a trail(destroys habitat) something similar to W. Hylebos, W. Park • Another well-maintained(still very natural)version of Dash Point State Park Threats Needs to be done • Gangs • People who care • City Budget • Grow at a reasonable pace • Growth(need transit light rail) • Crime • Multiple regulatory bodies • Lack of education at school age level 105 Exhibit B Public Workshop • Misuse of Weyerhaeuser campus (housing as an example) How To Respond To Threats • Voluntary patrolling (S.D. ex.) • Basic education • Certified University Campus at Weyerhaeuser Campus • Dash Point—Buy property/Raise the $$ • BPA—Native plantings along trail keep it safe • Joes Creek—Volunteer stewardship groups to do the plantings Team 2 - Tim Which Features Are Most Important To You • Aquifers (recharge)water availability • Wetlands • Policies: Private property rights need greater emphasis • Stream, Tributaries and Definitions: Need more than 2 types (Gig Harbor example) Need consistency with other jurisdictions state (DNR typing system) • Steep slope definitions and classifications need more types/better definitions "one size shouldn't fit all" • Policies add provision for refinement tweaking What are the Challenges/Threats • Over development • Non-native plants • Increasing level of maintenance of surface water management system How Should City/Community Respond To These Threats • Support a native plant purchasing program: Consider agreement with KCCD • Use performance: Based approach to proposal review 106 Exhibit B Public Workshop What Needs To Be Done To In Next 10, 20 Years • Limit allowances for building in wetland buffers Variances • Improve consistency with state and other standards Team 3 - Isaac Which Natural Features Are Most Important • Lakota Creek • Trees • Wetlands: Fish& Wildlife • Streams: Fish&Wildlife • Open Spaces • Preservation of natural areas • Parks &Open Space: Natural/wild areas not programed recreational spaces, maybe with walking/hiking trails • Development: Using land efficiently(taking inspiration for innovative development from outside Federal Way) Impact to existing development • Trees: Preserving existing trees, not cutting& replanting • Replacing trees that are taken down(through development, accidents, etc.) • Seek out innovative developers for new residential development • Retrofit/repurpose existing infrastructure • Create policies to protect natural features 107 Exhibit B Public Workshop Breakout notes as presented to entire group Team 3 — Isaac • Features important to this group include trees, creeks, wetlands, streams. Lakota Creek in particular. • We talked about how it is good to have natural open space but also good to have developed parks for an urban city of our size. • Focus on repurposing and retrofitting existing housing and infrastructure. More efficient type of housing to retain parks and open spaces. Team 2 — Tim O'Neil 1. Which natural features (e.g., streams, trees)are the most important to you in Federal Way? • Aquifers • Wetlands • Had a discussion about where we are getting our water from. Lakehaven has moved to deriving more water from rivers, so we want to emphasize recharge so that reductions in our aquifers do not keep happening. • Policies - Streams and slope classification need better definitions • Streams need better distinction between a stream and a surface water that is managed under that program. 4. What needs to be done to help Federal Way look that way in 10, 20 years(e.g., voluntary tree planting program)? • Limit building in wetland buffers (variances) 5. What are the threats/challenges that could prevent this from being achieved(e.g., cost of trees, maintenance)? • Over development • Non-native plants—there is no enforcement of this, so it is a complaint based system. • Increasing level of maintenance of surface water management system • Private property rights was part of discussion. There is nothing in Chapter 9 right now that talks about this and gives it any importance. Team 1 - Reema 1. Which natural features (e.g., streams,trees) are the most important to you in Federal Way? • Lake Lorene, Hylebos Creek 108 Exhibit B Public Workshop • Sightings of wildlife—frogs, coyotes, pilated woodpeckers, raccoons, eagles, osprey, woodpeckers. 3. Which natural features do you want to see in federal Way 10, 20 years from now(e.g., more trees)? • Expansion of BPA trail system • Another Dash Point State park • More restoration at Joe's Creek 5. What are the threats/challenges that could prevent this from being achieved (e.g., cost of trees, maintenance)? • Wrong type of growth -e.g. Weyerhauser campus redevelopment • Gangs • Crime • Lack of education 6. How should the city and community respond to these threats (e.g., apply for grants)? • Buy property/Raise the money • Native plantings along the trail to keep it safe • Volunteer stewardship groups to do the plantings. 109 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW www tsrass:;;;ta.r:r �� • Suite 200 Seattle,WA 98107 206.789.9658;"Wn? 206.789.9684`r x Exhibit C Gap Analysis memorandum date December 8,2014 to Matt Herrera,City of Federal Way from Ilon Logan and Teresa Vanderburg subject Critical Areas Ordinance Update-Gap Analysis and Consistency Review The City of Federal Way(City)is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO,Federal Way Revised Code[FWRC] Title 19 Division V)in accordance with the requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA)(RCW 36.70A).The GMA requires cities to consider best available science(BAS)in the development of critical areas policies and regulations. In 2004,the City reviewed the best available science and updated the CAO to comply with the GMA. More recently,the City completed a comprehensive update to its Shoreline Master Program(SMP),which was approved in 2011.The City expects the current CAO update to be relatively limited in scope with the majority of the focus on provisions relating to wetlands and streams,specifically their classification systems,buffers,and mitigation requirements. ESA reviewed the City's CAO for consistency with the current scientific literature and applicable regulatory agency guidance.For provisions specific to geologic hazards,Robinson Noble, Inc. provided technical review as a subconsultant to ESA. In general,the latest documents in the record pertaining to these critical areas have been prepared by state agencies as guidance to local governments. The ESA team also reviewed recently updated critical area codes from other neighboring jurisdictions and recommended changes that would help Federal Way achieve greater consistency with current standards and practices.Our recommendations also reflect our professional judgment and experience assisting numerous cities and counties with code interpretation and administration. Gap Analysis and Consistency Review Methods ESA conducted a review of the current CAO for the purposes of identifying areas of inconsistency with agency guidance and best available science. We focused on specific areas of concern identified by City staff and provided to us by you. Since the City's last major CAO update,new scientific findings have been published describing methods for improving the success of compensatory mitigation,buffer effectiveness,and alternative mitigation strategies(mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs). Shortly after the City's last CAO update,the Washington Department of Ecology(Ecology)released a two-volume best available science document that is the primary source of new information for wetland management: Wetlands in Washington State— Vol. 1 A Synthesis of the Science(Sheldon et al.2005)and Vol. 2 Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands(Granger et al. 2005). Other scientific sources have also generated relevant information,which we reviewed and have referenced at the end of this memo. 110 Exhibit C Gap Analysis To organize our review and recommendations,we developed a matrix(attached to this memo)documenting consistency between CAO provisions and GMA regulations,relevant agency guidance and best available science published since 2004. The gap analysis matrix provides an assessment of general consistency,a suggested or recommended change to the CAO,and the corresponding rationale and source for each recommendation. When the matrix states that the CAO is"inconsistent with BAS",this means that the code provision does not,in our opinion,meet or is not supported by best available science or state agency guidance. Oftentimes,there are several options open to the City to revise the code language or standards to achieve compliance with the science. We also provide recommendations that are listed as a"gap or missing protection",which are code provisions that should be added to ensure compliance with GMA and best available science. Other recommendations are better described as changes to"improve clarity"or"improve internal consistency;"these address provisions that are could be confusing or difficult to administer due to a lack of clarity or readability. Lastly, several recommendations are in response to the City staff list of code provisions that are lacking,unclear,or incorrect and need to be addressed during CAO update. Code Structure In addition to offering recommendations based upon best available science,we identified several areas where the protection of critical areas could be improved by adding,removing,clarifying, and/or rearranging sections of the code to make them clearer and easier to implement. Most obviously,we noticed that the provisions relating to critical areas are found in multiple chapters FWRC and that these sections are lacking some standards for managing development near critical areas. In addition,the sections for each of the various types of critical areas lack a consistent structure(i.e. each critical area contains differing levels of detail). To improve the overall structure of the code,we have generated a set of recommendations that could be incorporated during the code revision phase if the City desires.These suggestions are based on the guidance from the Washington State Department of Commerce(Commerce),Ecology, Washington Administrative Code(WAC) implementing regulations,and our experience with other critical areas ordinances. These changes may improve the structure and logic flow of the code but would not necessarily be required under best available science. • Move and consolidate the provisions from Chapter 14.30 Critical Areas with Chapter 19.45 Environment and Critical Areas in General. • Provide a list of"Regulated Activities"that explicitly states the types of activities that must be compliant with CAO provisions. • Provide a list of"Exemptions"that includes only activities that do not impact critical areas. • Provide a list of"Allowed Activities"that includes activities that do not require critical area review, but must follow CAO provisions. • Provide a set of provisions to address"Unauthorized alterations and enforcement"of impacts to critical areas. • Move the definitions specific to critical areas protection and management out of Chapter 19.05 and into a new subsection of Division V. • Move Chapter 19.42 Flood Damage Prevention to the end of Division V(after 19.185 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection Areas)or elsewhere in FWRC. • Revise the specific critical areas sections to have a somewhat consistent structure as suggested below. 111 Exhibit C Gap Analysis Information in each of the individual critical areas should answer the following questions. The section does not need to have a subsection specifically titled for each topic(many can be combined),but each topic should be addressed(except for prohibited uses). INDIVIDUAL CRITICAL AREAS QUESTIONS ANSWERS(CONTENT) (geologically hazardous areas example) Designation What are geologically hazardous Definitions for erosion hazard areas, areas? landslide hazard areas,seismic hazard areas,and steep slope hazard areas. (could be in section and not separate definitions chapter). Mapping Are there geologic hazard areas in the Sources of mapping. city? Classification and rating How are geologically hazardous areas Criteria for classification or rating. classified or rated? Allowed activities—geologically What can I do in each hazard area? Allowed activities that do not require hazardous areas submission of a critical area report or review,but must follow CAO provisions. Additional report requirements— What technical information do I need Specific analyses,mapping,plans,etc. geologically hazardous areas to provide in addition to what is required under XX.XXX.XXX? Protective measures How does the regulation affect my General requirements,buffers, buffer project design? averaging and or reduction provisions. Mitigation If avoidance is not possible,what do I Mitigation requirements,mitigation have to do to protect the resource? plan,etc. Prohibited uses(if applicable) What is not allowed geologically Specific types of development,size, hazardous areas? etc. Next Steps The attached matrix contains a number of recommendations and suggestions for the City staff to consider during its update. Once the City has determined which recommendations they would like to implement,ESA can support the City in revising the actual code and/or providing examples of suggested code language from other CAOs. We anticipate the City will want discuss some of the structure changes prior to the code revision work and suggest an in-person code work session to discuss these items further. 112 Exhibit C Gap Analysis Best Available Science References Consulted During Consistency Review Brosofke,K.D.,J. Chen,R.J.Naiman,and J.F.Franklin. 1997.Harvesting effects on microclimate gradients from small streams to uplands in western Washington.Ecological Applications 7:1188 to 1200. Bunten, D.,A.McMillan,R. Mraz,and J. Sikes. 2012. Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication No. 10-06-002. October 2012 2nd Revision. Olympia,WA. Castelle,A.J.,C. Conolly,M. Emers,E.D.Metz, S.Meyer,M.Witter, S.Mauermann,T.Erickson, S.S.Cooke. 1992. Wetland buffers:use and effectiveness.Adolfson Associates, Inc., Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program,Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington Pub.No. 92-10. Cederholm,C.J. 1994. A suggested landscape approach for salmon and wildlife habitat protection in Western Washington riparian ecosystems. Pages 8-90 in: Carey,A.B. and C.Elliott. 1994.Washington forest landscape management project—progress report. Report No. 1.,Washington Department Natural Resources,Olympia, Washington. Corps(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region. Version 2. Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. May 2010. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. http://www.usace.army.mil/CEC W/Documents/cecwo/reg/west_mt_finalsupp.pdf. Cramer,Michelle L.(managing editor). 2012. Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines. Co-published by the Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife,Natural Resources,Transportation and Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office,Puget Sound Partnership,and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Olympia, Washington. CTED(Washington State Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development).2003. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook:Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act. CTED(Washington State Department of Community,Trade,and Economic Development). 1999.Optional Comprehensive Plan Element for Natural Hazard Reduction. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,Massachusetts. Erman,D. C.,Newbold,J.C., and Roby,K. B. 1977.Evaluation of streamside buffer strips for protecting aquatic organisms. Tech Completion Report, Contrib. 165. California Water Resour.Center,Univ. of California- Davis,Davis, CA. FEMAT(Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic,and social assessment. U.S.Forest Service,National.Marine Fisheries Service,Bureau of Land Management,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,National Park Service,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Portland,Oregon,and Washington D.C. Fischer,J.,and D.B.Lindenmayer 2007. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Global Ecology and Biogeography,Vol. 16,pp. 265-280. 113 Exhibit C Gap Analysis Granger,T.,T.Hruby,A.McMillan,D.Peters,J. Rubey,D. Sheldon, S. Stanley,E. Stockdale.April 2005. Wetlands in Washington State-Volume 2:Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication#05-06-008. Olympia,WA. Hruby,T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia,WA. Johnson,A.W.,and D.Ryba. 1992.A literature review of recommended buffer widths to maintain various functions of stream riparian areas.King County Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, WA. King County.2011. King County Mitigation Reserves Program In Lieu Fee Program Instrument. Prepared by King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks. October 13,2011. Knight,K. 2009.Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead and Trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Olympia,Washington. Knutson,K.L.,and Naef,V.L. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 181 pp. Marczak,L.B.,T. Sakamaki, S.L.Turvey, I.Deguise, S.L.R. Wood,and J.S. Richardson.2010.Are forested buffers an effective conservation strategy for riparian fauna?An assessment using meta-analysis. Ecological Applications,20(1)pp. 126-134. May,C.W. 2000.Protection of stream-riparian ecosystems: a review of best available science.Prepared for Kitsap County Natural Resources Coordinator.July 2000. May, C.W. 2003. Stream-riparian ecosystems in Puget Sound lowland eco-region:A review of best available science. Watershed Ecology LLC. Mayer,P.M., S.K.Reynolds,M.D.McCutchen,and T.J. Canfield. 2006.Riparian buffer width,vegetative cover, and nitrogen removal effectiveness:A review of current science and regulations.EPA/600/R-05/118. Cincinnati, OH,U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,2006. Moring,J.R. 1982.Decrease in stream gravel permeability after clear-cut logging:An indication of intragravel conditions for developing salmonid eggs and alevins.Hydrobiologia 88,295-298. National Resource Council(NRC).2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. The National Academies Press.Washington,DC. http://www.nap.edu/ Osborne,J.L.and D.A.Kovacic. 1993. Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-258. Pollack,M.M.and P.M.Kennard. 1998.A low-risk strategy for preserving riparian buffers needed to protect and restore salmonid habitat in forested watersheds of Washington State. The Bullitt Foundation,Washington Environmental Council,and Point-No-Point Treaty Council. Sheldon,D.,T. Hruby,P.Johnson,K.Harper,A.McMillan,T. Granger, S. Stanley,and E. Stockdale.March 2005. Wetlands in Washington State-Volume 1:A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication#05-06-006. Olympia, WA. 114 Exhibit C Gap Analysis Spence,B.C.,Lomnicky,G.A.,Hughes,R.M.,and Novitzki,R.P. 1996.An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. ManTech Environmental Research Services Corporation.TR-4501-96-6057. [Online] http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1 habcon/habweb/habguide/ManTech/front.htm#TOC U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)and U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources.Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70): 19594- 19705. Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology),U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),and US Environmental Protection Agency(U.S.EPA). 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0606011a.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology),U.S.Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).2012.Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation.Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206015.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology). 2008.Making Mitigation Work: The Report of the Mitigation that Works Forum.Ecology Publication No.08-06-018. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/0806018.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology).2012a.Guidance on In-Lieu Fee Mitigation.Ecology Publication No. 12-06-012. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1206012.pdf Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology).2012b.Calculating Credits and Debits for Compensatory Mitigation in Wetlands of Western Washington.Ecology Publication No. 10-06-011. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1006011.pdf Wenger, S. 1999.A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width,extent and vegetation. Office of Public Service and Outreach, Institute of Ecology,University of Georgia,Athens,Georgia. [Online] http:''www.bozeman.net/planning/Zoning'Res_links/buffer jitreview.pdf 115 Exhibit C City of Federal Way Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO)Update Best Available Science Review and Gap Analysis Matrix December 2014 Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision Suggested Change FWRC with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Chapter Guidance 14.30 Critical Areas 14.30.010 Not consistent Critical area designations Consider moving all of the content of 14.30 Consistency with state law; Designation listed in this chapter are not to be included within the first subsection of improve overall code of areas the same as those covered in Title 19 Division V.Critical Areas(19.145). structure and similarity to Chapter 19. Also are not Reconcile list of critical areas with those in guidance documents and consistent with state Chapter 19 by adding subsections for example codes. definition of critical areas in frequently flooded areas and fish and Source:WAC 365-190 RCW 36.7oA.o3o or WAC wildlife habitat conservation areas. Add 365-190 language to note consistency with WAC 365-190,which defines critical areas as:(a) Wetlands;(b)Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water,referred to in this chapter as critical aquifer recharge areas;(c)Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (including streams and lakes);(d) Frequently flooded areas;and(e) Geologically hazardous areas. 14.30.020 Consistent Provision states that there Move to introductory 19.150.020 and Clarity/Internal consistency Maps and are maps that may not consolidate text. and improve overall code inventories contain all critical areas in structure. City. 19.05 Definitions 116 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter All Consistent, Definitions pertinent to though could be critical areas are in multiple revised for clarity areas of FWRC and may 19.142 Flood Damage Prevention 19.142 N/A Not reviewed;no flood Consider moving flood hazard regulations Clarity of CAO chapter and hazard areas occur outside to end of Division V or to another location improve overall code shoreline jurisdiction(not in FWRC. structure. addressed in this CAO update). 19.145 Environment and Critical Areas in General 19.145.030 Not consistent No description of activities Add a list of"Regulated Activities"that Address gap/missing Jurisdiction with guidance regulated by the ordinance. apply to all critical areas generally. protection. ESA can provide example code language Source:Adapted from during code revision stage. Wetlands&CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities (Bunten et al.2012) 19.145.040 Consistent with Provision mentions Consider replacing language with Improve clarity. Other guidance applicability of other local, Department of Commerce Example Code Source: Critical Areas authority and state,and federal laws and Provisions language. Assistance Handbook: jurisdiction regulations. ESA can provide example code language Protecting Critical Areas during code revision stage. within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act(CTED 2003). 117 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter 1g.145.XXX Not consistent No provisions for Add new subsection"Unauthorized Address gap/missing NEW with guidance unauthorized clearing.Noted alterations and enforcement". protection and issue noted by • by Ecology(Patrick ESA can provide example code language City staff. McGraner)during a project during code revision stage. Source:Critical Areas review as provided by City staff. Assistance Handbook: Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act(CTED 2003). 19.150 Critical Areas Administration 10.150.020 Generally Mentions wetland inventory Consolidate language from 14.30.020 and Current language is different Maps adopted consistent and wellhead maps, but not explicitly state that critical area inventories from FWRC 14.30.020. Also other critical area maps. and maps are to be used for planning level puts reliance on wetland Some critical area maps do purposes only and the actual presence/ inventory,which may be not show the most up-to- absence,type,extent and boundaries of outdated. date information and/or have critical areas shall be identified in field by not been updated since last qualified scientist according to the CAO update process. procedures,definitions,and criteria established in this division. In the event of any conflict between the critical area location and designation shown on the City's map and the criteria or standards of this division,the criteria and standards shall prevail. Streams:Revise stream map per 118 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Provision Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Suggested Change Rationale/Basis for FWRC with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Chapter Guidance suggestions in ESA's Review of Stream Inventory(memo dated November 20, 2014). Wetlands:Consider conducting a limited review and ground-truthing exercise of the 1999 wetland inventory map in subbasins that have undergone substantial development since 1999. Geohazards: No change to map. 19.150.030 Consistent,but Current language is general Consider adding language that the Address issue noted by City Basis for could be revised and potentially vague. No [administrator]may waive the requirement staff for handling permits determination to address City specific provision for waiving for a critical area report if the following administratively when no issue. critical area report requirements are met:a)there will be no impacts are proposed. requirements that have"de alteration of the critical area or buffer; b) Source:(CTED 2003). minimus"impacts. the development proposal will not impact the critical area in a manner contrary to the purpose, intent,and requirements of this Division;and,c)the proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. 19.150.070 Not consistent Refers to easements and not Add provisions for requiring critical area Address gap/missing Dedication tracts. Missing provisions for tracts,fencing and signage of critical areas. protection and issue noted by adding a notice on title, ESA can provide example code language City staff. fencing and signage. during code revision stage. Source:(CTED 2003). 119 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision Suggested Change With BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter 19.150.080 Generally No provision for after-the- Add language to address after-the-fact Address issue noted by City Exemptions consistent fact permitting. permitting and restoration for emergency staff. exemptions. Source:Critical Areas ESA can provide example code language Assistance Handbook: during code revision stage. Protecting Critical Areas within the Framework of the Washington Growth Management Act(CTED 2003). 19.15o.XXX Consistent,but No language describing Consider adding list of activities that dare Address multiple issues NEW could be revised activities allowed in critical allowed in critical areas and/or buffers but noted by City. to address City areas. must follow CAO standard provisions. Source: Critical Areas issue. These activities are not technically Assistance Handbook: exemptions,and must meet general Protecting Critical Areas standards for allowed activities. within the Framework of the The Commerce Example Code Provisions Washington Growth contain a set of allowed activities that are Management Act(CTED commonly used by local jurisdictions(see 2003). X.1o.16o in CTED 2003).Examples include: a)permit requests subsequent to previous critical area review, b)modification to existing structures,c)activities within the improved rights-of-way,d)minor utility projects,e)public and private pedestrian trails(except those in wetlands and wetland buffers),f)select vegetation removal activities(invasive and noxious weeds),g)minor site investigative work 120 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter (reconnaissance). 1g.15.o.XXX Not consistent No language describing the Add a list of minimum report Ecology and WDFW requirements for critical requirements. This will apply to all critical recommend that areas reports. areas. Additional report requirements for requirements for critical specific critical areas(e.g.,wetlands) areas reports be included in should be located within the critical area administrative section of subsection. critical areas code. The Commerce Example Code Provisions Sources: Wetlands in contain a set of report requirements that Washington State, Volume 2: are commonly used by local jurisdictions Guidance for Protecting and (see X.1o.o in CTED 2003). Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication#05-06-008 (Granger et al. 2005). 2.9.155 General Site Design Requirements 19.155.010 Not consistent Current language is general Replace section with the mitigation Source:WAC 197-11-168 Responsibility and potentially vague. standard sequence to more explicitly of Applicant Should include specific include requirements to avoid and mitigation sequence steps. minimize impacts and to provide monitoring for compensatory mitigation. ESA can provide standard code language during code revision stage. 19.160 Geologically Hazardous Areas(Review conducted by Robinson Noble,subconsultant to ESA) All Not consistent Contains only one section Revise section to address the following Address gaps and missing titled"Limitations"and lacks topics: protections. 121 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Chapter Guidance standard subsections. o Designation o Mapping o Classification and rating o Allowed activities—geologically hazardous areas o Additional report requirements— geologically hazardous areas o Protective measures o Mitigation o Prohibited uses(if applicable) ig.16o.oio(1) Not consistent Current practice is to require Change trigger from 25 feet to 5o feet in(i) Inconsistent with BAS and and(2) a study for activities within and(2). current accepted practices. 5o feet. ig.i6o.XXX N/A Lacks provision for minimum Consider adding setback or buffer Inconsistent with BAS and NEW setback or buffer requirement for these areas to eliminate or current accepted practices. requirement for erosion and minimize risk of property damage,death, Source: Optional landslide hazard areas. or injury. Buffer distances of 5o feet are Comprehensive Plan Element commonly used by local jurisdictions; for Natural Hazard Reduction however the distance should be (CTED 1999). scientifically relevant and appropriate to the local hazards in Federal Way. Could include options for buffer reduction and increased buffer provisions to add flexibility. 1g16o.oio(1) Not consistent No reference to hazard Add reference hazard maps both in name Source and availability of maps, but they exist on City and URL to 19.150.020 and provide link in mapping must be clear. 122 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of ConsistencySuggested Change Suggested Change FWRC gg g Chapter Guidance website. this section. Source: Critical Areas Review for Best Available Science (Commerce 2009). 19.160.010 Not consistent The term"soils"report is Change"soils"report to"geotechnical" Inconsistent with current (3)a,4a,4b outdated and misleading. report. practices. Proper usage is "geotechnical"report/study. 19.16o.olo(3)( Not consistent Introduction of new Change"qualified professional engineer" Inconsistent with current a) professional definitions since to"geotechnical engineer or engineering practices. last update. geologist" Note:actual definitions addressed below under 19.05. 19.16o.o10(3)( Not consistent Lacks provision defining Insert between 3(a)and 3(b)that a Gap/Missing Protection _) methods for mapping steep "Geotechnical report site plan should Slope mapping needs to slope areas. extend off site to include the entire area extend off-site the extent of that meets the definition of"geologically the steep slope,not stop at hazardous area". Report should address property line. Precludes the entire hazard area,not just what is applicants from not found on property. indicating the slope is higher and steeper than interpreted by the site plan by stopping topography at the property line. Bulletin#oo8 N/A Bulletin developed to provide Consider incorporating information from Improve clarity and user- Geologically accessible information bulletin into 19.160. Particularly the friendliness. Hazardous regarding geologically graphic(Note:label should be revised from Bulletin contains degree of 123 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Chapter Guidance Areas January hazardous areas. "geologically hazard area"to"steep slope information not found in 1,2011 hazard area") 19.16o(e.g., 25 foot setback of no development). 19.05.070 Not consistent Lack of definitions for steep Add the following definitions: Inconsistent with BAS. Definitions slope hazard professionals, Geotechnical Engineer: Means a practicing CAO must define qualified specific to engineers,and geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional. geologic hydrogeologists. professional civil engineer in the state of Source: Critical Areas Review hazards Washington who has at least four years of for Best Available Science professional employment as a geotechnical (Commerce 2009). engineer in responsible charge,including experience with landslide evaluation. Engineering Geologist: Means a practicing geologist licensed as a professional Engineering Geologist in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as an engineering geologist in responsible charge including mapping of geologic hazards. Hydrogeologist:Means a practicing geologist licensed as a professional Hydrogeologist in the state of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a hydrogeologist in responsible charge of groundwater studies. 19.05.070 G Mainly consistent, Current definition as written First paragraph states"not suited". Improve clarity.This is a Definition of a few word choice is potentially vague Revise to"....or other geological events definite term whereas 124 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of ConsistencySuggested Change Suggested Change FWRC gg Chapter Guidance "Geologically changes regarding the allowance of require specific studies to address depending on studies some Hazardous some development in appropriate setbacks or property use." development is allowed by Area" geologically hazardous the code,contradicting"not areas. suited". (2)(e) Not consistent Definition could incorrectly Delete this portion of the definition. Inconsistent with BAS. exclude areas appropriate for The USDA criteria is based on development. the upper 3 feet or so of soil and USDA can list"severe" when not appropriate in a geotechnical sense. For example,Alderwood is USDA's classification of glacial till,which is a very good foundation material. However, because it will perch water it is listed as severe for shallow excavations. (2)(f) Consistent References terms on the Revise to state mapping is from the DOE Improve usability. map, but not the map. Coastal Zone Atlas. (3) Consistent, but First sentence gives list of Replace"These conditions"with Consistency in definition. unclear seismic conditions.Second "Liquefaction"in second sentence. sentence only refers to liquefaction. 19.05.170 0 Consistent, but Definition of qualified Remove"Qualified"from title and put in Improve usability. Definition unclear individual is usually found alphabetical order based on title of "Qualified"before term is under their title(e.g., redundant and makes 125 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter geotechnical engineer.) profession. definition difficult to find. ig.XXX Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas NEW Not consistent No section for FWHCAs, Add new section for FWHCAs. Can refer to Consistency with state law; which are a critical area streams and lakes sections later in code improve overall code under WAC 365-19o. (don't need to move these sections to be structure and similarity to within FWHCA section). guidance documents and Location of new section is City preference. example codes. Is most useful to have it before regulations Source:WAC 365-1.90 pertaining to streams and lakes. Include provisions for protecting and regulating development near great blue heron rookeries and bald eagle nests. ESA can provide example code language during code revision stage. Section should address the following topics: o Designation o Mapping o Classification and rating o Allowed activities— streams o Additional report requirements— streams o Protective measures(performance standards) o Mitigation 126 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of ConsistencySuggested Change Suggested Change FWRC gg g Chapter Guidance 19.165 Streams All Not consistent Lack of designation, Revise section to address the following Address gaps and missing definition and classification topics: protections. Provide overall within the specific section. o Designation code structure for clarity and o Mapping consistency. o Classification and rating o Allowed activities— streams o Additional report requirements— streams o Protective measures(performance standards) o Mitigation See Kenmore CAO 18.55.400 for recommended language for stream regulations. Like Federal Way, Kenmore deals with streams and separately from fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 19.165.010 Partially not Stream classification system Revise stream classification system to Classification system is Setbacks consistent is not consistent with state include the Type 5, F, Np,and Ns stream inconsistent with State BAS. system(DNR stream typing classes defined by Washington However,stream buffer system). Setback distances Department of Natural Resources. widths are generally (buffers)are within general Revise stream setbacks to address new consistent. range of BAS. stream classification system. Sources listed in Federal Way Both suggestions are discussed in detail in Critical Areas Ordinance ESA's Review of Stream Inventory memo Update:Review of Stream (memo dated November 20,2014). Inventory(ESA,2014). 127 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision Suggested Change FWRC with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Chapter Guidance 19.165.020 Not consistent Stream relocation is no Revise section to allow section relocation Inconsistent with BAS. Relocation longer currently accepted only in the event of a restoration project. Current BAS for stream practice unless it is restoration is Washington associated with some type of Department of Fish and compensatory mitigation of Wildlife Stream Habitat impacts. Restoration Guidelines (Cramer, 2012). 19.165.030 Not consistent Installing new bulkheads Retitle section"Streambank stabilization" Inconsistent with BAS. Bulkheads along stream banks impacts Revise to limit use of provision when"such Source:Land Use Planning for in-stream habitat for fish, stabilization is achieved through Salmon,Steelhead and Trout: which is inconsistent with bioengineering or soft armoring A land use planners guide to BAS techniques in accordance with an approved salmonid habitat protection critical area report and approved by and recovery(Knight, 2009). Washington Department of Fish and Current BAS for streambank Wildlife through the hydraulic project stabilization is Washington approval if required." Department of Fish and Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines(Cramer et al.,2002). 19.165.040 Not consistent Lacks references to state Add requirement that all new culverts are Increase consistency with Culverts guidelines. designed following guidance provided in state guidelines and permits, Washington Department of Fish and and Tribal interest in Wildlife's Design of Road Culverts for Fish improving fish passage. Passage(Bates et al. 2003) (or most recent version). Also state that the applicant shall obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval permit from the 128 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of ConsistencySuggested Change Suggested Change FWRC 99 9 Chapter Guidance Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 19.165.070 Not consistent Lacks requirement for Add requirement for a buffer enhancement Mitigation should be required Intrusion into enhancement plan with plan and specific criteria for approval. for impacts to stream setbacks buffer impacts. ESA can provide example code language buffers. during code revision stage. 19.165.070(1) Consistent An allowance for essential Consider moving content to 19.145.XXX Improve internal consistency Essential public agency and utility under Exceptions. of CAO. public activities is consistent with Consider revising to be more consistent Source: Critical Areas facilities, guidance, but typically with broader definition of PAUE as Assistance Handbook: public applies more broadly to all recommended by Commerce's Example Protecting Critical Areas utilities,and critical areas and not just Code Provisions. within the Framework of the public streams. Washington Growth improvement Management Act(CTED s 2003). 19.170 Regulated Lakes All Not consistent Lacks designation and Retitle section"Lakes" Provide overall code definition and classification Revise section to address the following structure for clarity and of lakes(could state specific topics: consistency. names). o Designation Overall section meets BAS, o Mapping but could be revised to o Classification address applicable topics and o Allowed activities— lakes parallel treatment. o Additional report requirements— lakes 129 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter o Protective measures(performance standards) o Mitigation o Prohibited uses(if applicable) 19.170.010 Not consistent Lacks definition of which Add language noting that regulations Clarity between CAO and Conformance lakes are regulated under pertain to lakes>20 acres in size and that SMP regulations. with division CAO and under SMP. all other lakes(>20 acres)are considered Shorelines of the State and regulated under FWRC 15.05 Shoreline Management. Could consider listing names of lakes regulated under section. 19.175 Regulated Wetlands All Not consistent Lack of designation, Retitle section"Wetlands" Address gaps and missing definition and classification. Revise section to address the following protections. Provide overall topics: code structure for clarity and o Designation consistency. o Mapping o Classification and rating o Allowed activities— wetlands o Additional report requirements— wetlands o Protective measures(performance standards) o Mitigation 19.175.010 Not consistent References outdated Retitle section"Designation and Compliance with federal and (1)Generally wetland delineation manual. Definition"or something similar state requirements. 130 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of ConsistencySuggested Change Suggested Change FWRC 99 9 Chapter Guidance Replace all content in 19.175.010(1)to Source: WAC 173-22-035 state that the"Identification of wetlands and delineation of their boundaries pursuant to this chapter shall be done in accordance with the approved federal wetland delineation manual and applicable regional supplements"as set forth in WAC 173-22-035. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?ci to=173-22-o35 19.175.010(2) Not consistent Does not use wetland The definition of wetland in FWRC Clarity and compliance with Evaluation definition set by state law 19.05.230 should be the same as under state law. and(3) and is difficult to understand. RCW 36.7oA.03o(as required by WAC 365- Source: RCW 36.70A.030 Drainage 190-090(2)). facilities http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx? cite=36.7oA.030 Adoption of this definition may allow all of the content in(3)to be removed. 19.175.010(2) Not consistent List of required wetland Revise to include requirements for wetland Inconsistent with BAS. Evaluation(a) report contents no longer rating,functional assessment,and Source: Wetlands and CAO though(g) meets standard practice. landscape setting. Updates:Guidance for Small The Department of Ecology Example Cities. Western Washington Wetlands Chapter contains a set of report Version. Revised October 2012 requirements that are commonly used by Ecology Publication#10-o6- local jurisdictions(see XX.o6o in Bunten et 002(Bunten etal. 2012). al.2012). 131 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter 19.175.020(1) Not consistent Wetland classification Revise wetland classification system to Inconsistent with state Wetland system is based on a three- include the Category I,II,Ill,and IV wetland provided BAS. categories tiered system,which focuses classes defined by Ecology. Source: Washington State and standard on habitat functions and size Ecology updated its wetland rating system Wetland Rating System for buffers of the wetland. in 2014 and the effective date of the 2014 Western Washington:2014 rating system is January 1, 2015. Update. Ecology Publication While the City's current wetland system #14-06-029(Hruby 2014). works fairly well,it cannot be directly compared to the statewide system which is recommended by Ecology. 19.175.020(2) Not consistent Standard buffer widths for Revise standard buffer widths to use BAS Inconsistent with BAS. Wetland some wetland categories are recommended widths for Category II, III Sources: Wetlands and CAO categories not consistent with BAS. and IV. Updates:Guidance for Small and standard BAS supports a minimum Consider splitting Category I wetlands into Cities. Western Washington buffers buffer width of so feet for two subcategories:(1)Cat I-bogs,coastal, Version. Revised October 2012 the lowest category wetland lagoons,estuarine,forested),(2)Cat I-all Ecology Publication#10-o6- depending on the intensity ofothers. 002(Bunten etal.2012). the adjacent land uses and Wetlands in Washington how the wetland scores on Consider basing Category II wetland standard buffer widths on wildlife function State, Volume 1:A Synthesis the rating form. of the Science. Ecology score as many local jurisdictions have done (as discussed in companion Gap Analysis Publication#05-06-006 memo). Recommend splitting into two (Sheldon et al.2005). subcategories:(1)Cat II—high value;(2) Wetlands in Washington Cat II—all others. State, Volume 2:Guidance for ESA can provide example table of buffers Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication 132 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter during review. #os-o6-oo8(Granger etal. 2005). 19.175.030(1) N/A Section could be revised to Bunten et al.(2012)includes a list of Improve clarity. Generally more clearly state what "Activities Allowed in Wetlands"that could Source: Wetlands and CAO activities are allowed and be reviewed and included in this portion of Updates:Guidance for Small what activities are permitted the code. Cities. Western Washington alterations. Version. Revised October2012 Ecology Publication#io-o6- 002(Bunten et al. 2012). 19.175.030(2) Not consistent Allows public trails through a Revise section to give priority to public Inconsistent with BAS. Public Park critical area. The outright trails yet still require mitigation sequencing Source:Wetlands in allowance of trails(public or and compensation for impacts to wetlands. Washington State, Volume 2: private)without mitigation is Guidance for Protecting and not generally supported by Managing Wetlands Ecology BAS. Trails in the outer Publication#os-o6-oo8 portion of the buffer could be (Granger et al.2005) allowed(as discussed below under 19.175.040). 19.175.030(5) Not consistent. Lacks references to BAS Retitle section 2"Requirements for Inconsistent with BAS. Required sources for compensatory Compensatory Mitigation". Sources listed in Federal Way information mitigation,contains Revise(a)to include the following required Critical Areas Ordinance outdated preference of references: Wetland Mitigation in Update:Review of Alternative mitigation actions,and Washington state-Part 2:Developing Mitigation Options(ESA, contains outdated ratios for Mitigation Plans-Version 1(Ecology 2014). compensatory mitigation. 133 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter Current BAS suggests Publication#o6-o6-o11b)and Selecting Wetlands and CAO Updates: different mitigation ratios for Wetland Mitigation Sites Using a Watershed Guidance for Small Cities. specific types of Category I Approach, Western Washington(Ecology Western Washington Version. wetlands and does not Publication#09-06-32). Consider Revised October2012 Ecology specify the Cowardin including minimum elements from Sample Publication#10-06-002 classification(i.e.forested, Wetlands Chapter(Bunten et al.2012)and (Bunten et al.2012). scrub-shrub,emergent). referencing full guidance in Wetland Mitigation in Washington state-Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans-Version 1 (Ecology 2006). Revise(b)to allow out-of-kind replacement mitigation and out-of-impacting-basin mitigation to increase City flexibility in using alternative mitigation options as recommended in ESA's Review of Alternative Mitigation Options(memo dated October 2, 2014). Revise(c)to mitigation ratios to meet BAS. Current ratios only apply to three categories of wetland,which would change to four categories if City adopts Ecology wetland rating system. ESA can provide example code language during code revision stage. 19.175.040(1) N/A Section could be revised to Bunten et al.(2012)includes a list of Improve clarity. Generally more clearly state what example"Allowed Buffer Uses"that could Source: Wetlands and CAO activities are allowed in be reviewed against the current content of Updates:Guidance for Small 134 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter buffers. this portion of the code. Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012 Ecology Publication#10-o6- 002(Bunten et al. 2012). 19.175.040(2) Not consistent. Allows buffer width to be Revise to state that the wetland buffer at Inconsistent with state Buffer reduced to 5o%of standard its narrowest point is never reduced by provided BAS. averaging width,which is below levels more than 25%thereby retaining at least Sources: Wetlands in supported by BAS. 75%of the standard width Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands Ecology Publication#os-o6-oo8 (Granger et al. 2oos). Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. Western Washington Version. Revised October 2012, Ecology Publication#10-o6- 002(Bunten et al. 2012). 19.175.040(5) Not consistent Code appears to allow both Revise to explicitly state that buffer widths Inconsistent with BAS. Buffer buffer averaging and may be averaged or reduced with approved Sources: Wetlands in reduction reduction. BAS does not enhancement plan. Ensure that code Washington State, Volume 2: support the use of both tools language is consistent with City Guidance for Protecting and in conjunction. administrative procedures. Managing Wetlands, Ecology Allows buffer width to be Revise to state the buffer at its narrowest Publication#os-o6-oo8 reduced to 5o%of standard point is never less than 75%of the standard (Granger et al. 2oos). width,which is below levels width. supported by BAS. ESA can provide example code language 135 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of Consistency Suggested Change Suggested Change FWRC Guidance Chapter during code revision stage. 19.180 Regulated Wellheads 19.180.010 N/A Refers to state requirements Could consider moving section out of Section could be relocated at Criteria for construction and Division V;wellheads are not one of the City's discretion. maintenance of water wells. critical areas defined under WAC 365-19o. 19.185 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection Areas All Generally Overall section meets BAS, Could revise section to address the Improve internal consistency consistent but could be revised to following topics: of code. address applicable topics and o Designation parallel treatment. o Mapping o Classification o Allowed activities o Protective measures(performance standards) o Prohibited uses 19.XXX Frequently Flooded Areas NEW Not consistent No section for frequently Add new section for frequently flooded Consistency with state law; flooded areas which are a areas. Section can be brief and should improve overall code critical area under WAC 365- include definitions,location of frequently structure and similarity to 190. flooded areas,and reference Chapter 19.42 guidance documents and Flood Damage Prevention regulations. example codes. Specify that no frequently flooded areas Source:WAC 365-190 occur outside shoreline jurisdiction and these critical areas are regulated under FWRC 15.05 Shoreline Management. 136 City of Federal Way-CAO Update—Gap Analysis Matrix Exhibit C Gap Analysis Existing Degree of CAO Consistency Reason for Consistency/ Rationale/Basis for Provision with BAS& Lack of ConsistencySuggested Change Suggested Change FWRC gg g Chapter Guidance Location of new section is City preference. ESA can provide example code language during code revision stage. 137 City of Federal Way Planning Commission, City Hall, Federal Way, WA 98003 May 20, 2015 Policy and Ordinance Public Hearings tonight on Critical Areas Dear Commission Members, 1. Streams Thank you Matt Herrera for taking care of the main points that I brought up, including providing guidelines for ditches, etc to be exempt. 2. View Corridors • There was a public information meeting on view corridors last night. This is a distinct Critical Areas subject of interest to us and to our Marine View Estates DeMarwood Improvement Club. Twin Lakes Homeowners Association also expressed view/trees concerns and preferences in their stakeholder input to you. Are there any general items on this subject that could or should affect the policy and ordinances now being considered? Input from Matt could be helpful on this. Has there been any other input on this matter from the community in general? 3: Hazardous slopes a. Should the proposed extra 26" setback fit all cases? Could the setback be tailored to fit the degree of height/slope angle instead of just increasing the present setback by 104%? This has the smell of a taking. b. As an example, we have a 20,000 sq ft parcel with critical area slope. With the present 25 'set back there might be 8000 sq ft for a building pad. This is small, but possibly ok. c. With the 51' proposed set back, there might be have 3500 sq ft for a building pad. This small size wodld not be feasible. d. If we want to build a reasonable- sized house on the lot„ we would then have to get a Geo Tech engineer to drill test holes and have a proposed much longer and greater detailed report. This could easily cost $6,000 to $9,000, depending on the degree of difficulty of the terrain. e. To avoid the $6000-$9000 in this example, yet still maintain reasonable environmental control, I suggested to Matt that Federal Way use the variable setback matrix rule used by the City of Gig Harbor. I would ask the commission to go with the Gig Harbor matrix as it gives so much more flexibility and fairness. 4. No Takings Clause I would ask that the wording in the Gig Harbor could be a very good clause to have boldly inserted into the beginning of the both the Policy and the new Ordinance. 5. Policy outline of Critical Areas The City of Gig Harbor has been able to produce a 2 or 3 page description of its Critical Areas requirements versus a 20 page set in the proposed policy document-isn't this overkill. Can it be reasonably simplified to make for easier reading and comprehension? Thank you for considering the above in your decision- making. Peter Townsend Cc Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager Matt Herrera, Senior Planner Tim Johnson, Director of Economic Development Mayor Jim Ferrell Deputy Mayor Jeanne Burbidge 1648 S 310th Street, Suite 6 Federal Way, WA 98003 253 839 2947 18.08.190 4. Findings for Consideration of Approval. remain in place until all phases of construction A hydrogeologic assessment must clearly demon- have been complete and an occupancy permit has strate that the proposed use does not present a been issued by the city. threat of contamination to the aquifer system, or c. Buffer Reduction. A buffer may be provides a conclusive demonstration that applica- reduced upon verification by a qualified profes- tion of new or improved technology will result in sional and supporting environmental information no greater threat to the ground water resource than to the satisfaction of the city that the proposed con- the current undeveloped condition of the site. Suc- struction method will: cessful demonstration of these findings warrants i. Not adversely impact the stability approval under this section. (Ord. 1036 § 31, of ravine sidewalls; 2006). ii. Not increase erosion and mass movement potential of ravine sidewalls; 18.08.190 Hillsides,ravine sidewalls and bluffs. iii. Use construction techniques A. Disturbance Limitations. If a hillside,ravine which minimize disruption of existing topography sidewall or bluff is located on or adjacent to a and vegetation; development site, all activities on the site shall be iv. Includes measures to overcome in compliance with the following,requirements: any geological,soils and hydrologic constraints of 1. Ravine Sidewalls and Bluffs. the site. The buffer may be reduced to no less than a. Buffers.An undisturbed buffer of nat- the minimum rear yard setback established in the ural vegetation equal to the height of the ravine respective zoning district,pursuant to GHMC Title sidewall or bluff shall be established and main- 17. tained from the top,toe and sides of all ravine side- d. Building Setback Lines. A building walls and bluffs. All buffers shall be measured on setback line of 10 feet is required from the edge of a horizontal plane. any buffer of a ravine sidewall or bluff. b. Buffer Delineation. The edge of a 2. Hillsides of 15 Percent Slope and Greater buffer shall be clearly staked, flagged and fenced — Studies Required. Developments on hillsides prior to any site clearing or construction. Markers shall comply with the following requirements: shall be clearly visible and weather-resistant. Site a. Site Analysis Reports Required. The clearing shall not commence until such time that following chart sets forth the level of site analysis the project proponent or authorized agent for the report required to be developed based upon the project proponent has submitted written notice to range of the slope of the site and adjacent proper- the cit trntil er re utremertfs"oflpiis sectton rtes have been met. Field marking of the buffer shall Slope of Site and/or Parameters of Report Adjacent Properties Length of Slope(Feet) (See Key) Report Prepared By 0%to 15% No limit Report not required 15% to 25% >50 1, 2,3 Building contractor or other technical consultant 25%to 40% >35 1, 2, 3,4 Registered civil engineer 40%+f\i, >20 1,2,3,4 Registered engineer or geotechnical engineer ) Report Key Contents 41..,Recommended maximum site ground disturbance. 2, 8stimate of storm drainage(gpm)for preconstructlon,during construction and stconstruction. 3. Recomrifended ds'to•tninim we-ares errand-storm-vrete ettteff-fronusite. u*''+' struction and pastconstntction, 4. Seismic stability of site,preconstruction,during construction and postconstruction. b. Development Location. Structures developments shall be landscaped according to the and improvements shall be located to preserve the landscape standards of the zoning code (Chapter most sensitive portion of the site, its natural land 17.78 GHMC). forms and vegetation. d. Project construction shall be required c. Landscaping.The disturbed areas of a to implement all recommended requirements of the development site not used for buildings and other report referenced in subsection (A)(2)(a) of this (Revised 6/06) 18-36 CITY OF Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 13,2015 To: Tom Medhurst,Federal Way Planning Commission Chair FROM: Michael A.Morales, Director of Community Development Margaret H. Clark,AICP,Principal Planner SUBJECT: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Citizen-Initiated Requests MEETING DATE: Ma 20,2015 I. BACKGROUND The GMA requires jurisdictions to update their comprehensive plan every eight years.The deadline for the next major update is June 30,2015. The Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC) requires the city to accept applications for amendments to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP)text and map on an annual basis. Due to the ongoing major update,the City has combined the annual update with the major update,since with a few exceptions; a comprehensive plan may only be updated once per year. The City received five citizen-initiated site-specific requests to change the comprehensive plan designations and zoning for this update cycle.The request for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone for six acres in Belmor Mobile Home Park has since been withdrawn. Information on each request can be found in Section III of this staff report.The City also received one citizen- initiated request for a change to the text of the comprehensive plan.This is described in Section V. Pursuant to FWRC 19.80.080, after accepting applications and following an LUTC recommendation,the City Council shall hold a public hearing and select those amendment requests it wishes to move to the Planning Commission for further consideration.The requests were presented for selection to the Land Use Transportation Committee(LUTC)on November 3, 2014 and to the City Council on November 18,2014.The City Council gave direction that the requests move forward for further consideration. II. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Chapter 19.80,"Council Rezones,"establishes a process and criteria for comprehensive plan amendments. Consistent with Process VI review,the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 19 1. To review and evaluate the requests for comprehensive plan amendments; 2. To determine whether the proposed comprehensive plan amendments meet the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.140, 19.80.150,and 19.75.130(3);and 3. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. III. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY 05/1/15 Issuance of Determination of Nonsignificance Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) 05/15/15 End of SEPA Comment Period 05/20/15 Public Hearing before the Planning Commission 05/29/15 End of SEPA Appeal Period IV. 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS There are four citizen-initiated site-specific requests shown on Exhibit A—Composite Map.There is one proposed text change to the FWCP.All requests are described in Section V of the staff report. V. CITIZEN-INITIATED SITE-SPECIFIC REQUESTS&TEXT AMENDMENT A. Site-Specific Request#1—Lee/Princen Summary File Number: 14-100044-UP Parcel No. Address Size in Existing Land Use Applicant/Owner Acres 302104-9051 36027 6'h Avenue 3.14 Single Family House Daniel and Young Lee Southwest 302104-9062 36005 6th Avenue 0.78 Single Family House Joseph Princen Southwest 302104-9113 No site address 0.71 Vacant Joseph Princen Total 4.63 Location: South of Southwest 356`h Street between 6th Avenue Southwest and 8th Avenue Southwest(Exhibit B) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Single Family Medium Density Residential Existing Zoning: Single Family(RS 15.0,one unit per 15,000 square feet) Requested Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 19 Comprehensive Plan: Single Family High Density Residential Requested Zoning: Single Family(RS 9.6,one unit per 9,600 square feet)or(RS 7.2, one unit per 7,200 square feet) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer Lakehaven Utility District Public Water: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Police Department Fire/Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Reason for the Request Mr. and Mrs.Lee are requesting higher density in order to subdivide their property.The other applicants did not specify a reason for their request. Surrounding Zoning&Land Use(Exhibit C—Aerial Map) Zoning Land Use Single Family(RS 15.0,one unit per 15,000 Single family on eastern North square feet) parcel and vacant on the western parcel South Single Family(RS 15.0,one unit per 15,000 Single family square feet) East Single Family(RS 15.0,one unit per 15,000 Single family square feet) Single Family(RS 15.0,one unit per 15,000 square feet)adjacent to the two northern parcels West Single family Single Family(RS 9.6,one unit per 9,600 square feet)adjacent to the two southern parcels Topography The site is fairly flat with a 0-6 percent slope. Critical Areas None known. Drainage The request for a change in comprehensive plan and zoning designation is to facilitate additional residential density. The site is located within the Hylebos Creek Basin and Flood Problem Flow Control Area.Any water-related impacts associated with future development must be mitigated in compliance with the city-adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual(KCSWM)and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the manual. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 19 Access As shown on Exhibits B and C,the site is presently accessed from 6"'Avenue SW. Potential Traffic Impacts This is a non-project action associated with changing the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single-Family—Medium Density Residential and Single-Family Residential(RS) 15.0 to Single-Family—High Density Residential and Single Family Residential(RS)9.6 or 7.2 (one unit per 9,600 square feet or 7,200 square feet).The non-project action by itself does not affect traffic.However,at the time that an application for a development permit is submitted, the Traffic Division will conduct a Transportation Concurrency Analysis,which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP). Development proposals will also be subject to a traffic impact fee to address system impacts. Site-specific analysis may also be required to address impacts outside of the evening peak hour or safety issues.Development proposals may also be subject to frontage improvements. Public Comments Received No public comments were received. B. Site-Specific Request#2—A&R Development LLC Summary File Number: 14-101103-UP Parcel Nos: 172104-9051 and 172104-9074 Address: 33061 15th Avenue South and 1411 South 330th Street Location: Between Celebration Park Road and 15th Avenue South(Exhibit D) Size: 1.82 acres Existing Land Use: Vacant land Applicant David Frankovich Owner: A&R Development LLC Existing Comprehensive Plan: Office Park Existing Zoning: Office Park(OP) Requested Comprehensive Plan: Community Business Requested Zoning: Community Business(BC) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Public Water: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Public Safety Fire/Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 19 Reason for the Request A&R Development LLC owns six parcels totaling 2.5 acres located to the east of the subject parcels. These six parcels are designated and zoned Community Business(BC)(Exhibit D). A&R Development LLC is requesting a BC designation for these two OP-zoned properties to allow the contiguous development of all eight parcels.They state that the two OP-zoned parcels,which total 1.82 acres,do not possess enough buildable space for a stand-alone use. Surrounding Zoning&Land Use(Exhibit E---Aerial Map) Zoning Land Use North Office Park(OP) Vacant South Office Park(OP) Federal Way School District Kitchen Facilities East Community Business(BC) Vacant West Office Park(OP) Celebration Park Topography The site is fairly flat with a minimal slope. Critical Areas There is an off-site Category III wetland to the west, which requires a maximum 50-foot buffer,depending on the wetland's actual size(Exhibits D and E). Drainage The site is located within the Hylebos Creek Basin and Conservation Flow Control Area.Any water-related impacts associated with future development must be mitigated in compliance with the city-adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual(KCSWM)and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the manual. Access The site would access 13th Place South at its northeast and southeast corners. Potential Traffic Impacts This is a non-project action associated with changing the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Office Park and Office Park(OP)to Community Business and Community Business(BC).The non-project action by itself does not affect traffic. However,at the time that an application for a development permit is submitted,the Traffic Division will conduct a Transportation Concurrency Analysis,which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP).Development proposals will also be subject to a traffic impact fee to address system impacts. Site-specific analysis may also be required to address impacts outside of the evening peak hour or safety issues.Development proposals may also be subject to frontage improvements. Public Comments Received No public comments were received. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 of 19 C. Site-Specific Request#3—Hiu Ok Pack Summary File Number: 14-101334-UP Parcel No.: 250300-0035 Address: 1443 South 308th Street Location: West of Pacific Highway South and south of South 308th Street (Exhibit F) Size: 0.18 acres Existing Land Use: Beauty Shop Applicant/Owner: Hiu Ok Paek Existing Comprehensive Plan: Multiple Family Existing Zoning: Multi-family(RM 1800,one unit per 1,800 square feet) Requested Comprehensive Plan: Community Business Requested Zoning: Community Business(BC) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Public Water: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Public Safety Fire/Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Reason for the Request The site is developed as a commercial beauty shop,which is not a permitted use in the Multi- family designation. The owner is requesting the change to Community Business(BC)since the lot is adjacent to BC zoning to the east and south and beauty shops are a permitted use in the BC zone.There is also BC zoning to the north. Surrounding Zoning&Land Use(Exhibit G—Aerial Map) Zoning Land Use North Community Business(BC) Federal Way High School South Community Business(BC) Commercial building East Community Business(BC) Lake Village Apartments West Multi-family(RM 1800,one Single family dwelling unit per 1800 square feet) Topography The site is flat with a 0-6 percent slope. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 19 Critical Areas None Drainage The site is located within the Lower Puget Sound Basin and Flood Problem Flow Control Area.Any water-related impacts associated with future development must be mitigated in compliance with the city-adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual(KCSWM)and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the manual. Access The site has frontage and access on South 308'h Street(Exhibits F and G). Potential Traffic Impacts This is a non-project action associated with changing the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Multiple Family and Multi-Family Residential(RM 1800)to Community Business and Community Business(BC).The non-project action by itself does not affect traffic.However, at the time that an application for a development permit is submitted,the Traffic Division will conduct a Transportation Concurrency Analysis,which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation may be required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP).Development proposals will also be subject to a traffic impact fee to address system impacts. Site-specific analysis may also be required to address impacts outside of the evening peak hour or safety issues. Development proposals may also be subject to frontage improvements. Public Comments Received No public comments were received. D. Site-Specific Request#4—32020 Professional Building Summary File Number: 14-104927-UP Parcel Nos.: 172104-9058& 172104-9109 Address: 32020 1St Avenue South Location: South of South 320th Street and east of 1gu Avenue South (Exhibit H) Size: 1.97 acres Existing Land Use: Office Applicant: Ocean View Partners LLC Agent: Rob Reuber,Norlan Corporation Owner: Ocean View Partners LLC Existing Comprehensive Plan: Professional Office Existing Zoning: Professional Office(P0) Requested Comprehensive Plan: Office Park Requested Zoning: Office Park(OP) Availability of Utilities Sanitary Sewer: Lakehaven Utility District Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 of 19 Public Water: Lakehaven Utility District Solid Waste: Waste Management Availability of Public Services Police: City of Federal Way Public Safety Fire/Emergency Medical: South King Fire and Rescue Schools: Federal Way Public Schools Reason for the Request The applicant states that the Professional Office(PO)designation is a very narrowly focused zone based on an older zoning model that segregates uses. Surrounding Zoning&Land Use(Exhibit I—Aerial Map) Zoning Land Use North Office Park(OP) Vacant South Professional Office(PO) Office East Office Park(OP) Group Health West Professional Office(PO) Office Topography The site is fairly flat with a 0-6 percent slope. Critical Areas None Drainage The site is located within the Lower Puget Sound Basin and Flood Problem Flow Control Area.Any water-related impacts associated with future development must be mitigated in compliance with the city-adopted 2009 King County Surface Water Manual(KCSWM)and the City of Federal Way Addendum to the manual. Access The site has frontage on South 320th Street to the north and 15`Avenue South to the west (Exhibits Hand I). Potential Traffic Impacts This is a non-project action associated with changing the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Professional Office and Professional Office(PO)to Office Park and Office Park (OP).The non-project action by itself does not affect traffic. However, at the time that an application for a development permit is submitted,the Traffic Division will conduct a Transportation Concurrency Analysis,which will analyze peak hour impacts of the project to assure that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Supplemental mitigation maybe required if the proposed project creates an impact not anticipated in the Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP).Development proposals will also be subject to a traffic impact fee to address system impacts. Site-specific analysis may also be required to address impacts outside of the evening peak hour or safety issues. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 19 Public Comments Received No public comments were received. E. Text Amendment—Youngspring LLC Property Summary File Number: 14-105078-UP Applicant: Youngspring LLC Property Exhibits: J-M Youngspring LLC Property is requesting an amendment to the language in Chapter 2,"Land Use,"of the comprehensive plan to allow senior housing, including assisted living and nursing homes in the Commercial Enterprise(CE)zone.This would also require a change to the FWRC(code amendment)to allow these uses in the CE zone. Reason for the Request The applicants state that several times in the past, and as recently as August 2014,they have been approached by developers of assisted living facilities or other senior care facilities regarding their property located at 35200 Pacific Highway South,a 5.8-acre site.The applicant states that the criteria for developers of senior housing/assisted living/nursing homes are location on a major arterial,great freeway access,and five acres or more in size(although several senior housing projects have been built on sites less than five acres in size in the City over the years).Many families and friends of the residents of these facilities travel a long distance so the locations need visibility and access. Public Comments Received No public comments were received. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH FWRC 19.80.140 AND 19.80.150 1. FWRC 19.80.140,Factors to be considered in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment—The City may consider,but is not limited to,the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. (1) The effect upon the physical environment. Request Staff Response Request#1— This site is already developed with single family residential Lee/Princen development and no critical areas will be affected by its redevelopment. Single Family High Density Residential zoning will allow for more density.Site development must comply with all applicable city regulations,including those related to clearing, grading,drainage,and water quality. Request#2 A&R This site is vacant.A Community Business designation would allow Development LLC for a wide variety of uses.No critical areas would be affected by development,which would have to comply with city regulations related to clearing,grading,drainage,and water quality. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 of 19 Request Staff Response Request#3–Hiu Ok The site is already developed with a commercial use and no critical Paek areas would be affected by its redevelopment,which would have to comply with city regulations related to clearing,grading,drainage, and water quality. Request#4–32020 The site is already developed with a commercial/office use and no Professional Building critical areas would be affected by its redevelopment.Redevelopment of the site must comply with city regulations related to clearing, grading,drainage,and water quality. Request#5– (Text amendment) N/A Youngspring LLC Property (2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. Staff Response—Please refer to responses under Section VI(1)(1)above. (3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Request Staff Response Request#1– The southernmost lot is one of the largest residential properties in the Lee/Princen immediate area.There is single family residential development on lots of varying sizes in the surrounding neighborhoods.Single family residences on smaller lots(RS 9.6)are located to the west.As a result, the proposal would be compatible with and not have a negative impact on the adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Request#2–A&R Properties to the east are zoned BC and developed with a variety of Development LLC commercial uses.Celebration Park is located to the west and is zoned OP.The park is already surrounded by a mix of residential and commercial uses.Development of the subject site would be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Request#3–Hiu Ok The site is already developed with a commercial beauty shop,which is Paek compatible with adjacent commercial uses.The designation change would eliminate certain restrictions on making structural changes to the building or increasing the gross floor area of the building. Request#4 - 32020 This site is already developed with a commercial/office building.Uses Professional Building allowed in the requested OP zone would be compatible with existing adjacent uses and would make sense at this location given the high volume of traffic moving along South 320`"Street and 1"Avenue South. Request#5– (Text amendment)—Senior and similar types of housing may not be Youngspring LLC compatible with the types of industrial uses allowed in the CE zone. Property Many of the allowed uses in the CE zone involve a high volume of truck and semi traffic,early morning or potentially 24 hour operation,noise, and potential odor.Allowing residential uses in this environment may result in conflict and complaints between existing industrial and newly allowed residential uses. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 of 19 (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads,public transportation,parks, recreation, and schools. Request Staff Response Request#1– The request is for a change in designation from medium to high density Lee/Princen Single-Family Residential.All public services are available to the site. Public roads border the site on the east.There are limited public transportation and recreational opportunities in the vicinity.Any new development would be served by the Federal Way School District,and Impacts on schools should be mitigated by the payment of a school impact fee on a per dwelling unit basis.Parks and open space mitigation provisions are required with development. Request#2–A&R The site is vacant and would access 13th Place South at its northeast Development LLC and southeast corners.All public services are also available to this site and bus service is available along Pacific Highway South,which is one block to the east.There are a wide variety of recreational opportunities in the area and with Celebration Park located to the west.Commercial/ office development does not generate students,and therefore would not have a negative impact on schools. Request#3–Hiu Ok The subject site is already developed with a commercial use.The site Paek is served by a full complement of public services and roads.School impacts are not applicable. Request#4–32020 The subject site is already developed with a commercial use.The site Professional Building is served by a full complement of public services and roads.School impacts are not applicable. Request#5– (Text amendment)—The area zoned CE lacks sidewalks on many Youngspring LLC roads,and therefore,it is not pedestrian or wheelchair-friendly.Transit Property service is limited except on major roads.There arc not park facilities in the zone(although Hylebos Wetlands Park is relatively close to the west). (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. Request Staff Response Request#1– Designation of the site to high density single-family would allow Lee/Princen redevelopment with additional single-family units consistent with adjacent land uses,which would be of benefit to the neighborhood,as well as adding to the city's housing options and tax base.Therefore, granting the RS 9.6 designation would benefit the neighborhood,city, and region. Request#2–A&R The parcels as they sit now are surrounded by non-office type uses. Development LLC Changing from Office Park to the Community Business designation would allow a broad mix of uses,including retail,commercial,office, mixed-use commercial/residential and supportive uses,which would benefit the neighborhood,city,and economy of the region. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 11 of 19 Request Staff Response Request#3–Hiu Ok The site is already developed with a commercial use.The change in Paek designation would allow for the ability to make structural changes to the building or increase its floor area,resulting in an improved look to the structure.Therefore,changing the designation to Community Business would benefit the neighborhood,city and region. Request#4–32020 The site is already developed with a commercial use.The change in Professional Building designation would allow for a broader mix of uses,including banks, restaurants,retail sales,which would benefit the neighborhood,city, and economy of the region given the high volume of traffic moving along South 320th Street and I"Avenue South. Request#5– (Text amendment)—There is a demand for senior housing and Youngspring LLC continuing care use,given the aging population.Even after accounting Property for a generous amount of out-migration of older adults,there is likely to be an increase of at least 115,000 in the population of adults over 65 years of age in King County in the next decade.Depending on the level of out-migration,this increase could be as high as 150,000 or more.An additional 50,000 to 70,000 people could be added to the senior population by 2025 as the baby boomers(born from 1945– 1964)continue to age.The end of the baby boom generation—those born in 1964—will turn 65 in 2030.Taken together,King County is likely to see the addition of over 200,000 seniors—doubling the current senior population in the next 15 to 29 years.These increased numbers of seniors means that the housing stock will have to respond. There appears to be demand for senior and similar types of housing. Housing however,may not be compatible with the types of industrial uses allowed in the CE zone.Many of the allowed uses in the CE zone involve a high volume of truck and semi traffic,early morning or potentially 24 hour operation,noise,and potential odor.Allowing residential uses in this environment may result in conflict and complaints between existing industrial and newly allowed residential uses. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. Request Staff Response Request#1– Single-family high density is one of the predominant land uses in the Lee/Princen City.The City is required to accommodate growth.Single-family residential development is a popular housing type in the South King County area,creating a demand for this type of designation. Request#2–A&R There is a significant amount of vacant office space in the neighborhood, Development LLC known as West Campus.Changing the designation to Community Business affords the opportunity for a broader mix of uses of the site. Request#3–Hiu Ok This multi-family site is already developed with a commercial use.Its Paek proximity to Pacific Highway South warrants a commercial designation, as Community Business is primarily located adjacent to Pacific Highway South. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 of 19 Request Staff Response Request#4–32020 This site is already developed with a commercial use.Its proximity to Professional Building South 320th Street and l'Avenue South warrants a broader commercial designation. Request#5– (Text amendment)—There is a demand for senior housing and Youngspring LLC continuing care facilities,given the aging population.Even after Property accounting for a generous amount of out-migration of older adults,there is likely to be an increase of at least 115,000 in the population of adults over 65 years of age in King County in the next decade.Depending on the level of out-migration,this increase could be as high as 150,000 or more.An additional 50,000 to 70,000 people could be added to the senior population by 2025 as the baby boomers(born from 1945– 1964) continue to age.The end of the baby boom generation—those born in 1964—will turn 65 in 2030.Taken together King County is likely to see the addition of over 200,000 seniors -doubling the current senior population in the next 15 to 20 years.'I'hese increased numbers of seniors means that the housing stock will have to respond in ways that are unprecedented in recent County history.There are several nursing homes/assisted living centers and senior housing options located in other zones in the city.The following zones allow senior housing:RS,RM, BC,CC-C,and CC-F.The following zones allow nursing home/assisted living:RM 1800,BC,CC-C,CC-F,and OP.The newest senior housing under construction,Celebration Senior Living,is located in the Community Business(BC)zone. (7) The current and projected population density in the area. Request Staff Response Request#1– The comprehensive plan calls for a mix of densities and the proposal is Lee/Princen compatible. Request#2–A&R The development of the commercial site will not affect current or Development LLC projected population density in the area. Request#3–Hiu Ok Although it is designated multi-family,the site is already developed Paek with a commercial use. The development of the commercial site will not affect current or projected population density in the area. Request#4–32020 The development of the commercial site will not affect current or Professional Building projected population density in the area. Request#5– (Text amendment)—The comprehensive plan does not anticipate Youngspring LLC increased residential uses in the Commercial Enterprise designation. Property For that reason,there is a lack of residential type amenities including parks and sidewalks. (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response-Granting the four site-specific requests should not affect other aspects of the comprehensive plan. Granting the text amendment request would require a re-assessment Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 13 of 19 of the Commercial Enterprise designation,its intent,compatible uses, and overall economic development goals.On page II-20,the FWCP states, "Housing is not contemplated for this designation,except mixed-use residential) commercial development is appropriate as a transitional use adjacent to the established single family-zoned residential neighborhood located south of South 356th Street between Pacific Highway South and 16th Avenue South." 2. FWRC 19.80.150, Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan—The city may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare. Request Staff Response Request#1– Changing the designation from medium to high density Single Family Lee/Princen Residential provides for additional housing opportunities.The site is required to be developed in accordance with City standards in support of the public health,safety,or welfare. Request#2–A&R Changing the designation from Office Park to Community Business Development LLC provides for additional commercial development opportunities.The site is required to be developed in accordance with City standards in support of the public health,safety,or welfare. Request#3–)i'1i11 Ok The site is already developed with a conunercial use.The change in Paek designation would allow for the ability to make structural changes to the building or increase its floor area,resulting in an improved look and structure.Therefore,changing the designation to Community Business bears a substantial relationship to the public health,safety, and welfare. Request#4–32020 Changing the designation from Professional Office to Office Park Professional Building provides for additional commercial development opportunities.The site is required to be developed in accordance with City standards in support of the public health,safety,or welfare. Request#5– (Text amendment)—Senior and similar types of housing may not be Youngspring LLC compatible with the types of industrial uses allowed in the CE zone. Property Many of the allowed uses in the CE zone involve a high volume of truck and semi traffic,early morning or potentially twenty-four hour operation,noise,and potential odor.Allowing residential uses in this environment may result in conflict and complaints between existing industrial and newly allowed residential uses.The mix of uses could have a negative impact on the public health,safety and welfare. (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. Staff Response—Please see responses under Sections VI(l)(5)and VI(2)(1). Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 14 of 19 (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendments. Staff Response—The proposed site-specific requests are consistent with the following goals of RCW Chapter 36.70A.020 of the Growth Management Act: "(i) Urban growth.Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (ii) Reduce sprawl.Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,low-density development. (iii) Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state,promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (v)Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans,promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state,especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities,and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient. economic growth,all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services,and public facilities." The site-specific amendments are also consistent with goals and policies of the land use, housing, and economic development chapters of the City's comprehensive plan. The proposed text amendment would require a re-assessment of the Commercial Enterprise designation in the City's comprehensive plan, its intent,compatible uses,and overall economic development goals. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH FWRC 19.75.130(3) Site-specific requests are also required to be evaluated for compliance with this section. 1) The city may approve the application only if it finds that: a. The proposed request is in the best interests of the residents of the city. Staff Response—Please see responses under Sections VI(1)(5)and VI(2)(1). b. The proposed request is appropriate because either: Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 15 of 19 (i) Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have so significantly changed since the property was given its present zoning that, under those changed conditions, a change in designation is within the public interest;or (ii) The change in designation will correct a designation that was inappropriate wizen established. Request Staff Response Request#1— The site was likely given the RS 15.0 zoning designation due to Lee/Princen the large size of the lot and previous lack of sewer availability. Conditions have since changed from the time of City incorporation and utilities are available.More residential density is now an option. Request#2 A&R Conditions in the immediate vicinity of the subject property have Development LLC changed since the property was given its present zoning.There is a significant amount of vacant office space in the neighborhood, known as West Campus.Changing the designation to Community Business affords the opportunity for a broader mix of uses of the site,and is in the public interest. Request#3—Hiu Ok Conditions have changed,in that the site contains a commercial Paek use in a converted single family residential structure.Based on the parcel's small size and proximity to Pacific Hwy South,it was inappropriate to designate it Multiple Family rather than Community Business. Request#4—32020 This site is already developed with a commercial use.Its Professional Building proximity to South 320`h Street and 1 s`Avenue South warrants a broader commercial designation.Based on the parcel's small size and proximity to South 320`h Street and 1'"Avenue South,it was inappropriate to designate it Professional Office rather than Office Park. c. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Request Staff Response Request#1—Lee/Princen Changing the designation of this parcel from medium to high density to single-family would be consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan,which states that the demand for and development of single-family housing is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.Single-family development will occur as in-fill development of vacant lots scattered throughout existing neighborhoods and as subdivisions on vacant tracts of land depending on the availability of utilities. Request#2—A&R Changing the designation to Community Business is consistent with Development LLC the Plan's direction of:"Community Business development generally along the SR-99 corridor,north and south of the City Center,in proximity to residential areas,composed of a broad range Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 16 of 19 Request Staff Response of retail sales and services,commercial,office,and mixed-use commercial/residential development.Continued development of West Campus." Request#3—I-Iiu Ok Changing the designation to Community Business is consistent with Paek the plan's direction of:"Community Business development generally along the SR-99 corridor,north and south of the City Center,in proximity to residential areas,composed of a broad range of retail sales and services,commercial,office,and mixed-use commercial/ residential development.Redevelopment and development of the SR-99 corridor into an area of quality commercial,retail,and mixed- use commercial/residential development." Request#4 --32020 Changing the designation to Office Park is consistent with the Professional Building overall vision of the comprehensive plan,for creating new retail and service employment opportunities and the provision of community and commercial services to residential communities. d. It is consistent with all applicable provisions of the chapter, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. Staff Response—Development would be required to comply with all city regulations, including those adopted by reference from the comprehensive plan. e. It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff Response—Refer to responses under Section VI(2)(1). VIII. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION A. Site-Specific Request#1 —Request for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of parcels 302104-9051, 302104-9062, 302104-9113 (totaling 4.63 acres),located at 30627 6th Ave SW and 36005 6th Ave SW, from Single-Family Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0(one unit per 15,000 square feet)to Single-Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6(one unit per 9,600 square feet)or RS 7.2(one unit per 7,200 square feet). Mayor's Recommendation—The Mayor recommends that the request be approved for Single Family RS 9.6. B. Site-Specific Request#2—Request for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of parcels 172104-9051 and 172104-9074(totaling 1.82 acres), located at 33061 15`h Avenue South and 1411 South 330th Street, from Office Park and Office Park(OP)to Community Business and Community Business(BC). Mayor's Recommendation—The Mayor recommends that the request be approved. Planning Commission Staff Report — May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 17 of 19 C. Site-Specific Request#3—Request for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of parcel 250300-0035 (.18 acre),located at 1443 South 308`x'Street, from Multiple Family and Multi- family(RM 1800,one unit per 1,800 square feet)to Community Business and Community Business(BC). Mayor's Recommendation—The Mayor recommends that the request be approved. D. Site-Specific Request#4—Request for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone of parcels 172104-9058 and 172104-9109(totaling 1.97 acres),located at 32020 1s'Avenue South, from Professional Office and.Professional Office(PO)to Office Park and Office Park(OP). Mayor's Recommendation—The Mayor recommends that the request be approved. E. Text Amendment—Request for a comprehensive plan text amendment to Chapter 2,"Land Use," to allow senior housing, including assisted living and nursing homes in the Commercial Enterprise(CE)zone and development regulation amendment to FWRC 19.240. Mayor's Recommendation—The Mayor recommends that the request be denied. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240,the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding each proposed comprehensive plan amendment: 1 Recommend to City Council adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment as proposed; 2. Recommend to City Council that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment not be adopted; 3. Forward the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to City Council without a recommendation;or 4. Modify the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and recommend to City Council adoption of the amendment as modified. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Composite Map Exhibit B Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request#1 —Lee/Princen Exhibit C Aerial Map of Site-Specific Request#1 —Lee/Princen Exhibit D Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request#2—A&R Development LLC Exhibit E Aerial Map of Site-Specific Request#2—A&R Development LLC Exhibit F Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request#3—Hiu Ok Paek Exhibit G Aerial Photo of Site-Specific Request#3—Hiu Ok Paek Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 18 of 19 Exhibit H Vicinity Map of Site-Specific Request#4—32020 Professional Building Exhibit I Aerial Photo of Site-Specific Request#4—32020 Professional Building Exhibit J Vicinity Map of the Commercial Enterprise Zone Exhibit K Aerial Map of the Commercial Enterprise Zone Exhibit L Existing Five-Acre Parcels in the Commercial Enterprise Zone Exhibit M Email Correspondence from Rob Rueber,May 14,2015 K:\Comprehensive Plan\2015 Major Update\Site Specific Rcquests\Planning Commission\Report to Planning Commission.doc Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 19 of 19 rn co ei >+ Q. N C CIS ) C 3 w J m' a amio d C J J W'. c in CU in E w W %. C .� . C Ce 0,_ ._Ne COyC J in N � n Nva Q. N Yaa�iYa n = 0 o g .� O C X d +r � 0Oca.i a w rn ° dtoV p—�, E W d � c '� N p Qaai cjA Q .� Q2coU C � � mii.d-A 0 ��. > - 1 1 } wj• I .3 V (I) 0' .zesiri4 F— te « J �_r <I Z " 10 .v. 5 3nv 1819oti A2ivlr�rw �' ti s � n V d , 1 ! ,-, "V i i. '-__�...; .7-----lw Q��e4C-V5.-. •-•,,„. Ol.-, w`.1 7.o ''-lin 114•\,.. S 3Av RIRs • 44%AM�Yll1fYl d a ►S i Y r^---r1 w S AMHOilrsva M! " ..------04' 7 IS AMH ahlIova i 1 rz j I i 41yi t \ , S3Avul v ii' ' J -1m • l E SaMfMMt[. ,j — '14 I E / y0.. ,i ui rc 00 0 �yrdp tI n f I13 r MS MI MS MV u1b % '} ^^ E f o firice/ af• o Xi t 4 'r O 14041'1X- $�: o i / ( : ,, Cr to H > CUCD C m a ui • a V 0 = m 2 v a Nam LL mo 03 cr 8 am 53 — a n• O N 0 0 .s m C a V s v y U - o c� o y an 01 en 1, Q� m to Li- N •� _ _ V `+ C .N. E C D! K.� N „Ili. $E .,_. C0 co am N y N C h W W to in O J (n (n m fA fA N Qco .0 jj '- m U L O u) J0 0 I 2 v . Z 4 g A •g c N T N VJ C O t I = N ri m j u ii 111a -6_,, , p C 1 ix O ;� ro - _� 6 N Q LL Jce ip u.) v7.,. .:::i. .."^, MS AV NL! MS AV HO MS AV HUS MS AV WI C '6 xuNI EPA 0 �1Mi ..—Orli _t —_MI NNW rilbrit. ' ' Fi p KU Ni tr.; zi al ±r124. : 1; :I cit I; xiiirtlit,' pm : .8'. CL ct . ,‘ , , 1 r are �; � �►® �; ,�� MS AV Nth '2o • , �1 ,,,,„._ -"►,�t�4 t®®iii �" _o Aar E' c7) ElIPIU1111.111 ter®® . ■v .ugh �,e�• E > tE 4 a s' MS AV 111.11. MEW �11'1 _ Existing Designations Requested Designations City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan: Single Family Medium Density _ Comprehensive Plan: Single Fancily High Density Zoning_Single Family (RS15.0) Zoning: Single Family (RS9.6 or RS7.2) 2015 - ` . arA . Site Specific Requests j: , for Comprehensive Plan and i " �1r �i ,tit * , `�"_ ' " • .., ._ � - d - : :` t Zoning Designation Changes Lc,. NI I ,,a t • e • o s i `` i7- fe `• a Lee / Prncen�i t `' + { i is .1 _ t• .gra 1 • Site Specific Request #1 -- y i r .` Exhibit C .,- t=; ` - i Legend �\ i, �, •y �a .. .! i Site Specific Request ; - ;;>�� 11: . a - Streams(City Survey) �', • ' -• 4.t Wetlands(1998 City Survey) v.. w A �, t ..--.4, ' — ' ;.,".• - --a_ - • .; Zoning Boundary � - 17, ";':- ' Y 4 „ < Note: An asterix next to a zoning �... -f.A, designation indicates the property is yTi �'` 1.- E : ,a governed by a development agreement. a. 4,-", j L.° t \\,��� x t - Feet `� ��, / Ci!b lo f--- '" ;� Federal Way •"‘-\\''\.'4 \� P This mapis accompanied byno warranties, x mss Ain \mi. •'A t I + and is simply a graphic representation. R:lerikelodtPro}ectssSSR ComplanV015tMaps1Re-Dolssr1 2015 aenal.mxd Existing Designations Requested Designations City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Office Park Comprehensive Plan. Community Business Z_onitui_ Office Park (OP) 9 P Zoning Community Business IBC) 2015 y.�� : _ Site Specific Requests for Comprehensive Plan and aBC Zoning Designation Changes a l BC A & R Development .� LLC OP •P liC f f Site Specific Request#2 Wetland r. u BC Exhibit D Rating:II i Wetland 2 Legend Rating:II r a Site Specific Re uest Wetland p q Rating:Ill Rating:11 MUMS EssoTMST Wetland _ Buildings Rating:II r; 3 Streets OP mil Streams(City Survey) Wetlands(1998 City Survey) BC,_ BC Zoning Boundary* Note: An asterix(')next to a zoning designation indicates the property is BC governed by a development agreement. 1RM3 •P OP r S 333RD ST>)-. ` Wetland r Rating:11 N 0 250 500 R�A18 Feet �; CITY OF BC -7 _11- - A Federal Way This map is accompanied by no warranties, 0 _Li OS I and is simply a graphic representation. "' -rr'I-ro'^sl-SR Emp nt2111511Aaps\ 1ssr2 2a15.� Existing Designations ` Requested Designations City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan:Office Park ;.,...)440:4:7,,, ,‘' : Comprehensive Plan:CommunityBusiness Zoning:Office Park(OP) «� Zoning:Community Business (BC) 2015 r "" ' n o Site Specific Requests is _5 + d. ; • i `.� !? `- for Comprehensive Plan and s.`` e . 'r --' Zoning Designation Changes • ,�•A S ; .. ec, r' � _ `i �'� =� A & R Development \ - ' , LLC y, : Site Specific Request #2 T r ..> g \1 , Y � � F 'vV � ' f i �7431.. p. Exhibit E'''....„.,';',\4'\-"". �, �\�,.-„ : ti..----„Ti. 4-, , .":' --W-c-- ... ' , , (.1.,) , ., e ��\\\�` 1 ('( 4� • at Legend ''`mo i r `�- \�\ fI - iill Ati ME Site Specific Request -. .. ,,,tel. Streams(City Survey) i , I Wetlands(1998 City Survey) . ----1, '` x ; • ;4, -j -- y t - Zoning Boundary* a z M - ° Note: An asterix(*)next to a zoning +� _ �+- _ �igirt designation indicates the property is ` - 4�v�.�.� � .,.,,,,t!.,.•,,, � ! .11 - 4 ;m'�1 governed by a development agreement. , ,: ,,,,- k' --""'": '' ' "07; 44.'' ''- , -4'. —4.t.r.4:40,:, 1--'..`-Y.--*'-''''''": ",- .: WI jr-.-47,,--: WC P -;-. t , \ 8' ice ,r-,.. MVV ,.• -: i.. . ,, • -.-r'!_•- il '. ;. �� ..�..-.�� '- + 0. .25 0 50 Feet - .4*-; '',i': '' ..., 1.4 ,in. ....f7, .. I l- =I c:rs•OF , _ - - k:' . ::''.'•-•,:i3A.'''' .1 ,.." . *-...tei....e4 A ti ...._ ., . .,, ,. ., . , _ .r _ *id. t /4 1 ----7"' =---- Federal ka ... ,y =-im'"�'�H kik ---°° This map is accompanied by no warranties, • rami. .,8":- t <• x,,. z and is simply a graphic representation. ''.e'a:1•ro.-«w•,`t.• ' n '1 n� .o _ I aena"mx. Ti a >% cC Cr) ei CO 0 c z C' Z y C MN m > Cn E qc • t0 ca cr t d W • A C (-- N 3- aN mo211! Cm L O 0. Q) �, co co $ aa) — ..n -0 O C 0 je U a fri O i~ O C V co N o ° o w $L v N •dL 'y� O U x cn c « E c 0) =a1 N o13 Eo, LL CL a d .= W a� `° a a a� •F A dJ a .- m Cl) N 10 c.n LL. a s 01131 >N I u; 4m1N 0 m ZU LQ1. (n J 061131' N am 4/WHIM kl .w�u.z snrtttM v, O EI' to ^c ! N 1 m * ; . � _ ��N , _ I __ 'N T O ®® 1.----7- --, F fArtI18t amrNwL 1111 a LIH., ..._�O ,; m O_ Io , « - c,,) 1. 1Di w_ 0 17) MO _ m vh1�yy iLM v UId mbil ; en H ' C111110M0..- 0; AmuSAI v ti; S AMH 3Idi3Vd t- C1 pl m V ar- ,r, Ji m � ` s • N J 8MHl►L ' Wil. IR h z. I1 ' ._ : :a - r'j = 'ld/rds, r c t,r IN,o r u) o LL �'::� rr.. 1 i, 0 ' UM" 1 . L1� � `u a - 6111 6 ; IIjiip , ,� BAV HI j' go ., Existing Designations ' Requested Designations City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Multi-Family Comprehensive Plan. Community Business (BC) ! Zoning Multi-Family (RM1800) xr ie .';, 7_wunq. Community Business (BC) r 2015 • ir.., \� all Site Specific Requests • �- _ , ���� for Comprehensive Plan and rillh \\; Zoning Designation Changes 1 \ • - '.L ,. ,...\:„ �� C F iK av���� V E _� ,!_ iLt �� � . Hui Ok Paek ��. St t#3 site Specific Request ,�� ;. � � Exhibit G Vii; . � ti < � �� r �, - � �. uge ri . :.. , 4? .„,...,. f a L 1—-' . . ,,,,,, ; .,•,,-.. ,T... -‘,.#--; " —11116.1.111111111i-,1 11110-17,41/art ,,i� �- y•._ 'moi , ;.:::,,, '— +c . 04.- v _ _..,-.2.-.,iIj'' . Ilis,L-1 -1-- j'T.A.' "1--,n!''',1-11}: Legend _______, .: _,..„ . .::: I „� Site Specific Request . .'")"tr: ri; I i .. Streams(City Survey) lig. �. a ,,, - 4' �� " n„ = ki� — t Wetlands(1998 City Survey) \ a - 1,}a r ,a i ' Q Zoning Boundary* ;� �i p " s Note: An asterix(•)next to a zoning Wetland ` ` � � «- designation indicates the property is titsta tti' Rating:ii o .- governed by a development agreement. • • S ti M .. , a ...\/ • : - ''. :'.. ..,.#1",'..'j;il: -.-.,..7'*.-M11111W-'-'*,, ` tt '',_ - ' -! 3 t r�i ,. ' .. . ..::..... 79.041S AM M:f.:; . �ti, } ii N o 250 500 .. a �r s s�'—t _ .`� = r 1R e � .. t ria :t j �— Feet i 3 <e ig . _ _ a �mri Federal Way - - .. -..:#4•4;.4 t �� ; This map is accompanied by no warranties, '' '- }[- — :„ a and is simply a graphic representation. `:�erike«. - . _-s- n� ��aps ., yo _ i1 _se mx. a to ICA Y we O• a, V N z 3 ID Z Z' N " en O li `v 3� N C13 cr L • O C N a U Z' o a c '� c • O C Q7 ■-. D Cl) 00 to w r rn • E . a • o 4= di. — v Z E. v �, o �, ". in 4J c 0) c v w • .� am m m W �o o B` ow § °° aQ 0 y N 15« C N ca 413 2' w O a O 3 b c.9 • CL • �+ O . 0 U) C U) (n N m N a c o o al � (o c N o'.o Em V C M d I0 z v, z • wN J � o I1 T r.-4111r°. ° ---- 1 --1 j N"—rl-P a lei i titio', i I 1-: o g (13 II MILD N re ». OW ca �' Y. T a 1 -0 , a 4 .an alae ,' (1!„2 a J j...` fIJ O C. . c.pt.s c£ t II __. cu .._ 0 t;, i 4uORK Ac,,,, _ a � �1: -3 Sat ff Ca CJ — O p Y, m 0It c d a O _ • w111311s e..2 r O 0 1 ±. 1.-71ms MONO a S VlS1. SAVISL SAVIS1 SAVISL o o, N • E r- _ 3 t S U r to A114 r� t i t � MF . . ® y 'i _r _' SO t ( I Ii r[dO il .71/ " .- f: s1 -� s' 111® 1r •MI 1 > N jrre ,, iN: �L� N i Existing Designations .. Requested Designations City of Federal Way Comprehensive_Plan: Professional Office (PO) a -- Comprehensive Plan: Office Park (OP) Zoning: Professional Office (PO) j .--* Zoning: Office Park (OP) '-`1 2015 _ • T ` _t , --MN-.,- Site Specific Requests y "` for Comprehensive Plan and - _ " 4 Zoning Designation Changes " t : "`:' = ~'-'. "' ' 7, 32020 Professional ! Building 4;,,,,,. ,„ l ,. ,.. Site Specific Request #4 3 Exhibit \y •r a.. -_4 _ .�._.._. - _ - _... ���Y Legend � '��r ti . a ie -s, Site Specific Request �� ., :L —: r - Streams (City Survey) -. go , I )' , - ' gry \w Wetlands(1998 City Survey) 1 , . , � _ - . _.._ - �' '•. � Q Zoning Boundary* Fl � \x� L\,, Note: An asterix()next to a zoning — ` '' ,. designation indicates the property is 1 . 11 • .� '` In governed by a development agreement. -1 I-' i Lam..-`.__ ,:� 4%, E, .,� pr, vr, L �N,si; 3 I - - I �.�. s N 0 250 500 �� imilm Feet s "we.w CITY OF � Rv. � 1 _ : Federal Way a` ` , This map is accompanied by no warranties. F_ ;` . 44 :.moi I ` and is simply a graphic representation. - e 1-ro-77,17---1.1:117;77-n '1't'aps-- • - 2115 ae - .mxd � s. __ City of Federal Way 2016 .' CompComprehensive w e � Plan Amendments Youngspring LLC pw To allow Senior Housing, rr III Assisted Living, etc. in the Commercial ilk 3 � ; Enterprise Zone Exhibit J A i II Ilk •' s ! �� Legend -�� H i� I Commercial Enterprise (CE) ] F! :: a r �1 11. MI • a SII �.I Mail •7 'a_ii:' t t a' . iiml it N 40( 111,' ,, lir � . � 0 0.175 0.35 _ .. t���!IIitiI: i� ••• Miles �a�rari>a.�� 1''_ "__�_ �� This map is accompanied by no warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. _ R:erikelcdlProlectslSSR comaJan12015�Maoslvounosnrino.mxd ;a .� ,( �l� City of Federal Way ., -,,..f.,:::- 2015 ._ 5 � �. - =• Comprehensive i ;" `" ma __ � � Plan Amendments _ ,.._ • oungspring LLC _it ,l i To allow Senior Housing, ;0etc 04. Assisted Living, ° t---z- x� • % in the Commercial -` .i--„ ,t 1 _ : A. Enterprise Zone .rrr` Exhibit K ST - - - .1"--77,7111L, 4 i i; : fro 1<0 t t rt _ ,. .- Legend '' Commercial Zones — A�"'°' r 4,� ,r1111, ' • Commercial Enterprise (CE) 11111 is or t � ;t, s 11 i A 4. S° ...:\ �- - _.. 'V 0 0.175 0.35 4 ; ori miles T 1 �s- • This map is accompanied by no warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. R:lerikelcdtProiectssSSR Comulant2015Waos\younasorina AERIAL.mxd City of Federal Way fix ., 1 ' , ,,,. 1 i r 2075 ��1. Comprehensive __, rt� �� Plan Amendments { Youngsprin• g LLC fill To allow Senior Housing Assisted Living, etc. <° A iiiiii in the Commercial n � ' Enterprise Zone 7:7!/` # d Exhibit L Legend A■ Youngspring Parcels "i i • �� Q Redevelopable Parcels —�— i� - Commercial Enterprise (CE) kir Vii, ::...\ ti • r. , A1,1111.11. aIIII miall 1 • i MI x/1111 �, a �� N - mss, mi 1.2. C : 0 0.175 0.35 7 = i� �, Miles ___ _._ `it �a� �. ��_ �.! This map is accompanied by no warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. R:lenkelcdtf'roiectslSSR Comolan12015Uulaeslrounosnrino5.mxd Tina Piety Subject: FW: Attachments: Excerpt from King County Assessor's Valuations of Nursing Homes Retirement Facilities.docx; Senior &Assisited living info from K.C.Assessor.pdf From: Rob Rueber[mailto:Rob.norlanre@comcast.net] Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2015 10:01 PM To: Margaret Clark Cc: Jim Ferrell; conradtsaoagmail.com Subject: EXHIBIT Margaret, We wish to respond to some of the staff comments in the Planning Commission Briefing material that was sent to us.We would appreciate it if this could be passed on to the Planning Commission members prior to the Hearing on May 20`h. I know you are really busy and If that is inconvenient at all,please let me know the best way for me to take care of that, For your convenience,I have attached some excerpts relevant to our comments,f rom a 2014 King County Assessor's Office report regarding nursing homes and retirement facilities.The full document is also attached.While the primary purpose of the document was an explanation of the methodology for tax valuation of these properties,it also included some relevant demand indicators,a brief explanation of the 3 most common types of facilities serving the senior community,and the differentiation and co-mingling of levels of service in this sector.I thought this would be helpful in defining the type of projects and activities we were talking about. The Reason for Request section noted that,"the applicant states that the criteria for developers of senior housing/assisted/living nursing homes are ,and five acres or more in size(although several senior housing projects have been built on less than five acre sites in the City over the years" We just want to clarify that we were not saying that all developers/operators of these facilities require 5 acres or more. Our reference was to the developers making inquiries about our site.For the market segment looking for a larger site in Federal Way with the location requirements that were conveyed to us,there are few sites meeting their criteria. As was noted in the County Assessor's Office valuation report excerpts(attached and in black below)there is increasing demand for additional services such as"Memory Care"and other forms of assistance,and there is a large projected demand in King County between now and 2020. Current(2014)demand and occupancy in King County appears to be strong.Projects that combine the different elements or levels of service will most likely be larger and become more prevalent. "The growing trend in the senior housing industry is to combine a variety of housing and services in one campus. The goal is to have residents age in one place,without the need to move off campus as their needs change.These facilities will have senior apartments with age restrictions but few services,combined with on-site meal plans for independent living,then adding varying assisted living services,and also providing a section for memory care and a skilled nursing facility.The Mirabellas at the corner of Westlake and Denny,and Skyline9 at First Hill are examples of this concept" "King County independent living facilities occupancy is at 90.8%and assisted living facilities are at 88.4%. In King County,occupancy for units in CCRCs(continuing care retirement communities)are at 90.8%for units with an entrance fee and 94.4%for monthly rental units4 compared with 89.8%occupancy nationallys." "The most prevalent type of facility is one that provides both assisted and independent care. CCRCs are places where seniors can go while they are still independent and live among their peers, form new friendships and still go out and about in the community outside the campus." "Development in the assisted living segment is robust,particularly facilities with a dementia care unit.NIC MAP data shows a 2.3%rise in inventory over the last year as,nationally,6,800 units came online3." "Nursing homes and retirement homes are dispersed throughout the county. With improvement in medical technology, and the aging baby boomer population,the proportion of the population over 65 years of age is increasing rapidly.The number of households over age 65 is expected to increase 35%between 2010 and 20201.Demand for these facilities is expected to grow." In the Staff Comments section it is stated that noise,odors,truck traffic etc. are factors that may cause conflict between newly allowed residential type uses and existing or new light industrial development. In this regard,we do not see why this concern would apply any more to the uses proposed in our request than to the new multi family complex being built at 16th Avenue S. and S.356th in the same heavy traffic area of the CE zone. These issues are certainly present in many areas of larger cities where these facilities are located including Seattle as shown by locations such as the Mirabellas referred to in the County Report. . The companies that have called regarding the Youngspring property were well aware of the character of location and surrounding area either from aerial photos and mapping or from being onsite.The traffic volume, trucks, and surrounding uses evidently did not pose a barrier to their interest in the property for the uses we are requesting. 1. Further items noted by staff were lack of sidewalks,transit,and parks. The issue of sidewalks will soon be a non-issue, at least in the area where most of the vacant CE land is located. Appraisals have been completed and negotiations for acquisition of right of way to widen the southern sector of Pacific Highway S. down to S.356th Street are currently in progress. That widening will include sidewalks. There is also a planned extension of S.352nd Street and negotiations for right of way acquisition are also in progress for that project. Some of the right of way has already been dedicated to the city by property owners for that purpose. A new signalized intersection will be created at S. 352nd Street and Pacific Highway S. That road will become a multi lane connector,with sidewalks,between Enchanted Parkway and Pacific Highway S. Completion of these improvements will significantly open up the possibilities for development and use of that area. 2. Transit: On a drive through of the area we have located the following locations for public transit stops: Northbound—Enchanted Pkwy. at S.352nd St.(Costco),Hwy.99 at S.347th(N. of Chiropractic) Southbound: -Enchanted Pkwy.at S.35611'St.,Hwy.99 at S.348th St. (Burger King)Enchanted Pkwy. at 5.352" St.(U-Haul) Westbound: - S.348th St. at Hwy.99(Chevron) Eastbound: - S.348th St. &Hwy.99(MacDonalds) Other: -S.348th St.Park&Ride/Transit facility 3. Staff noted there are no park facilities in the zone.While that is true of the zone itself,the City's Brooklake Community Center,and the West Hylebos Wetlands Park are immediately adjacent to the southeastern portions of the zone.This is significantly closer than some existing similar facilities are to any parks We are not aware of any requirement the city has for proximity of the proposed uses to a park.In a project of 5 acres or more it is likely that there will also be some onsite open space amenity. 4. Staff was also concerned that allowing our proposed uses would result in the potential loss of land for light industrial purposes.We feel the history of the area does not support that.In 2008,the Youngspring property was a week away from receiving permits to build a hotel and being sold.The buyers also intended the remainder of the property to be developed with complimentary pads to be added in the future.At that point,the financial crisis hit 2 and the funding was no longer available.At the same time a parcel to the south which was going to be a new auto body paint shop also could not get funding and the project was abandoned.Nothing has really changed in the area for years except the development of 2 self storage projects just north of S.356th St.on Pacific Highway.Recently, interest has picked up in the area but not from light industrial users.With the upcoming road projects and new intersection,the area will now be completely linked with the newer development in the surrounding area.It now has the potential to undergo a shift from being an end of the line commercial area to one that is a continuation of the process of transformation of the south commercial area that began with Costco and the related development, Eagle Hardware(now U-Haul),then Home Depot,the redevelopment of the old truckstop to a retail and service center,and the conversion of 2 parcels which were a truck trailer storage area to the current Lowe's store. As evidenced by what appears to be the development pattern of this area,it is unlikely that the properties along the southern stretch of Pacific Highway and fronting the new S.352"d street will develop into,or remain for long as light industrial uses.In this environment we believe the uses we are proposing are fitting and are not in and of themselves posing a threat to light industrial uses in the area. Rob Rueber Broker, Norlan Corporation Ph: 253-249-7906 Email: Rob.norlanrePcomcastnet 3 Identification of the Area • Name or Designation: Retirement Homes&Nursing Homes • Area Boundaries: All nursing homes and retirement facilities within King County are included. Maps: A general map of the area is included in this report.More detailed Assessor's maps are located on the seventh floor of the King County Administration Building. Area Description: Nursing homes and retirement homes are dispersed throughout the county.With improvement in medical technology, and the aging baby boomer population,the proportion of the population over 65 years of age is increasing rapidly. The number of households over age 65 is expected to increase 35%between 2010 and 20201.Demand for these facilities is expected to grow. Retirement Homes (153) The three most common types of senior housing are congregate seniors housing(independent living), assisted living, and continuing care retirement communities(CCRC). In addition, some assisted living facilities have a special memory care section of the facility for persons with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. Full memory care units do not have kitchens and are secure to prevent the residents from wandering on their own. Regulations specify these facilities must provide qualified staff to be present at all times. Although there are no universally accepted standard definitions, retirement facilities can generally be characterized as follows: Independent Living or Congregate senior housing is multi-family housing designed for seniors who pay for some services(e.g. housekeeping,transportation,and meals)as part of the monthly fee or rental rate,but who require little, if any,assistance with the activities of daily living. They may have some home healthcare type services(e.g. eating,transferring from a bed or chair,and bathing) provided to them by in-house staff or an outside agency. Congregate seniors housing is not regulated by the federal government,and may or iJoint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation's Housing 2012. http://www.jchs.harvard.ed u/sites/jchs.h arvard.ed u/files/son2012.pdf 81 Page may not be licensed at the state level.The units are similar to traditional apartment units and typically have full kitchens. Assisted living residences are designed for seniors who need more assistance with the activities of daily living,but do not require continuous skilled nursing care. Assisted living units may be part of a congregate senior housing residence or a continuing care retirement community. They may be contained in a property that supports assisted living units and nursing beds,or may be in a freestanding assisted living residence.The units are similar to traditional apartment units,although they may not have full kitchens,but kitchenettes with a sink,refrigerator, and microwave. Memory Care is a subset of Assisted Living and is designed for those with Dementia or Alzheimer's. The units will be secure and have limited or no cooking facilities.Assisted living is still more residential than health care and basically remains a 100%private pay business.They are licensed as boarding homes in Washington and subject to more stringent state regulations than congregate seniors housing.Assisted Living and Boarding Home Reform was passed in March of 2000 to improve equitable regulations of assisted living. The rules aim to create more options and assure • safety;they address medication, staff training,meal control, and residents' rights. King County independent living facilities occupancy is at 90.8%and assisted living facilities are at 88.4%.The average rent for an independent living unit is$3,172 per month. Year over year rent growth was 0.2% for independent living units.The average monthly rent for an assisted living unit is $3,900.Year over year rent growth was 1.3%for assisted living units2.Development in the assisted living segment is robust,particularly facilities with a dementia care unit.NIC MAP data shows a 2.3%rise in inventory over the last year as,nationally, 6,800 units came online3. Boarding homes arc licensed on a per-bed basis.Typically,the bed licenses are"floating"in that they can be assigned to whichever resident in the facility is utilizing the assisted living services.Thus there is not much difference between Independent Living facilities and Assisted Living facilities from a physical standpoint. The assisted living requires either more staff resources on site or contracting with others off site to provide those services. Continuing care retirement communities are senior living complexes that provide a continuum of care including housing,healthcare, and various supportive services. Health care(e.g.nursing)services may be provided directly or through access to affiliated healthcare facilities. Fees are structured a refundable(or partially refundable)entrance fee plus a monthly fee; as equity ownership(cooperative or condominium)plus a monthly fee; or as a rental program.CCRCs are 2 NIC MAP Metro Report 1st Quarter 2014,Seattle,WA 3 Marcus&Millichap Seniors Housing Report,2nd Half 2013,Pg.2 91 Page Mirabella not regulated by the federal government,but are subject to state licensing and regulation in most states. In King County,occupancy for units in CCRCs are at 90.8%for units with an entrance fee and 94.4%for monthly rental units4 compared with 89.8%occupancy nationallys.The average entrance fee for studio units is$88,644; 1 bedroom units is$220,153; 2 bedroom units is$350,284; 3+ bedrooms is$323,728.The range for rental units is$1,400-$5,600 per month6.As the national housing market improves,the percent of homeowners that are upside down in their mortgage will continue to fall.This will allow many seniors to sell their homes and relocate to independent living facilities. Average rents will also climb modestly as demand supports higher rates?.The most prevalent type of facility is one that provides both assisted and independent care. CCRCs are places where seniors can go while they are still independent and live among their peers, form new friendships and still go out and about in the community outside the campus. The growing trend in the senior housing industry is to combine a variety of housing and services in one campus. The goal is to have residents age in one place,without the need to move off campus as their needs change. These facilities will have senior apartments with age restrictions but few services, combined with on-site meal plans for independent living,then adding varying assisted living services,and also providing a section for memory care and a skilled nursing facility.The Mirabellas at the corner of Westlake and Denny,and Skyline9 at First Hill are examples of this concept. In an effort to maximize the productivity of staff, some facilities,including nursing homes,are providing services to non-residents.This can complicate the valuation of the real estate because all the services are not directly related to the residentsio. 4 MC MAP Metro Report lri Quarter 2014,Seattle,WA s Marcus&Millichap Seniors Housing Report,2nd Half 2013 6 NIC MAP Metro Report 1st Quarter 2014,Seattle,WA,Pg.10 7 Marcus&Millichap Seniors Housing Report,2nd Half 2013 8 http://www.mirabellaretirement.org/seattle/ 9 http://www.skylineatfirsthill.org/ io"Owner and Operators Get Creative to Boost Profits",National Real Estate Investor, http://nreionline.com/seniorshousing/owners_operators_boost_profits_1025/,downloaded 6/30/2011. 101 Page Aegis on Madison Richmond Beach Rehabilitation New Construction Activity The newest project is Aegis on Madison,owned and operated by Aegis Living.Aegis on Madison is a six-story 102-unit assisted living and memory care community with 1,445 square feet of retail space.The studio and one-bedroom units will feature full kitchens.On-site amenities include a full service dining room,fitness center,activity space and a movie theater.Aegis on Madison is located between the Capitol Hill and Madison Park neighborhoods. Reservations began early in 2014.New assisted-living projects have been proposed in Kent,Issaquah and Seattle neighborhoods Ballard and Queen Anne. In Redmond,the Emerald Heights retirement community is adding 43 new apartment homes with the Trailside expansion. In the coming years,more new construction is expected to meet the needs of seniors. thhcji King County Department of Assessments Accounting Division Lloyd Hara 500 Fourth Avenue,ADM-AS-0740 Seattle,WA 98104-2384 Assessor (206)205-0444 FAX(206)296-0106 Email:assessorinfof kinscounty4ov ittoJ/www.kInacountv.Rov/,,isessor/ Dear Property Owners: Property assessments for the 2014 assessment year are being completed by my staff throughout the year and change of value notices are being mailed as neighborhoods are completed. We value property at fee simple,reflecting property at its highest and best use and following the requirement of RCW 84.40.030 to appraise property at true and fair value. We have worked hard to implement your suggestions to place more information in an e-Environment to meet your needs for timely and accurate information. The following report summarizes the results of the 2014 assessment for this area. (See map within report). It is meant to provide you with helpful background information about the process used and basis for property assessments in your area. Fair and uniform assessments set the foundation for effective government and I am pleased that we are able to make continuous and ongoing improvements to serve you. Please feel welcome to call my staff if you have questions about the property assessment process and how it relates to your property. Sincerely, Lloyd Hara Assessor Specialty Area 153 —Retirement Homes Shoie,mss l BolIi 11 r -\� lie gar1,0,41' ,� s:7 Kenmor �et' • Pe 'dr •oodigville ‘vall Ind v Ki kla6d • Set rmre • tee r5._.1 JfR9nd T_ \ 703 ._._1 fa= on ` 1 �kc Se �adln .0 -S� mmamish \ -�. ceke 1 , el vue ,. y �, ashf_. or, '- 0. • - a+� • Sammamish 207 Miedarri n ever piercer VWa •• ""' Island' rss fah -••. ••e\ l jewstk •�\-------,-- \,...Snoquala 2, •Ott •x09 s9 �., Burflk�+lil - bra``-.�..c�rdar 1g ""/ 1 Ss •` Rlver\ Nora1 sir take Pal •• SISIYoungs C I►�i�.* et,le � h Ic 99 16) Ertl., • t�V $ ORal�ey V ib9 ' di ' law Blac ,., Fed Diamo ni NYS i .ones GreerHoward li River Hanson > 3 !![aii P 'fie ReseivO r Lake ...,, • � Tapp% N.,_______„, W7'tc EiunCl•..- The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice.King County makes no representation or warranties,express or implied,as to the accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rights to the use of such information.King County shall not be liable for any general,special,indirect,incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. kg King County 11Page Specialty Area 174—Nursing Homes • •� Irispo� B°t,112 Shoe•a Parkes}' .�' a Kenmore f Puget s: --► �`°°d;ovine Duvall Sound • fo . ¶J \\ Kirkland t 5.104i-44'm'e r t s1 f Rerpt nd ti 3 bridge ��� '� Yur 2°21 • , Y Pupa poi _ ' Carnftion and ` ttkc ` ••...,. Seattlq Media --.�r r Lake Hal s�o Sirnmam�sh -,.,t •n,' 'that � shinaton ,% ellevue r } Sammamish ;J •••••••• • f fiercer Nigcry ..�. iSlAll . r� Iewtstle t gunk_ Snoqunl e t..y�-..••• \ /f • r. x ii i 22,21_f • Bu•e S� ,.AT on, J a �f -_Ceclor au Vashon ��'Se, 11a ?� Pive• l �/� Normandy 1 lel Laxc Island Par'flee isj t jYoun E.,••:. \ Ato9; i67 att. CovingAfaple --,r-_. --_valet' fILI 169 • • ` burn BI J Fedlikal Dinmo id 16.13 / c Greer Nowa � l SI ton P *fie Ref:en 5 mil I_ '-, 167 TaAAs IlW J"' I"''�t.,,,.-may rvn rc En W nelaN_ The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice King County makes no representation or warranties,express or implied,as to the accuracy,completeness,timeliness,or rights to the use of such information.King County shall not be liable for any general,special,indirect,incidental,or consequential damages including,but not limited to,lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map.Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County. kg King County 21Page Executive Summary Report Effective Date of Appraisal:January 1s`2014—2014 Assessment Roll Date of Appraisal Report:June 5,2014 Specialty Name: Retirement Homes,Specialty Area 153; Nursing Homes,Specialty Area 174 Improved Sales Summary Specialty Area 153 • Number of sales: 5 • Range of sales dates: 1/20/2011 —5/01/2013 Specialty Area 174 • Number of sales: 1 • Date of sale: 5/01/2013 Sales-Ratio Study Summary: Due to the limited number of sales in areas 153 and 174,a ratio study is not included. The study is not considered to be statistically valid. Population—Parcel Summary Data: The total parcel count is 342. There are 56 nursing homes (Area 174) in King County and 286 retirement homes (Area 153)— 116 of which are condominiums. The population includes both improved and vacant parcels. Facilities which have both retirement and nursing services are assigned to the category appropriate for the majority of units. Wage Specialty Area 153—Retirement Homes I..N.\1) I\11'S 101 AI, 2013 VAI,I'I! , ;�"�' " [='e r,�ose:. * : 3{�tc* �'' :. �t &j4 ,��;�.r, 201-1k 11,1'1: — $513,773,000 $1,426,172,749 $1,939,945,749 I'Llt('E\1 ' y, � ( l�: ° 11:1\G � ��.� ,��a�"`��``'�� � '���' �� * �t; r _.�. � ' �.. Specialty Area 174—Nursing Homes I \I) I\11'S 1O1':A1. 2111 NALI: h11.xs't 4tta,a fr.i. c;r 2014 1,1 $154,309,100 $153,086,400 $307,395,500 PIR('I'.A I q 9 )els+a '4:04/40„pi -lrgir (-11 ‘\(;1, 1 .r,V <"° 1.1v .' :` 't, Recommendation The values recommended in this report are believed to improve uniformity,assessment level and equity. In consideration of current market conditions, it is recommended that these values be posted for the 2014 assessment year. 41P age Analysis Process Effective Date of Appraisal: January 1,2014 Date of Appraisal Report: June 5,2014 Highest& Best Use Analysis: As if Vacant:Market analysis,together with current zoning, indicate the highest and best use of the majority of the population as commercial. Any opinion not consistent with this is specifically noted in our records and considered in the valuation of the specific parcel. As if improved: Based on neighborhood demographics and current development patterns, the existing structures represent the highest and best use of most sites. The existing use will continue until land value,in its highest and best use,plus the cost of demolition exceeds the total value of the parcel in its current state. In situations where the property is not at its highest and best use,a nominal value of$1,000 is assigned to the improvements. Interim Use: In many instances,a property's highest and best use may change in the foreseeable future. For example: a tract of land at the edge of a city might not be ready for immediate development, but growth trends may suggest it should be developed in a few years. Similarly, there may be insufficient demand for office space to justify the construction of a new building at the present time, but increased demand may be expected in the future. In such situations, the immediate development of the site or conversion of the improved property to its future highest and best use is usually not financially feasible. Therefore,it is classified as interim use. Standards and Measurement of Data Accuracy: Each sale was verified with the buyer,seller, real estate agent or tenant when possible. Current data was verified and corrected when necessary. 5IPage Special Assumptions, Departures, and Limiting Conditions: All three approaches to value were considered in this appraisal. The following departmental guidelines were considered and adhered to: • Sales from 1/1/2011 through 1/1/2014(at minimum)were considered in all analyses. • This report intends to meet the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,Standard 6. 61 Page Identification of the Area • Name or Designation: Retirement Homes&Nursing Homes • Area Boundaries: All nursing homes and retirement facilities within King County are included. Maps: A general map of the area is included in this report. More detailed Assessor's maps are located on the seventh floor of the King County Administration Building. Area Description: Nursing homes and retirement homes are dispersed throughout the county. With improvement in medical technology,and the aging baby boomer population,the proportion of the population over 65 years of age is increasing rapidly. The number of households over age 65 is expected to increase 35%between 2010 and 2020. Demand for these facilities is expected to grow. Retirement Homes(153) The three most common types of senior housing are congregate seniors housing (independent living), assisted living, and continuing care retirement communities (CCRC). In addition, some assisted living facilities have a special memory care section of the facility for persons with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. Full memory care units do not have kitchens and are secure to prevent the residents from wandering on their own. Regulations specify these facilities must provide qualified staff to be present at all times. Although there are no universally accepted standard definitions,retirement facilities can generally be characterized as follows: Independent Living or Congregate senior housing is multi-family housing designed for seniors who pay for some services (e.g. housekeeping, -_ } transportation, and meals) as part of the monthly fee or rental rate, but who require little, if any, amu, assistance with the activities of daily living. They II i may have some home healthcare type services (e.g. eating, transferring from a bed or chair, and bathing) provided to them by in-house staff or an outside agency. Congregate seniors housing is not University House Issaquah regulated by the federal government, and may or 1 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,The State of the Nation's Housing 2012. http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/son2012.pdf 7 ' Page may not be licensed at the state level. The units are similar to traditional apartment units and typically have full kitchens. Assisted living residences are designed for seniors who need more assistance with the activities of daily living, but do not require continuous skilled nursing care. Assisted living units may be part of a congregate senior housing residence or a continuing care retirement community. They may be contained in a property that supports assisted living units and nursing beds, or may be in a freestanding assisted living residence. The units are similar to traditional apartment units, although they may not have full kitchens, but kitchenettes with a sink, refrigerator, and microwave. Memory Care is a subset of Assisted Living and is designed for those with Dementia or Alzheimer's. The units will be secure and have limited or no cooking facilities. Assisted living is still more residential than health care and basically remains a 100%private pay business. They are licensed as boarding homes in Washington and subject to more stringent state regulations than congregate seniors housing. Assisted Living and Boarding Home Reform was passed in March of 2000 to improve equitable regulations of assisted living. The rules aim to create more options and assure safety; they address medication,staff training, meal control, and residents'rights. King County independent living facilities occupancy is at 90.8%and assisted living facilities are at 88.4%. The average rent for an independent living unit is $3,172 per month. Year over year rent growth was 0.2% for independent living units. The average monthly rent for an assisted living unit is $3,900. Year over year rent growth was 1.3% for assisted living units2. Development in the assisted living segment is robust,particularly facilities with a dementia care unit. NIC MAP data shows a 2.3%rise in inventory over the last year as,nationally,6,800 units came online3. Boarding homes are licensed on a per-bed basis. Typically,the bed licenses are"floating"in that they can be assigned to whichever resident in the facility is utilizing the assisted living services. Thus there is not much difference between Independent Living facilities and Assisted Living facilities from a physical standpoint. The assisted living requires either more staff resources on site or contracting with others off site to provide those services. Continuing care retirement communities are senior living complexes that provide a continuum of care including housing, healthcare, and various supportive services. Health care (e.g. nursing) services may be provided directly or through access to affiliated healthcare facilities. Fees are structured a refundable (or partially refundable) entrance fee plus a monthly fee; as equity ownership(cooperative or condominium)plus a monthly fee;or as a rental program. CCRCs are 2 NIC MAP Metro Report 1"Quarter 2014,Seattle,WA 3 Marcus&Millichap Seniors Housing Report,god Half 2013,Pg.2 Wage not regulated by the federal government,but are subject to state licensing and regulation in most states. In King County,occupancy for units in CCRCs are at 90.8%for units with an entrance fee and 94.4% for monthly rental units4 compared with 89.8% occupancy nationally5. The average entrance fee for studio units is $88,644; 1 bedroom units is $220,153; 2 bedroom units is $350,284; 3+ bedrooms is $323,728. The range for rental units is $1,400 - $5,600 per month6. As the national housing market improves, the percent of homeowners that are upside down in their mortgage will continue to fall. This will allow many seniors to sell their homes and relocate to independent living facilities. Average rents will also climb modestly as demand supports higher rates. The most prevalent type of facility is one that provides both assisted and independent care. CCRCs are places where seniors can go while they are still independent and live among their peers,form new friendships and still go out and about in the community outside the campus. The growing trend in the senior housing industry is to combine a variety of housing and services in one campus. The goal is to have residents age in one place,without the need to move off campus as their needs change. These ,(, ' • ' 1, ,_ • facilities will have senior apartments with age restrictions #;r `; •'t but few services, combined with on-site meal plans for independent living, then adding varying assisted living services, and also providing a section for memory care and a skilled nursing facility. The Mirabella8 at the " ` - - corner of Westlake and Denny, and Skyline9 at First Hill Mirabella are examples of this concept. In an effort to maximize the productivity of staff, some facilities, including nursing homes, are providing services to non-residents. This can complicate the valuation of the real estate because all the services are not directly related to the residents'° 4 NIC MAP Metro Report 1"Quarter 2014,Seattle,WA s Marcus&Millichap Seniors Housing Report,2"d Half 2013 6 NIC MAP Metro Report f`Quarter 2014,Seattle,WA,Pg.10 Marcus&Millichap Seniors Housing Report,2"d Half 2013 s http://www.mirabellaretirement.org/seattle/ http://www.skylineatfirsthill.org/ 10"Owner and Operators Get Creative to Boost Profits",National Real Estate Investor, http://nreionline.com/seniorshousing/owners_operators_boost_profits_1025/,downloaded 6/30/2011. 91 Page New Construction Activity The newest project is Aegis on Madison,owned and .1 , operated by Aegis Living. Aegis on Madison is a six-story 102-unit assisted living and memory care community with 1,445 square feet of retail space. The studio and one-bedroom units will feature full kitchens. On-site amenities include a full service 110, dining room, fitness center, activity space and a movie theater. Aegis on Madison is located between the Capitol Hill and Madison Park neighborhoods. Aegis on Madison Reservations began early in 2014. New assisted-living projects have been proposed in Kent, Issaquah and Seattle neighborhoods Ballard and Queen Anne. In Redmond,the Emerald Heights retirement community is adding 43 new apartment homes with the Trailside expansion. In the coming years,more new construction is expected to meet the needs of seniors. Nursing Homes (174) As our population ages, individuals needing continuing skilled nursing care leave the family setting for nursing homes. Individuals recovering from major illness or surgery may also need nursing homes on a temporary basis. Nursing homes provide various levels of health care service on a 24-hour basis in addition to shelter, dietary, housekeeping, laundry, and social needs. Nursing facilities include intermediate, skilled, and sub-acute care. In some cases, nursing homes may be part of a CCRC. Nursing homes are often referred to as convalescent hospitals or rehabilitation facilities. Newer nursing homes have larger bed areas, usually two-bed rooms(semi-private)or one- bed rooms (private). Older homes are more 44,1 likely to have rooms containing three or �, more beds. • 'MOW ,,` A j As a result of the Balanced Budget Act of f - 1997, a new Medicare payment system was implemented beginning July 1, 1998. It replaced the cost-based skilled nursing facility reimbursement system with prospective payment system (PPS). Skilled Richmond Beach Rehabilitation nursing facilities (SNF) receive payment for 10IPage each day of care provided to a Medicare beneficiary. Seventy-five percent of nursing home residents are on Medicare or Medicaid. The nursing home industry in Washington is comprised of both for-profit and nonprofit homes. The King County assessment rolls show 30%of the Nursing Home parcels as exempt or partially exempt. Nursing homes are regulated by the Certificate-Of-Need Program(CON). The CON program is mandated by the federal government and administered by individual states. In 1971,Washington began requiring anyone wanting to build or acquire facilities to first gain state permission in the form of a certificate of need. Washington has estimated bed need to be 40 beds per 1,000 persons of age 70 and older. King County currently has 41 beds per 1,000 persons aged 70 and older." Therefore,the bed need for King County in 2014 is determined to be met. No new stand-alone nursing homes have been constructed in King County since 2002. Those built since then have been part of CCRCs. Healthcare properties are required to go through long procedures in demonstrating to state officials the need for additional services in the area. Other deterrents for growth include information that nursing homes are rarely built on a speculative basis, and building codes for these facilities are very stringent. Most stand-alone nursing homes in King County were constructed in the 1960's. NIC MAP data shows 89.2%occupancy for nursing homes in King County. Average daily rent per bed is$302. Year over year rent growth was 2.8%12. There are currently no new stand-alone nursing homes under construction. Issues in Valuation The challenge of valuing retirement and nursing facilities for ad valorem tax assessments is to separate the real estate value from that of the business. In most instances,these facilities sell as a total business operation without separating out the intangible personal property value. Published income,expense, and capitalization rates relate to the total business entity. Nearly all appraisals for these facilities appraise the total business entity,with the breakdown of land, improvements, tangible and intangible(or business)values being only incidental to the total value estimate. The Appraisal Institute text, The Appraisal of Nursing Homes,73 provides insight into the challenges of appraising retirement and nursing facilities. The methods for allocating the going concern value are the subject of on-going debate. Generally, appraisers will apply a top-down approach to allocation,whereby the going-concern value is developed first and then an allocation 112014 Bed Need Forecast—70+http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/2300/NHBedProj70.pdf la NIC MAP Metro Report 1'`Quarter 2014,Seattle,WA,Pg.11 "James K.Teliatin,MAI,The Appraising of Nursing Facilities,Appraisal Institute,2009,p.324. 11 � Page is made between the real estate and the tangible and intangible personal property assets. The allocation process should start with the "best" known value(s). The following are some allocation techniques used: • Use of the cost approach • Capitalization of entrepreneurial or proprietary profits • Use of ratios of market rent to operational earnings • The cost of obtaining initial operating stability plus the value of the license or certificate of need • Implied value from Medicaid capital reimbursements • The proxy value of pure real estate assets sales such as office or apartment properties that have locations and building qualities similar to the subject Because of this practice involving sales of the entire business,only sales that have been verified as reflecting real estate value only,and those in which the business value can be determined with some confidence,are given substantial weight. Retirement Facilities are appraised on a per unit basis,similar to apartments,while nursing homes are considered on a per-bed basis in relation to what operators actually pay in rent to lease a facility. Both types can be alternatively valued on a per square foot basis. Current Trends The specialized nature of these properties tends to insulate them from the rest of the real estate market. In fact, retirement communities have been anticipating growth as life spans are increasing. However,some of these individuals are postponing retirement because of the current economic conditions; others are not yet ready for a retirement community setting. As they age, the demand will increase in stages, first for independent living, then for assisted living at increasing levels,and finally for skilled nursing care. Those entering a skilled nursing facility do so as a result of medical needs rather than a lifestyle choice. Those moving to memory care assisted living also do so as a result of medical need. Moving to a retirement facility with independent living or assisted living is more a matter of choice and economics. With many seniors experiencing a decline in their home equity and investment portfolio, moving into a retirement facility can be delayed. One alternative is to move in with children or have children move back into their parents' home to provide the social needs and assistance with tasks of daily living. The rise of reverse mortgages has also allowed seniors to stay longer in their homes. Those living alone in their homes also have access to in- home health care assistance, which may be more economical than moving to an assisted living facility. The Affordable Care Act contains a number of provisions affecting the nursing home industry. The measures are primarily focused on improving regulation,transparency,and care for seniors. 12 I Page For example, nursing homes are now required to have three years of reports from surveys, certifications, and complaint investigations available for any individual upon request. The Nursing Home Compare website—the government's primary source for comparing facilities — will now provide more detailed information on nursing home staffing levels, complaints, and criminal violations. Nursing home aides are now required to receive training in dementia management and patient abuse prevention. Finally, the Elder Justice Act will provide federal funding to states in order to develop strategies to combat elder abuse. In the spring of 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services announced the implementation of the Independence at Home Demonstration Program. "The demonstration encourages primary care practices to provide home-based care to chronically ill Medicare patients.i14 The program will award incentive payments to healthcare providers who succeed in reducing Medicare expenditures and meet designated quality measures. Home and community based care is highly regarded due to the level of personal care provided to patients and the cost savings. "The cost of staying at a nursing home ranges from about $40,000 to $85,000 a year, according to a recent report by John Hancock Financial Services Inc.,an insurance and financial services company.The average cost of a home health aide,on the other hand, is about$37,000 a year.," 1°"HHS announces new Affordable Care Act options for community-based care." http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012 pres/04/20120426a.html 15"Helping Seniors Live at Home Longer."http://articles.latimes.com/2011/Jun/19/health/la-he-long-term-care- 20110612 13 IPage it Li 4,,, Li • ) rtth 4 414irr m Lam !� t II i 4•4',414k kt k e ...itR ,,, is 'alna 19x9 p\ K 10,0 4 • xx i; , At 4r gt.:. G t a' y r• i l % • • n ✓ 4 i ". n1, • ; zn-A ♦ 4 41,11441 ' r,..4 0 r + .t* �4" ! M/1 It Y k. ! Olt, x.4tt`4 4 4 J t ® g Is ¢94. A ea e,, . 3..11 s:4., i.�tfYl tx.. S 100• *f , = cW #�"'" oe., ♦� 1 . i, ti a J M "itrCdiC' y a ii Y t. r.,,C 7,•a• t 1' 7. Z: t 3 *,Y9 g F ®w 9 1.t1R<•, . ' , , s a. . YStoalltl 4 Halt 'r -3yt.k..3- ! •air/ 3 .* •'x 1. 1. r Park t crf t P ..'a<4 • ., t+ N ' 3 i 1 ri s 1 .Iii ni,'.1b !d!Sxt t i i,,irlt,. $41,40_ i.ai• "Il.,. �ttt rr•#q Y c c....,11.le 4t , - Map of 2014 Inspection Parcels 141Page Scope of Data Physical Inspection Identification: For the 2013 assessment year,as required by WAC 458-07- 0154 (A), one sixth of the population was physically inspected. An exterior observation of the properties was made to verify the accuracy and completeness of property characteristic data. The inspected properties are listed in the Addenda. Other properties were also inspected as noted in the Assessor's records for purposes of sales or data verification. Preliminary Ratio Analysis: Due to the limited number of sales in areas 153 and 174, a ratio study is not included. The study is not considered to be statistically valid. Land Value: The respective geographic appraiser valued the land. A list of vacant sales used and those considered not representative of market are included in the geographic appraiser's reports. The individual Commercial Area Reports are incorporated by reference in this report, together with their validity as an extraordinary assumption. Improved Value: The total parcel values were reconciled from sales comparison approach,cost approach, the income capitalization approach, and the application of the apartment model. Additional attention was given to those parcels when any increase in total assessed value above 15% or any decrease of more than 10% was indicated. The total value for the parcel or economic unit was selected and then the land value deducted to arrive at the improvement value. Sales Comparison Approach It is difficult to make direct sale comparisons as nursing homes and retirement facilities are designed to fit a particular location,market niche,level of care,and method of operation. These unique traits make substitution difficult. Sales often require major adjustments that are based on subjective analysis due to lack of empirical comparable data. Many times these properties sell with long term management contracts in place. Retirement and nursing homes are often purchased as part of a multi-property portfolio sale. Portfolio sales may include properties located throughout the region or nationwide making the true sales price difficult to determine. Sales that fail to distinguish the income attributable to the business from that attributable to the real estate are not relied upon. The scarcity of reliable data —one nursing home and only five retirement facilities have sold since 2011 —and the difficulty in relating sales to a meaningful unit of comparison for valuation, makes the direct sales comparison approach, at best, a rough gauge of value. Sales provide the upper bracket of value and are generally used to cross check the other two approaches. 15 I Page A brief summary of the six market transactions is provided below: 092104-9127: Emeritus, a retirement home, at Steel Lake sold on 1/20/11 for $9,191,300, or $103/SF of '.: net rentable area. The property is located in Federal Way at the intersection of 2314 Avenue South and South 312th Street. Business value was included in the sale price. Emeritus at Steel Lake 082605-9127: Aegis of Bothell, a retirement home, sold on 1/21/11 for $7,589,930, or $231/SF of net rentable area. The property is located in Bothell at the intersection of NE 185th St and Beardslee Boulevard. 1"-..,`",°- I I The Buyer was the tenant at the property and continues to run the facility. Business value was included in the sale price. Aegis of Bothell 067310-0011: Overlake Terrace Assisted Living retirement home sold on 1/09/2013 for $21,850,000, or $139,172/unit. The property is located in Redmond at the intersection of 152nd Avenue Northeast and Northeast 3131 Street. Sales 3 , price was negotiated and purchased by a property management trust. The sales price includes undisclosed value for the existing business. Overlake Terrace was 85%occupied at time of purchase. The property was then leased to Stellar Senior Living for 15 years with the option to renew. Overlake Terrace was originally offered as part of a portfolio of 12 Overlake Terrace Assisted Living properties. 16IPage 555630-0005: Aegis Living at Marymoor, a retirement home, sold on 1/17/2013 for $4,260,680, or $106,517/unit. The property is located in I Redmond at the intersection of West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast and Northeast Bellevue-Redmond Road. The property was vacant at the time of purchase. The sales price represents the value of the real estate only and does not include consideration for the existing business or personal property. The new owners have completely Aegis at Marymoor remodeled the property including all units and common areas. 022505-9157: Redmond Heights Senior Living retirement home sold on 5/01/2013 for$6,567,526,or $65,675/unit. The property is located at the intersection of Willows Road Northeast and Northeast Redmond Way. The sales price included undisclosed business value. The buyer will continue operations as a retirement home. Redmond Heights Senior Living 112505-9084: Redmond Care and Rehabilitation Center, nursing home, sold on 5/01/2013 for $4,335,659, or $31,191/unit. The property is located at the intersection of Willows Road Northeast and Northeast Redmond Way. The sales price included undisclosed business value. The buyer will continue operations as a nursing home. Redmond Heights and Redmond Care and Rehabilitation Center were purchased by the same buyer. Redmond Care and Rehabilitation Center 17IPage Cost Approach The Marshall & Swift Valuation modeling system which is built into the Real Property Application is calibrated to the region and the Seattle area. Depreciation was based on studies done by Marshall & Swift Valuation Service. The Marshall & Swift cost calculations are automatically calibrated to the data in the Real Property Application. New construction was generally valued using the cost approach from the computerized valuation model supplied by Marshall & Swift and adapted by the Department of Assessments. Traditionally, for Retirement Facilities and Skilled Nursing Facilities,the cost approach has been considered the best method for extracting the value of the building from the total business entity's value. The limitations of the cost approach in valuing older improvements were recognized. Depreciation other than for age was also considered in applying weight to the cost approach. Functional depreciation diminishes value as older buildings do not conform to current standards. Economic depreciation diminishes the building value as the land value increases and the highest and best use of the land becomes redevelopment. Market conditions can also impact economic depreciation in the cost approach; for example, since few skilled nursing facilities have been built recently outside of retirement community complexes, the cost of a stand-alone skilled nursing facility may not be the best basis for value. Effective year,rather than year built, is used to calculate depreciation in the cost approach. The effective year reflects upgrades and remodeling after original construction and considers the remaining economic life of the improvements. The economic age-life method was utilized in calculating depreciation. For this technique,effective age is divided by the total economic life of the improvements; the result is then multiplied by the replacement cost in order to arrive at an obsolescence deduction. This method covers all forms of depreciation(functional,physical,and external). Income Approach Retirement facilities are considered to be apartments that provide extra services. While the physical amenities may differ from what is typical to an apartment house, their utility is at least as great, and is considered equal in this analysis. Quoted rates from retirement facilities tend to include services which cannot be considered in valuing the real estate. With the addition of unit breakdowns in the database for the Retirement Facilities,the Apartment Model developed for the revalue of apartments (Specialty 100) was adapted to reflect the value of the apartment use for Retirement Facilities. The Apartment Model includes two income approaches (gross income multiplier and direct capitalization), the cost approach, and two sales comparison approaches (multiple regression and direct sales comparison). The Apartment 18IPage Report is incorporated by reference in this report, together with its validity as an extraordinary assumption. Comparable apartment sales were also cited for all retirement homes. Nursing home values are based on actual lease rates from nursing homes, medical clinics and skilled nursing homes. These are usually long term leases (10-20 years) and net to the owner. The lessee pays all or nearly all expenses (the income parameters are summarized on the following table). SEC'T'ION USES Typical Vac./Coll. Expense Overall Annual Loss % Rate`%0 Cap Rent S/SF Rate Italige tet r „".. % 313 Convalescent hospital ' 44! t at► #~ t }tt� _ t 330 Home for the elderl} 7 "« 348 Residence H 14t x 7y 5 .. x^.,44 y ►1' 352 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE(LOW t�� l RISE) t � , �' � r `� 424 Grou Home fv py ; Awa ", R4. 451 MULTIPLE RESIDENCE(SR. � * ;6 r r ,#-„N!tle- •41 CITIZEN) 589 Multiple Residence Assisted Living '710 Retirement Communitx Complexi",..:';'54,2:4:1,..:4:4,R"'",14.4,7,..'4,V4,1?.'„: ) 6 ' 302 Auditorium $5.50 10.00% 15.00% 7.25% 309 CHURCH to to 311 CLUBHOUSE $20.00 9.00% 336 Laundromat 350 Restaurant,Table Service 353 RETAIL STORE 380 Theatre,Cinema 418 HEALTH CLUB 426 DAY CARE CENTER 483 FITNESS CENTER 530 CAFETERIA 761 MEZZANINES-OFFICE „ o: t p4344 OFFICE BUILDING fi 1 -41 , { .� 326 GARAGE,STORAGE $5.40 7.00% 10.00% 7.00% 345 PARKING STRUCTURE to to 388 UNDERGROUND PARKING $7.00 11.50% STRUCTURE 470 Equipment Shop 702 Basement,Semi-finished 703 Basement,Unfinished 706 Basement parking 708 Basement stoi 19 IPage Reconciliation In arriving at a final value, each parcel was considered individually. For nursing homes, the most weight was given to the income approach. The apartment model was not used for nursing homes. For retirement facilities, the apartment model was use, with most weight given to the income approach after considering the following value indications: • Recent subject sales per RCW 84.40.030 • Previous Board of Equalization and State Board of Tax Appeals decisions • The previous assessed value • The income capitalization approach from the apartment model • Comparable sales of apartments with the apartment model adjustments • The cost approach • The income approach for retirement facilities(which was given less weight) Model Validation Total Value Conclusions,Recommendations,and Validation Appraiser judgment prevails in all decisions regarding individual parcel valuation. The assessed value is selected based on general and specific data pertaining to the parcel, neighborhood, and the market. The appraiser determines which available value estimate is appropriate and may adjust for particular characteristics and conditions as they occur. Uniformity and equity are both improved over the previous year and in consideration of current market conditions, it is recommend that these values be posted for the 2014 assessment year. Property Type 2013 Value 2014 Value %Change ass Retirement Facilities(153) k ,Rtd ma )« '` T e :4,et a° 't a s �h,4k+1Yw"� ..ri Nursing Homes(174) $309,672,700 $307,395,500 -0.74% 20 IPage USPAP Compliance Client and Intended Use of the Appraisal: This mass appraisal report is intended for use by the public, King County Assessor and other agencies or departments administering or confirming ad valorem property taxes. Use of this report by others for other purposes is not intended by the appraiser. The use of this appraisal, analyses and conclusions is limited to the administration of ad valorem property taxes in accordance with Washington State law. As such it is written inconcise form to minimize paperwork. The assessor intends that this report conform to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) requirements for a mass appraisal report as stated in USPAP SR 6-8. To fully understand this report the reader may need to refer to the Assessor's Property Record Files, Assessors Real Property Data Base, separate studies, Assessor's Procedures,Assessor's field maps,Revalue Plan and the statutes. The purpose of this report is to explain and document the methods,data and analysis used in the revaluation of King County. King County is on a six year physical inspection cycle with annual statistical updates. The revaluation plan is approved by Washington State Department of Revenue. The Revaluation Plan is subject to their periodic review. Definition and date of value estimate: Market Value The basis of all assessments is the true and fair value of property. True and fair value means market value(Spokane etc.R.Company v. Spokane County,75 Wash.72(1913);Mason County Overtaxed, Inc. v. Mason County, 62 Wn. 2d (1963); AGO 57-58, No. 2, 1/8/57; AGO 65-66, No.65, 12/31/65). The true and fair value of a property in money for property tax valuation purposes is its"market value" or amount of money a buyer willing but not obligated to buy would pay for it to a seller willing but not obligated to sell. In arriving at a determination of such value, the assessing officer can consider only those factors which can within reason be said to affect the price in negotiations between a willing purchaser and a willing seller, and he must consider all of such factors. (AGO 65,66,No.65, 12/31/65) Retrospective market values are reported herein because the date of the report is subsequent to the effective date of valuation. The analysis reflects market conditions that existed on the effective date of appraisal. 21IPage Highest and Best Use RCW 84.40.030 All property shall be valued at one hundred percent of its true and fair value in money and assessed on the same basis unless specifically provided otherwise by law. An assessment may not be determined by a method that assumes a land usage or highest and best use not permitted,for that property being appraised, under existing zoning or land use planning ordinances or statutes or other government restrictions. WAC 458-07-030(3)True and fair value—Highest and best use. Unless specifically provided otherwise by statute, all property shall be valued on the basis of its highest and best use for assessment purposes. Highest and best use is the most profitable, likely use to which a property can be put. It is the use which will yield the highest return on the owner's investment. Any reasonable use to which the property may be put may be taken into consideration and if it is peculiarly adapted to some particular use, that fact may be taken into consideration. Uses that are within the realm of possibility, but not reasonably probable of occurrence,shall not be considered in valuing property at its highest and best use. If a property is particularly adapted to some particular use this fact may be taken into consideration in estimating the highest and best use. (Sammish Gun Club v. Skagit County, 118 Wash. 578(1922)) The present use of the property may constitute its highest and best use. The appraiser shall, however, consider the uses to which similar property similarly located is being put. (Finch v. Grays Harbor County, 121 Wash.486(1922)) The fact that the owner of the property chooses to use it for less productive purposes than similar land is being used shall be ignored in the highest and best use estimate. (Sammish Gun Club v. Skagit County, 118 Wash.578(1922)) Where land has been classified or zoned as to its use,the county assessor may consider this fact, but he shall not be bound to such zoning in exercising his judgment as to the highest and best use of the property. (AGO 63-64,No. 107,6/6/64) Date of Value Estimate RCW 84.36.005 All property now existing, or that is hereafter created or brought into this state, shall be subject to assessment and taxation for state, county, and other taxing district purposes, upon equalized valuations thereof,fixed with reference thereto on the first day of January at twelve o'clock meridian in each year, excepting such as is exempted from taxation by law. 22IPage RCW 36.21.080 The county assessor is authorized to place any property that is increased in value due to construction or alteration for which a building permit was issued, or should have been issued, under chapter 19.27, 19.27A, or 19.28 RCW or other laws providing for building permits on the assessment rolls for the purposes of tax levy up to August 31st of each year. The assessed valuation of the property shall be considered as of July 31st of that year. Reference should be made to the property card or computer file as to when each property was valued. Sales consummating before and after the appraisal date may be used and are analyzed as to their indication of value at the date of valuation. If market conditions have changed then the appraisal will state a logical cutoff date after which no market date is used as an indicator of value. Property Rights Appraised: Fee Simple Wash Constitution Article 7§ 1 Taxation: All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and shall be levied and collected for public purposes only. The word "property"as used herein shall mean and include everything, whether tangible or intangible,subject to ownership.All real estate shall constitute one class. Trimble v.Seattle,231 U.S.683,689,58 L.Ed.435,34 S.Ct.218(1914) ...the entire[fee]estate is to be assessed and taxed as a unit... Folsom v.Spokane County,111 Wn.2d 256(1988) ...the ultimate appraisal should endeavor to arrive at the fair market value of the property as if it were an unencumbered fee... The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal,3'1 Addition,Appraisal Institute. Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions: 1. No opinion as to title is rendered. Data on ownership and legal description were obtained from public records. Title is assumed to be marketable and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances,easements and restrictions unless shown on maps or property record files. The property is appraised assuming it to be under responsible ownership and competent management and available for its highest and best use. 23IPage 2. No engineering survey has been made by the appraiser. Except as specifically stated, data relative to size and area were taken from sources considered reliable, and no encroachment of real property improvements is assumed to exist. 3. No responsibility for hidden defects or conformity to specific governmental requirements, such as fire, building and safety, earthquake, or occupancy codes, can be assumed without provision of specific professional or governmental inspections. 4. Rental areas herein discussed have been calculated in accord with generally accepted industry standards. 5. The projections included in this report are utilized to assist in the valuation process and are based on current market conditions and anticipated short term supply demand factors. Therefore, the projections are subject to changes in future conditions that cannot be accurately predicted by the appraiser and could affect the future income or value projections. 6. The property is assumed uncontaminated unless the owner comes forward to the Assessor and provides other information. 7. The appraiser is not qualified to detect the existence of potentially hazardous material which may or may not be present on or near the property. The existence of such substances may have an effect on the value of the property. No consideration has been given in this analysis to any potential diminution in value should such hazardous materials be found (unless specifically noted). We urge the taxpayer to retain an expert in the field and submit data affecting value to the assessor. 8. No opinion is intended to be expressed for legal matters or that would require specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that ordinarily employed by real estate appraisers, although such matters may be discussed in the report. 9. Maps,plats and exhibits included herein are for illustration only, as an aid in visualizing matters discussed within the report. They should not be considered as surveys or relied upon for any other purpose. 10.The appraisal is the valuation of the fee simple interest. Unless shown on the Assessor's parcel maps,easements adversely affecting property value were not considered. 11.An attempt to segregate personal property from the real estate in this appraisal has been made. 12. Items which are considered to be "typical finish" and generally included in a real property transfer,but are legally considered leasehold improvements are included in the valuation unless otherwise noted. 13.The movable equipment and/or fixtures have not been appraised as part of the real estate. The identifiable permanently fixed equipment has been appraised in accordance with RCW 84.04.090 and WAC 458-12-010. 14. I have considered the effect of value of those anticipated public and private improvements of which I have common knowledge. I can make no special effort to contact the various jurisdictions to determine the extent of their public improvements. 15.Exterior inspections were made of all properties in the physical inspection areas(outlined in the body of the report)however; due to lack of access and time few received interior inspections. 24IPage Scope of Work Performed: Research and analyses performed are identified in the body of the revaluation report. The assessor has no access to title reports and other documents. Because of legal limitations we did not research such items as easements,restrictions,encumbrances,leases,reservations,covenants, contracts,declarations and special assessments. Disclosure of interior home features and, actual income and expenses by property owners is not a requirement by law therefore attempts to obtain and analyze this information are not always successful. The mass appraisal performed must be completed in the time limits indicated in the Revaluation Plan and as budgeted. The scope of work performed and disclosure of research and analyses not performed are identified throughout the body of the report. CERTIFICATION: I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief • The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct • The report analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses,opinions, and conclusions. • I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. • I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved. • My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. • My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. • My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. • The area(s)physically inspected for purposes of this revaluation are outlined in the body of this report. • The individuals listed below were part of the "appraisal team"and provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. Any services regarding the subject area performed by the appraiser within the prior three years, as an appraiser or in any other capacity is listed adjacent their name. • Any services regarding the subject area performed by me within the prior three years, as an appraiser or in any other capacity is listed below Appeal Response Preparation Maintenance Date 25IPage Improvement Sales for Area 153 with Sales Used 06/02/2014 a-, SP/ Par: Ver. Area Ntmd 'M = Minor°TotaliNRA E# Sale Price Sale Date Property Name Zone Remarks v .. NRA Ct. Code 153 010 022505 9157 64,340 2603039 $6,567,526 05/01/13 $102.08 CASCADE PLAZA RETIREMENT Cq.R30 1 Y i 153 010 067310 0011 110,000' 2583993 $21,850,000 01/09/13 $198.64 OVERLAKE TERRACE ASSISTED L OV1 1 Y 153 010 082605 9127 32,828 2475699 $7,589,930 01/21/11 $231.20 AEGIS-BOTHELL GDC 1 Y 153 010 092104 9127 88,680 2476304 $9,191,3001 01/20/11 $103.65 EMERITUS AT STEEL LAKE CF 1 Y 153 010 5556301 0005 1 44,563 2586242 $4,260,6801 01/17/13 $95.61,REGENCY MARYMOOR 1R4 1 Y Improvement Sales for Area 174 with Sales Used 06/02/2014 Area Nbhd Major Minor Total NRA E# Sale Price Sale Date SP/ Property Name Zone Par. Ver. Remarks NRA Ct. Code 174 1 010 11125051 9084 1 34,3961 2603045 1 $4,335,6591 05/01/13 $126.05(Redmond Care and Rehabilitation Cel R30 ) 1 1 V 1 Improvement Sales for Area 153 with Sales not Used 06/02/2014 %Kree Nbad Major Minor Total NRA E# Sale Price Sale Date NRi4 Property Name Zone Code Remarks, 153 010 000100 0097 81,231 2668286 $3,750,000 05/16/14' $46.16 PARKSIDE WEST RETIREMENT COC3 1 7 Questionable per sales identficatio 153 010 011410 0545 61,245 2574245 $20,765,000 10/31/12 $339.05 SPRING ESTATES SENIOR LIVING IDR 1 1 Personal property included 153 010 102505 9001 42,952 2646804 $3,121,843 12/16/13 $72.68 PETERS CREEK Retirement and Asd-1 R5 1 i 1 Personal property included 153 010 124400 0005 171,759; 2521234 $25,459,777 12/01/11 $148.23 MERRILL GARDENS-KIRKLAND 1CBD 1B 1 1 52 Statement to dor 153 010 192205 9042 88,398; 2556736 $9,650,000 07/31/12 $109.17 FARRINGTON COURT MR-H 1 59 Bulk portfolio sale 153 010 197820 0250 539,758 2602985 $100,000 05/01/13' $0.19 HORIZON HOUSE IHR-PUD 1 7 Questionable per sales identificatio 153 010 202205 9208 22,669 2517792 $1,881,871 11/04/11 $83.02 AEGIS-KENT 10-MU 1 51 Related party,friend,or neighbor 153 010 202205 9208 22,669 2517791 , $2,447,057 11/04/11 $107.95 AEGIS-KENT 1O-MU 1 22 Partial interest(1/3, 1/2,etc.) 153 010 352890 0745 120,6931 2665497 $19,949,900 04/24/14 $165.29 VIEWPOINT-QUEEN ANNE ILR3 1 15 No market exposure 153 010 436820 0010 154,8861 2647106 $8,600,000 12/19/13 $55.52 STONE RIDGE PD 3 61 Financial institution resale 153 010 509440 0025 66,236 2652471 $21,839,600 02/01/14 $329.72 AUBURN MEADOWS R10 1 59 Bulk portfolio sale 153 010 545330 0020 91,632 2647733 $18,333,671 12/23/13 $200.08 GARDEN CLUB,THE R-20 1 59 Bulk portfolio sale 153 010 660075 0100 0 2480948 $259,208 02/16/11 $0.00 PACIFIC REGENT CONDOMINIUM DNTN-R 1 15 No market exposure 153 010 660075 0110 0 2480951 $259,208 02/16/11 $0.00 PACIFIC REGENT CONDOMINIUM DNTN-R 1 15 No market exposure 153 010 660075 0660 0 2479227 $180,000 02/15/11 $0.00 PACIFIC REGENT CONDOMINIUM DNTN-R 1 15 INo market exposure 153 010 660075 0670_ 0 2482859 $400,000 03/11/11 $0.00 PACIFIC REGENT CONDOMINIUM DNTN-R 1 15 No market exposure 153 010 717480 0169 257,248 2521236 $13,849,449 12/01/11 $53.84 MERRILL GARDENS- UNIVERSITY NC2P-30 1 1 59 Bulk portfolio sale 153 010 723150 2030 193,960 2521237 $14,979,204 12/01/11 $77.23 MERRILL GARDENS-RENTON CErCD 3 I 52 1Statement to dor Improvement Sales for Area 174 with Sales not Used 06/02/2014 a / Par, etc . j> M� 'T RA 6-41 to Pry �' D. ��pA 1 Y Naitie 7 174 010 342406 9152 61,520 2596232 $15,000 03/25/13 $0.24 ISSAQUAH NURSING AND REHAB�MF-H 1 24Easement or rig it-d-way 174 010 803620 0055 --t- 25,578 2561852 $1,000,000 08/20/12' $39.10 MT SI TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CE DC 3 59 Bulk portfolio sale 111 CITY OF w Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 15,2015 To: Tom Medhurst,Federal Way Planning Commission Chair FROM: Michael A. Morales,Director of Community Development*e— Margaret H.Clark,AICP,Principal Planner SUBJECT: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Text and Map Amendments MEETING DATE: May 20,2015 I. BACKGROUND Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(4),the City of Federal Way must update its Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWCP)every eight years.The deadline for the next major update is June 30,2015.The GMA requires jurisdictions to review and revise the comprehensive plan to address statutory requirements.It also requires a public participation process. II. CHAPTERS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The FWCP contains the following 12 chapters that outline goals and policies to guide the future of the City. Of the 12 chapters,seven are mandated by the GMA. Required Chapters Optional Chapters 2. Land Use 1. Introduction 3. Transportation 7. City Center 4. Economic Development 8. Potential Annexation area 5. Housing 9. Natural Environment 6. Capital Facilities 12. Twin Lakes Commercial Subarea Plan 10. Private Utilities 11. Shoreline Master Program Chapter 11,"Shoreline Master Program,"and Chapter 12,"Twin Lakes Commercial Subarea Plan,"are not being updated as part of this major update because Chapter 11 was updated in November 2011 and the Subarea Plan was adopted in March 2012. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 34 III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In order to get citizen input during the update process,the following measures have been taken: • March 19,2014—An Open House was hosted by the Planning Commission.This was advertised by a press release and flyers were sent home to all homes of students in middle schools and elementary schools. • Three variable message signs(VMS),advertising the March 19 Planning Commission Open House,were placed in three high-traffic areas within the City. • A Comprehensive Plan Update Web Page was created. An Interested Parties list was created A Notify Me e-mail List was created • An on-line survey was posted(Responses to the survey are attached as Exhibit A). All documents,including draft chapters,planning commission agenda and minutes,power points, public notices,and staff reports were posted to the Comprehensive Plan Update Web Page and interested parties on the Notify Me List were notified of their availability. IV. UPDATE PROCESS The following process is being followed in updating the comprehensive plan: 1. Planning Commission Briefings—As each chapter was drafted,they were presented to the Planning Commission for their input and feedback.Chapters were also posted on the Comprehensive Plan Update Web Page and citizens on the Notify Me List were notified. The dates of Planning Commission briefing were as follows: Chapter Date 1 —Introduction July 2,2014 10—Private Utilities September 17,2014 2—Land Use October 15,2014 5—Housing November 19,2014 6—Capital Facilities December 17,2014 8—Potential Annexation Area January 21,2015 9—Natural Environment February 4,2015 4—Economic Development March 18,2015 7—City Center April 15,2015 3—Transportation&Citizen-Initiated May 6,2015 Site-Specific Requests 2. Environmental Review—The City issued a threshold determination pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)on the amendments to the comprehensive plan document and the site specific requests for changes to the comprehensive plan designations and zoning on May 1,2015.Public notice was published in the Mirror and posted on the City's public notice boards.Property owners within 300 feet of the parcels whose comprehensive plan designation and zoning are being requested to be changed were notified by mail.Public Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 34 notice boards were placed at the sites.Documents were posted on the Comprehensive Plan Update Web Page and citizens on the Notify Me List were informed.The end of the SEPA comment period is May 12,2015,and the end of the appeal period is May 29,2015. 3. Planning Commission Public Hearing—All text and map amendments and site-specific requests will be presented to the Planning Commission on May 20,2015.Notice was given as above.The staff reports have been posted on the Comprehensive Plan Update Web Page and citizens on the Notify Mc List have been informed. 4. Edits to Chapters—Chapters were further updated and amended based on Planning Commission and citizen input(see Section VI of this staff report). 5. LUTC Meeting—The Planning Commission recommendation will be presented to the Land Use Transportation Committee(LUTC)in a public meeting on June 1,and/or 8,2015.The staff report will be posted on the Comprehensive Plan Update Web Page and citizens on the Notify Me List will be informed. 6. City Council Meeting—The Planning Commission recommendation' will be presented to the City Council for adoption by ordinance on June 16,2015.2 Information regarding this meeting will be posted on the Comprehensive Plan Update Web Page and citizens on the Notify Me List will be informed. V. REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION FWRC Chapter 19.80,"Council Rezones,"establishes a process and criteria for comprehensive plan amendments.Consistent with Process VI review,the role of the Planning Commission is as follows: 1. To review and evaluate the requests for comprehensive plan amendments; 2. To determine whether the proposed comprehensive plan amendments meet the criteria provided by FWRC 19.80.140 and 19.80.150;and 3. To forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. VI. SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO CHAPTERS Chapter I,"Introduction" During the July 2,2014 briefing,staff informed the Planning Commission that the existing comprehensive plan was very similar to the plan that was adopted in 1995 to comply with GMA, notwithstanding the major seven-year update completed in March 2003,and the annual amendments thereafter.As a result,it echoes the vision of the City and citizens shortly after incorporation of the City.Therefore, staff was recommending language that reflected the image of the City as a key regional player with safe and healthy neighborhoods,a vibrant downtown 'The LUTC has the option to modify the Planning Commission's recommendation. 2The date is subject to change depending on review time taken by the Planning Commission and LUTC. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 34 (City Center)with adequate and diverse housing,and an increase in family wage jobs.In addition,we are proposing to make the document easier to use by focusing on goals and policies and deleting superfluous language.For example in Chapter 1,we proposed to delete the detailed chronology of how CityShape,the 1995 plan,was developed. Public Comments Received Comments were received from Arthur Hopkins(Exhibit B). Mr.Hopkins Comment: Mr.Hopkins inquired about the reason for deleting the following questions • "Where should growth occur? • How can we manage that growth to realize our vision for the community?" and replacing them with: • "How can we encourage the type of development we desire?" He stated that"Encouraging desired development isn't the same as managing growth or deciding where it should occur.One of the things that we should be careful about is where we allow different types of construction to take place,so that it doesn't conflict with the existing types of buildings or neighborhoods." Staff Response The third bullet"Where should growth occur?"is very similar to the first bullet"What areas are most suitable for development or redevelopment?"Therefore,we propose to delete the third bullet. The proposed new bullet,"How can we encourage the type of development we desire?"is very similar to the existing bullet"How can we manage that growth to realize our vision for the community?"The proposed language has the same intent as Bullet Number 4;however,we would like to"encourage"rather than"manage"growth. Mr. Hopkins Comment: Mr.Hopkins also had a number of concerns about the Vision statements,pointing out that currently Federal Way's City Center is not pedestrian friendly;we lack dining opportunities;we lack amenities to attract employment; and traffic is congested.He asks how will this Vision be achieved and where will it be spelled out in the plan. Staff Response We agree that the City Center does not currently meet the intent of the Vision Statement,which is an aspirational one. Strategies to make the City Center pedestrian friendly include the adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2012 and adoption of a Complete Streets Ordinance in 2012.Efforts to attract dining and employment include adoption of plans such as the Planned Action SEPA,which streamlines the development review process in a portion of the City Center and the designation of an Economic Redevelopment Zone,covering the CC-C and that portion of the CC-F east of Pacific Highway South in order to stimulate redevelopment of this area by prioritizing investment of redevelopment financing.Examples of steps that the City has taken so far to achieve its vision for the City Center can be found in Chapter 7,"City Center,"under Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 4 of 34 Section 7.8,"Implementation."In addition,goals and policies to achieve the Vision can be found throughout the comprehensive plan. Response to the traffic-related questions will be addressed by Public Works staff during the May 20,2015,Public Hearing. Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: Some actions are stated in past tense and suggested they should not be past tense;what seems long gone may reappear or be revisited. Staff Response: This comment was initially made because of the following staff proposed amendment: The City is-coed to has preservi ed this vast natural resource for the citizens and future citizens of Federal Way. Staff modified the language as follows(reverted back to existing language): The City is committed to preserving this vast natural resource for the citizens and future citizens of Federal Way. Planning Commissioner Comment: One of the Commissioners stated that they agreed with Mr.Hopkins concerns(Exhibit B), especially in regards to transportation and specifically,if any roads in the City Center are in the current Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP). Staff Response: Response to the traffic-related questions will be addressed by Public Works staff during the May 20,2015,Public Hearing. Planning Commissioner Comment: Some of the graphics need to be larger,specifically the ones on page 3 and 11. Staff Response: Graphics were enlarged and some removed and/or changed. Planning Commissioner Comment: While trying to streamline the plan,staff needs to be thoughtful while removing so much information. Staff Response: We agree.In response to this comment,staff is recommending that we retain old Section 1.2/new Section 1.3,describing the history of Federal Way,which had originally been recommended for deletion. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 5 of 34 Other Staff Edits Since Planning Commission Briefing In order to be consistent with the other chapters, staff added a section on"Policy Background"to familiarize the reader on the requirements of the GMA,Vision 2040,and the Countywide Planning Policies(CWPPs)as they relate to the major comprehensive plan update. Chapter 2,"Land Use" During the October 15 2014 briefing,staff presented the following summary of proposed changes.These changes have already been reviewed by the Commission: • The Policy Background has been moved to the front of the document and it has been updated to reflect VISION 2040 adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2008 and the CWPPs,which were updated in 2012.We felt that it was important for the reader to understand what the chapter needs to address. • A Zoning Map was added as Map II-2. • Updated Demographics—The Land Use Map,Map II-3,formerly II-2,was updated based on December 2012 land use information.Figure 1I-2,a pie chart, showing the percent gross area by existing land use was also updated to be consistent with the Land Use Map. • The section titled Relationship to Other Land Use Chapters was deleted as it was duplicative,and simply identified the purpose of each chapter and did not add value to the plan. • The graph showing historical and projected population and the accompanying text were updated. • The section on Capacity and Development Targets were summarized and brought up to date. • The language describing the Weyerhaeuser-owned Corporate Park and Office Park 1,2, and 3 zones have been amended due to the potential of a future sale and change in ownership. • Language for Phasing was made less specific as we do not have a formal phasing plan. • Language under Incentives was changed to reflect a purpose,rather than a description. • Under Historic Resources,we are proposing to amend Policy LUP66,because as written,it may be problematic from a property rights perspective. • The Implementation section was updated to reflect what has already been accomplished since this chapter was last updated. Public Comments Received None • Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 6 of 34 Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: Why was Historic Preservation Policy LUP66 changed as follows? LUP65 Identify vista points ,historic buildings,and land€er s€er-pcesei ion. Staff Response: Staff responded that it may be difficult to defend a requirement to retain major trees. Staff proposes the following language: LUP 65 Identify vista points and ,historic buildings land-ferms for preservation. Planning Commissioner Comment: What could a potential City-Center Frame designation CC-F designation for the six-acre Belmor site result in? StaffResponse: The applicant has since withdrawn their request. Chapter 3,"Transportation" During the May 6,2015 briefing,staff presented the following summary of proposed changes. These changes have already been reviewed by the Planning Commission: • Incorporate Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan by reference into the Non-Motorized Mode section.In March 2012,the City adopted the plan which established a framework for a connected bicycle and pedestrian network throughout the City.By incorporating this plan into the comprehensive plan,it will enable the City to move forward with plan implementation as funding allows. • The Planned Cross Sections Map 111-6(Now Map I11-4)has been updated to incorporate projects from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.Additionally,roadway cross-sections were revised to reflect expected future travel demand.For example,Military Road south of South 288th Street was revised from a Type K(three lanes with bike)to a Type G(five lanes with bike)and South 312th Street from 28th Avenue South to 518`Avenue South was deleted. • Revision to the Level of Service(LOS)standard from a LOS E(defined as volume-to- capacity ratio of less than 1.0)to the following: O Signalized intersections outside of City Center will experience a 1.2 vehicle-to- capacity(v/c)ratio or lower ❑ Unsignalized intersections outside of City Center will experience a 1.0 vehicle-to- capacity(v/c)ratio or lower LI The City Center area will experience an average 1.1 vehicle-to-capacity(v/c)ratio or less. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 7 of 34 C_I Facility completeness as described in the pedestrian,bicycling,and transit priority areas level of service tables. The proposed LOS standard was presented to the City Council on March 17,2015, for input.The reason for proposing a change to the LOS for the City Center is that if the LOS was unchanged,and development occurred as forecast by the Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRC),numerous and costly improvements would have to be made to meet the existing LOS.The alternative is changing the LOS,resulting in some congestion at peak hours. • A new multi-modal LOS standard was added for Pedestrian,Bicycle and Transit to meet the requirements of VISION 2040.The proposed multi-modal LOS standard is a simple but effective method to gauge the availability of other modes and provide a more holistic approach to planning.The CIP project list is both leaner and more multimodal,while still focused on providing mobility for all. • Link transportation goals to the Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP)and Capital Improvement Program(CIP)project prioritization evaluation.Projects that meet more goals would achieve a higher score thus ensuring the implementation of the plan.Projects identified in the comprehensive plan to meet long-range goals for accommodating growth and development of a transportation system that supports all modes of travel are evaluated by their relationship to the adopted transportation goals. • New Intelligent Traveler Systems(ITS)Plan was developed and incorporated into the appendix by reference.The ITS Plan defines the application of technology to improve mobility and provides a framework for implementation. Changes to Goals and Policies: • The existing 11 Transportation goals were consolidated/integrated into six goals(TG1 to TG6)in order to eliminate redundancy.Policies supporting these goals are listed below each one. • Six new policies were added to provide additional support of the overarching goals,and also to meet VISION 2040 requirements.These policies are TP1.13,TP2.10,TP2.11, TP3.18,TP4.5,and TP6.4. • Twenty-nine existing policies were removed because they are either already reflected in the goals,already required by law,completed,or lack of ability to measure.For example,TP53 which state"Ensure that City facilities and amenities are ADA compatible"is already required by law.Please see the attached goals and policies tracking document. Public Comments Received None Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: A Planning Commissioner was concerned about the impact of adopting a different level of service Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 8 of 34 for the City Center and its impact on traffic,particularly how it would affect the Performing Arts and Conference Center(PACC).There was a concern that people would not come back if they were stuck in traffic the first time they attended an event at the PACC. Staff Response: A LOS is not usually adopted based on a unique event such as major performance.It is quite common to have some traffic congestion when attending events at Safeco field in Seattle,the Puyallup Fair in Puyallup,or the Showare Center in Kent. Planning Commissioner Comment: A Commissioner inquired about making South 320th Street two levels in order to alleviate traffic congestion. Staff Response: Such an improvement would be very expensive to construct.It may also interfere with views of Mt. Rainier from the PACC. Planning Commissioner Comment: A Commissioner suggested putting information, such as planned cross sections,in a guide rather than in the comprehensive plan. Staff Response: The street cross sections are in both the comprehensive plan and the Public Works Development Standards. Planning Commissioner Comment: A Commissioner inquired about building a street car system for commuters. Staff Response: This will be addressed by Public Works staff during the May 20,2015,Public Hearing. Chapter 4,"Economic Development" During the March 18,2015 briefing,staff presented the following summary of proposed changes. These changes have already been reviewed by the Commission: • The Introduction has been changed to reflect current and changing conditions.For example, the reference to having corporate headquarters has been deleted,since as of 2016, Weyerhaeuser will no longer have its headquarters in East Campus.Various attractions such as The Pacific Bonsai Museum and the Rhododendron Garden have been added.Also, in order to be consistent with the format of the other chapters,references to the GMA, VISION 2040,and the CWPPs have been moved to Section 4.1,Policy Background. • Section 4.1,Policy Background has been expanded and updated relative to the goals of the GMA,and in order to reflect the goals and policies of VISION 2040 adopted by PSRC in 2008 and the Countywide Planning Policies(KCCPs),which were updated in 2012. Old Section 4.1/New Section 4.2,Summary of Existing Conditions: • The characteristics of Federal Way have been updated to more closely describe the City. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 9 of 34 • The section on"Demographics"has been updated to show the changes in population and employment from 1990 to 2010.Population grew at a rate of 23 percent between 1990 and 2000,and slowed to a rate of seven percent from 2000 to 2010.The growth in the first ten years of incorporation can be attributed in part to the number of apartment complexes that were in the pipeline when Federal Way incorporated in 1990. Employment grew rapidly by 44 percent between 1990 and 2000 and then decreased by 10 percent between 2000 and 2010.The decrease between 2000 and 2010 reflects the impact of the 2008 recession, which has resulted in an even greater jobs/housing imbalance. • Tabies 1V-1 and IV-2 were added to demonstrate that the majority(87 percent)of workers, who live in Federal Way,commute to other destinations for work,and there is an influx of workers from other cities into Federal Way. • Table IV-3,which shows the"Major Employers in Federal Way"was added. • Table IV-4,Median Income,and corresponding text,was updated.This shows that between 2000 and 2013,the median income of Federal way has shifted from being the highest of eight South King County cities to number four,after Renton,Des Moines,and Kent.This is likely the result of regional housing trends that are forcing lower income families to move out of Seattle and settle further north or south where housing process are more affordable. • Table IV-5 was updated based on PSRC's 2012 Employment Estimates.This shows that Federal Way has a high percentage of jobs in Services,Health Care,and Retail compared to the other South King County cities. • Information on retail and lodging,office development,development in the Commercial Enterprise zone,and residential development were updated.Restaurants built since 2007, the time of the last update of this chapter,were added to the"Retail and Lodging"section. • Old Table IV-2 and IV-3 have been deleted along with the discussion on housing as this will be included in Chapter 5,"Housing." • The section on institutional,educational,cultural,and recreational development was updated to reflect the growing medical sector,the 2007 construction of the City-owned Community Center,and the Performing Arts and Conference Center(PACC)planned for the City Center. • The summary was deleted as it was repetitive language. • The section on Federal Way's competitive edge in the Southwest King County Subregion has been deleted as this information is over 20 years old. New Section 4.3,Key Issues and Trends Affecting Federal Way's Economic Future • A new section derived from the City's January 2015 Economic Development Strategy has been added describing the strengths of the local economy.These include a young population compared to King County and Washington State; quality of life,which includes numerous recreational opportunities,affordable housing,and low crime rate;and its Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 10 of 34 location adjacent to I-5,between Seattle and Tacoma,with easy access to an international port and the ports of Seattle and Tacoma.In addition,it is part of a thriving metropolitan area. • Another section has been added,also derived from the Economic Development Strategy,on the challenges facing Federal Way.These include the jobs/housing imbalance.Federal Way has more houses and population relative to number of jobs.It has more people living below poverty levels compared to King County and the state;and lower education levels compared to Seattle and King County.It also faces a challenge with the departure of Weyerhaeuser and the need to reuse the campus with jobs or other uses that would be complementary with existing uses in the City. • The section on summary of achievements has been deleted as the information is dated,and speaks to what had been accomplished in the past and does not address the future. • Old Section 4.2,The Economic Development Vision for Federal Way has been moved to new Section 4.5 and incorporated into the Goals and Policies. • Old Section 4.3,Forecast of Economic Growth in Federal Way has been deleted as it was based on a 2002 Market Analysis,and the information is now dated. Section 4.4,Implementation • The section addressing attributes of successful economic development programs has been shortened to delete the theoretical language and examples specific to Federal Way,such as the use of the Multi-Family Tax Exemption's role in attracting housing,has been added. • The section on the City's role in the economic life of a community has likewise been changed by adding specific steps that the City has taken or will be taking to encourage economic development.These include major infrastructure improvements such as the improvement and widening of Pacific Highway South and South 320th Street,construction of Celebration Park,and the future development of a PACC and Town Center. • The section on the economic development strategy has been shortened and references the City's January 2015 Economic Development Strategy. New Section 4.5,The Economic Development Vision for Federal Way • The vision for economic development in Federal Way has been restated to match those in the January 2015 Economic Development Strategy. • There are six economic development goals and 25 economic development policies in the current version of the Economic Development Chapter,and the goals and policies are in separate sections.In order to be consistent with the other chapters,the goals and policies were rearranged so that the relevant policies follow each goal. • The following six goals were added from the Economic Development Strategy(there are 23 policies associated with these goals;therefore,please refer to the chapter itself for the policies): Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 11 of 34 o EDG 1: Promote and create a sustainable,diversified and globally focused economy. o EDG2: Help attract,expand,and retain businesses,jobs,and investments that provide employment and enhance income opportunities for Federal Way residents. o EDG3:Work with the Weyerhaeuser Corporation for reuse of the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Campus to provide jobs for the next generation. o EDG4: Build a brand to promote and enhance the image of Federal Way. o EDG5:Ensure education opportunities align with future job growth. o EDGE: Formulate tools and systems to encourage and enhance entrepreneurship. • The following 11 Policies were added: o EDP1: Cooperate with the federal,state,and region's public jurisdictions and private entities on matters of individual interest including: economic,social and environmental issues. o EDP4: Actively recruit new employers to the City. o EDP5: Promote the continued diversification and sustainability of the local economy and expand employment opportunities for residents. o EDP8: Promote the redevelopment of existing underdeveloped areas as a means to sustain the economy and provide jobs. o EDP12: Continue to provide a business-friendly tax structure with no business and occupation tax or employee head tax. o EDP13: Be proactive in attracting commercial development with high paying jobs to locate at the Weyerhaeuser Campus. o EDP14: Consider allowing a wider range of uses in response to market conditions at the Weyerhaeuser Campus. o EDP15: Provide and work with partners,such as the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce,to ensure effective and efficient services to residents,businesses and visitors in the effort to become the"Premier City in the Puget Sound." o EDP20:Actively promote the continued diversification and sustainability of the local economy along with education opportunities through a"University Initiative." o EDP27:Continue to look for opportunities to assimilate land in the City Center in order to achieve the community's vision for that area. o EDP30: Work with the local real-estate community to reoccupy the vacant office buildings in West Campus. • The following three policies were deleted: o EDP4:The City will complete designs for public infrastructure to be jointly funded by the City and private landowners. o EDP7: In order to encourage efficient and desired development and redevelopment of existing land designated and zoned for various types of commercial uses,when considering proposals for comprehensive plan amendments and rezones to commercial designations and from one commercial designation to another,the City will consider development trends in commercially zoned areas,market demand for various types of commercial land,and amount of vacant commercial land. o EDP8:The City will utilize innovative planning techniques such as Planned Unit Developments,and developer agreements to aid in efficient and predicable permitting for large developments. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 12 of 34 • Some existing goals and policies were amended;however,there were no substantive changes that would alter the economic development vision. • Table IV-6 was deleted as this table did not add any value to the chapter. • Map W-1 was updated to reflect existing boundaries of surrounding jurisdictions such as Auburn and Kent which have recently annexed property. Public Comments Received None Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: The Performing Arts and Conference Center(PACC)is referenced under the current conditions summary section,but the Farmers Market is not. Should not the Farmers Market be included? Staff Response: Staff added a reference to the Farmers Market. Planning Commissioner Comment: Wild Waves(Norpoint Entertainment LLC)is included in the table of major employers in Federal Way,but is this not misleading because they are seasonal workers? Staff Response: Neither the state Employment Division nor the City's Building Licenses Database track temporary employment.Staff has added a note in Table IV-3,Major Employers in Federal Way, to reflect that both Wild Waves and the City of Federal Way hire seasonal employees. Planning Commissioner Comment: Does staff knows how many part-time vs full-time jobs are in Federal Way? Staff Response: Please refer to the above response. Planning Commissioner Comment: Is it possible to have a formula for the number of jobs we might be able to attract using the transit oriented development concept? Staff Response: The City has a formula for the generation of jobs in the City Center.It is based on the adopted methodology used by all of King County cities to calculate job capacity.The actual number of jobs that a TOD development might create would be based on a number of assumptions, including market conditions. Planning Commissioner Comment: There was a concern that streamlining the chapters may have gone too far.Information that provided a connection between the chapters is being deleted.The suggestion was made to consider an Executive Summary that would show the connections between the chapters. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 13 of 34 Staff Response: An Executive Summary is a good suggestion.Given our schedule for this update,we are not able to respond to that request at this time,but will consider it in a future comprehensive plan amendment cycle. Planning Commissioner Comment: Economic Development Goal 3 specifically names Weyerhaeuser.Since this is a long-term document and the Weyerhaeuser property is likely to change hands within the next year,it does not seem appropriate to refer specifically to Weyerhaeuser.A suggestion was to use the word corporation instead of Weyerhaeuser. Another suggestion was to keep the goal as it is.Once the property has changed hands,the information could be updated during a future amendment process. Staff Response: Since Weyerhaeuser still owns the campus,staff would recommend no change at his time,In addition,not using the Weyerhaeuser name may be confusing for a reader to identify what area is being discussed. Planning Commissioner Comment: Does the chapter contain information on tourism?Since the City is seeking tourism through the PACC,tourism should be more prominent. Staff Response: Staff has broken out the number of tourism jobs in Table IV-5,2012,Employment Estimates Federal Way and King County. Staff added a section on"Tourism"under the section on "Institutional,Educational,Cultural,and Recreational Development"and added the word "Tourism"to the title.hi addition,there is one goal,EDG9,and two policies,EDP34 and EDP35, that address tourism. Planning Commissioner Comment: Is the multi-family tax exemption(whereby a developer of a mixed-use project can receive a tax exemption if 20 percent of their project meets certain affordability thresholds)contrary to the City's effort to raise the median income in the city and provide higher level housing? Staff Response: There are requirements in the GMA,VISION 2040,and the CWPPs for cities to provide affordable housing,and there are also housing targets that each city must aspire to.In addition, since no mixed use multi-family/retail development had occurred in the City Center in the 13 years since incorporation,the City made a decision to adopt this exemption in 2003 to encourage such development.The affordability bar for this program is set quite low,so it is very likely that this requirement would still result in market rate housing. Planning Commissioner Comment: What is the jobs/housing ratio that the City would like to attain? Staff Response: There is no magic number for a jobs/housing balance.However,with a jobs/housing ratio of 0.95, compared to 1.53 for King County and 1.15 for the four-county Central Puget Sound region, nearly 87 percent of Federal Way workers leave the City each day for employment elsewhere. Commuting for work is expensive,may be stressful,takes away from quality time spent with Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 14 of 34 family friends and friends,is hard on roads,and contributes to congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.For these reasons,we would like to add as many well-paying jobs as possible to shift that ratio above 1.0. Planning Commissioner Comment: What the City can do to attract higher end housing? Staff Response: One of the strategies to attract higher end housing is to attract family-wage jobs and higher paying jobs to Federal Way.It is also important to provide quality of life,including quality parks,quality schools,and a walkable community,all of the concepts that are included in the comprehensive plan.Moving forward with construction of the PACC is an example of a strategy to achieve this goal. Planning Commissioner Comment: The goals and policies should have language indicating how they will be financed. Staff Response: The comprehensive plan is a policy document.Financing to implement the goals and policies is a function of the budgeting process. Chapter 5,"Housing" During the November 19,2014 briefing, staff presented the following summary of proposed changes.These changes have already been reviewed by the Commission: • The Introduction has been expanded to address shifting demographic trends and the changing market for types of housing. • The Policy Background has been updated to reflect VISION 2040 adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2008 and the CWPPs,which were updated in 2012. We felt that it was important for the reader to understand what the chapter needs to address. • Demographics and statistical information has been updated to reflect current conditions, discuss historical trends,and show expected future housing trends.The following figures and tables were updated based on either the 2010 Census or the American Community Survey(ACS)periodic estimates.3 Figures Updated V-I Federal Way's Population by Age V-2 Households by Income Level V-3 Distribution of Households by Size V-4 Federal Way's Housing Stock 3 As of 2010,the Census is no longer distributing the Long Form,so we must rely on the ACS for detailed demographic information. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 15 of 34 Tables Updated To be Deleted Added V-1 Income Level and V-4 Quantity and Affordability of Rental V-4 Affordable Affordable Ilousing Housing for Each Income Group(This Housing and Costs by Housing Size information is now included in the new Table V- Targets 4) V-2 Housing Sales V-5 Affordability of Average Rents Prices V-3 Affordability of Home Purchase • A number of edits are proposed to goals and policies.The most significant are highlighted below,but we are glad to answer questions about any of the proposed edits: o Addition of a New Goal HG4."Proactively plan for and respond to trends in housing demand."This new goal would assist the City in adopting, if necessary,new mechanisms to address emerging new housing markets. o Elimination ofHP14.This policy suggests that the City establish minimum densities for each zone and encourage new development to achieve maximum density.We recommend eliminating this policy as it is overly complicated to establish minimum densities,it interferes with property rights,and the marketplace already functions to achieve maximum densities in most cases. o Elimination ofHP19.This policy,which relates to providing increased open space as part of residential developments,has already been implemented through changes to the subdivision and zoning codes. o Elimination of HP20.This policy relates to establishing administrative review procedures to encourage innovative development.It is not clear what the intent of this policy was as the City already has adopted regulations to allow a wide variety of housing, such as cottage housing and zero-lot development. Moreover,review processes are normally adopted by ordinance. o Addition of HP18."Continue to pursue public-private partnerships to develop mixed- use,walkable neighborhoods in close proximity to transit."This policy is a companion piece to new Goal HG4. o Addition of a New Goal HG6."Encourage development of mixed-income projects and communities."This goal is intended to result in a better mix of income levels throughout the City and to avoid concentrations of lower income households in certain areas. o Modification of HP22.This policy has been modified to make it consistent with the new percentages for affordable housing contained in the 2012 King County Countywide Planning Policies(CWPPs). o Elimination of HP26.The City has already revised the zoning code to address housing affordability at a level not provided by the private market. o Modification of New HP26.Staff recommends eliminating the second sentence, which states that new/expanded Manufactured Home Parks(MHP)will not be permitted in the City.This policy is not consistent with the zoning code,which currently allows new/expanded parks in the single-family and multi-family zoning districts.It is not clear on what basis new parks would be precluded.There are very few vacant parcels large enough to accommodate this use and there appears to be Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 16 of 34 very little market demand for this use,as no new MHPs have been developed in the City in many years.Regardless, it is our belief the existing parks should be allowed to expand. o Modification of new HP27.This policy again calls for new development to achieve maximum allowable density and staff recommends eliminating that portion for the same reason as sited in above discussion of HP 14. o Addition of New HP31. Staff recommends adding the following language, "Advocate for tax law reform that encourages even and proportionate distribution of affordable housing on a county-wide basis."This language is intended to address state tax incentives that have the effect of incentivizing a disproportionate amount of affordable housing development in less affluent communities, including the South King County area. o Elimination of HP39.The City has already revised the definition of"family"to address the Fair Housing Act. o Elimination of HP44.This policy has already been implemented through adoption of new regulations for Social Service Transitional Housing. o Addition of New Goal HG9."Work to ensure that affordable housing is provided proportionately on a regional basis and not disproportionately located in less affluent cities and communities."This goal is proposed to address the imbalance in terms of regional allocation of affordable housing.All cities need to provide more affordable housing,especially to the lowest income segment.For a variety of reasons,the south county cities are providing a larger share of such housing.The entire region benefits most when there is an equitable balance of market rate and affordable housing across the region. Public Comments Received The City received comments from the following organizations: Seattle-King County Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services(ADS Advisory Council) I lousing Development Consortium Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County Seattle/King/Snohomish YMCA Summary of Public Comments There is common theme among the letters received from the Housing Development Consortium, Habitat for Humanity,and the YMCA.All three agencies recommend that the City adopt goals and polices to attract and retain affordable housing throughout the City,with emphasis on providing affordable housing for those at the 30 to 60 percent of area median income(AMI),and those making less than 30 percent AMI.They also request that we include language related to supporting legislation that address housing needs. Two of the agencies requested that we retain the following policy: HP25 Require a portion of new housing on sites of significant size to be affordable to low-income households at a level not provided otherwise by the private market. Developers should be compensated for providing this affordable housing by increased density or other benefits. The ADS Advisory Council works with older people and people with disabilities and advocates Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 17 of 34 for local,state,and national programs that promote quality of life for these populations.Their data indicates that the older populations living in south and east King County are growing most rapidly.They would like the City to consider the impacts of an aging population as this relates to accessible communities,transportation,affordable senior housing,and demand for supportive services.In particular,they would like the City to consider incorporating goals related to basic needs,such as access to services,food,and shelter;housing; economic security;nutrition; mobility;health and wellbeing;and maintaining their independence.They also request that we ensure that Federal Way is a community that welcomes all ages and abilities. Response to Public Comments Staff recommended deleting policy HP25 because we already have a requirement for new multi- family projects involving 25 dwelling units or more to provide affordable dwelling units as part of the project.Based on the comments received,we are recommending retaining the policy modified as follows: HP25 Continue to Rrequire a portion of new housing on sites of significant size to be affordable to low-income households at a level not provided otherwise by the private market.Developers should be compensated for providing this affordable housing by increased density or other benefits. We also propose to add or amend the following policies: HP 27 In order to maintain existing affordable housing,continue to enhance programs that support and finance rehabilitation,energy efficiency,and weatherization of existing housing stock.Advocate for state and federal funding to support these programs. HP28 Explore federal,state,and local resources to assist in financing affordable rental and ownership housing. Advocate for increased resources for the State Housing Trust Fund.Encourage expansion of home ownership options through such means as first time home buyer programs,housing cooperatives,lease-purchase ownership,and other housing models. HP3I Consider options for locally financing affordable housing such as creating a rehabilitation or land acquisition loan fund to support creation of healthy affordable housing. HP32 Support nonprofit affordable housing organizations during all stages of siting, project planning and permitting. We concur with the comments from the ADS Advisory Council;however,the majority of their concerns appear to be more suited to social service agencies.There are existing and proposed goals and policies that address affordable housing and pedestrian friendly streets.In addition,the City has adopted a Complete Streets Ordinance.In regard to the comment on the need for parks and recreation,as described in Chapter 6,"Capital Facilities,"the City currently provides 1141.13 acres of parkland,which the City maintains and operates.Of the total 1141.13 acres,601.7 acres is developed for recreational use areas and 539.43 acres are undeveloped.This equates to 12.52 acres of park land per 1,000 population,which exceeds the adopted LOS of 10.9 acres per 1,000 population. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 18 of 34 In response to the comments from the ADS Advisory Council,we are proposing to make the following change in Chapter 2,land Use: LUP51 Establish development regulations that allow for healthy food resources,such as urban agriculture and food banks as a permitted use and provide for on-site sale and delivery of healthy foods,on public and private property,where appropriate. Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: The graphs and tables have been informative. Are any units in construction or contemplated that are not reflected in the graphs and tables? Staff Response:: Information in the tables and graphs are based on the most up-to-date information available at the time that the chapter was drafted,This included the 2010 U.S.Census,the 2011-2013 American Community(ACS)3-Year Survey,the Washington Office of Financial Management(OFM) April 1,2014 population and housing estimates,the 2014 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)Income Levels by Household Size for King County,the Northwest Multiple Listing Service,and the 2006-2010 ACS 3-Year Survey.Units under construction or any proposed development under review were not reflected in the data. Planning Commissioner Comment: Are homes in the manufactured home parks rented,or can they be sold. Staff Response: Either is an option. Planning Commissioner Comment: In 2000,Federal Way was number one in home value compared with other cities,we are now number four.Why have we fallen in the ranking?The City should encourage the building of higher end housing,which may draw those who are able to afford this type of housing.A commissioner commented that the fmance information is not based on the consumer price index, which may be part of the reason for the difference. Staff Response: We do not have empirical data to respond to this question.However,we can speculate that due to the high cost of housing in Seattle,the cities closer to Seattle have higher housing values.In addition,since many residents in South King County commute elsewhere,many working in Seattle,there is a higher demand for housing the closer a city is to Seattle,thereby also driving up housing costs.The high cost of housing in the Seattle area forces lower income families to move further south to cities like Federal Way.The City does not have a lot of control of the price of housing that is being constructed.In addition,economic factors have dictated that it is more profitable to build subsidized housing in South King County.The City is working to attract well- paying jobs,which could provide an incentive for developers to build higher end housing. Planning Commissioner Comment: The City has a unique opportunity with Weyerhaeuser moving out.The City could consider changing the zoning in that area to manufacturing/distribution and thereby draw such industries Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 19 of 34 that tend to offer better paying jobs.We also need to consider traffic flow and the ability to move around the City.Other commissioners agreed they would also like to see the Weyerhaeuser area remain a place for jobs. Staff Response: Staff generally concurs with the Commissioners comments. Chapter 6,"Capital Facilities" During the December 17,2014 briefing,staff presented the following summary of proposed changes.These changes have already been reviewed by the Commission: • The Policy Background has been updated to reflect VISION 2040 adopted by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2008 and the CWPPs,which were updated in 2012. • All tables summarizing 6-Year Capital Improvement Plans(CIPs)were updated to reflect future needs.These include surface water,parks,and schools. • No goals or polices are proposed to be added or removed. • Minor edits,the majority to sentence composition,are proposed for the goals and policies. • The only significant changes were made to: o CFP25—This policy addresses the adoption of future impact fee programs, such as parks and transportation.The words"and transportation"are proposed to be deleted, since the City has already adopted a Transportation Impact Fee Program. o CFPG5—Language under this goal addresses the frequency of updating the Capital Facilities Chapter.The word"annually"is proposed to be replaced with"periodically,"since there is no mandate to update this chapter on an annual basis.Moreover,each City department that oversees capital improvements updates their CIP on their own schedule,for example,the Surface Water Management Division(SWM)updates their plan biannually. o CFP31 —This policy also states that the Capital Facilities Plan Chapter would be updated annually.The word"annually"is proposed to be replaced with"on a frequent basis"for the same reason as above. • Map VI-4,Major Parks and Open Space,has been updated.The other maps are in the process of being updated. Public Comments Received None Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: What response was received from Tacoma Water? Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 20 of 34 Staff Response: Both Tacoma Public Utilities and the Highline Water District responded that they had no changes. Planning Commissioner Comment: There was a concern with changing the updates to say periodically rather than annually.Many times periodical updates are overlooked. Staff Response: State law requires the comprehensive plan to be updated every eight years,and as the Planning Commission has seen,it is a major undertaking.However,the City does accept requests from citizens for site-specific amendments to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map on an annual basis.The Capital Improvement Plans(CIPs)related to transportation, surface water,and parks are updated every two years,and they are not necessarily on the same schedule, so annual updates are not possible and it may be difficult to coordinate an update on a three to four year schedule.Additionally,staffing needs are not adequate to facilitate annual updates.Based on Commission comments,staff is recommending the following change: CFP31 Review,update,and amend the Capital Facilities Plan annually in accordance with state update requirements.Respond to changes in the rates of growth,new development trends,and changing City priorities,budget,and financial considerations. Planning Commissioner Comment: On page 4,in the paragraph that starts"...local jurisdictions..."the words"locally owned"were added.How is locally owned defined? Staff Response: "Locally owned"means transportation facilities owned by a local agency; in our case,City streets,as opposed to state highways. Planning Commissioner Comment: On page 7,in the paragraph that starts"If the City..."the words"or one-time spending"were added.Again,how is"one-time spending"defined? Staff Response: An example of"one-time spending"may be the purchase of a police vehicle,or paying a consultant to assist with the update of the comprehensive plan versus on-going expenses such as salaries. Chapter 7,"City Center" During the April 15,2015 briefing,staff presented the following summary of proposed changes. These changes have already been reviewed by the Commission: The following is a brief summary of the proposed changes: • The Introduction was expanded to explain how the City Center and the Regional Growth Center/Urban Center relate to each other.The City Center is comprised of both the City Center Core(CC-C)and the City Center Frame(CC-F).The CC-C area has been designated by the Growth Management Planning Council(GMPC)as an urban Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 21 of 34 center/regional growth center.Both the Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRC)VISION 2040 Plan and the Countywide Planning Policies(CWPPs)have specific requirements for the Urban Center.New requirements as of this update include: o Adopting housing and jobs targets. o Describing key job sectors and industry clusters. o Adopting transportation mode-split goals.Mode split is the split (percentages)of people who utilize different means of transportation—single occupancy vehicles(SOV),high occupancy vehicles(HOV),walk/bike,or transit.The goal is that reliance on the SOV mode will decrease as the urban center develops into a dense mixed-use center with pedestrian-friendly streets,and jobs and housing in close proximity to each other. o Including or referencing policies and programs for innovative stormwater management. o Including or referencing policies and programs to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions • A new section was added to address the Urban Center(CC-C zone)per requirements of VSION 2040 and the CWPPs. • Discussion of the Town Center Developments were incorporated into the text,the graphic of the development concept was included,and a new map(Map VII-5),was added to show existing development in relationship to Town Center I, II,II,and N. • Language was added to reflect the status of the Sound Transit environmental impact study regarding alignment and station location alternatives in the City Center. Changes to goals and policies: • In order to be consistent with the other chapters of the comprehensive plan,all goals and policies were moved to the end of the chapter. • Sub-headings and descriptive language before each goal was deleted for consistency with other chapters. • The existing chapter has different goals and policies for the City Center Core(CC-C)and City Center Frame(CC-F).These were combined as the goals for the two areas are generally the same;however,the allowable zoning will dictate the intensity and density of uses. • Per VISION 2040 requirements,goals and policies were added to address reduction of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and managing natural drainage systems. • A goal and policy was added for view protection to address build-out of the City Center and protection of views from buildings and sites. All maps were updated.Map VII-4,"Current Land Use Map"was added. Public Comments Received None Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 22 of 34 Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: The City purchased 17 acres in the City Center,what does that do to further the end goal? Staff Response: The City is looking for a private developer to develop the property based on a City-adopted concept plan called"Town Center."The Town Center concept includes the following: • Four acres for a Performing Arts and Conference Center(PACC)(Town Center I). • Four acres for a park(Town Center II). • Eight acres for a hotel and potential development opportunities for office,medical office, higher educational facilities,retail and restaurants, along with arts and entertainment venues. In addition,there is a smaller component for office or institutional space(Town Center III). • One acre for transit-oriented development(TOD)located east of the transit center and multi-story parking garage owned and operated by Sound Transit(Town Center IV). The City envisions that the development of the Town Center will attract additional economic benefits to the City Center. Planning Commissioner Comment: What about traffic mobility?Are we planning a smaller street grid?Do we have something in place that addresses current gridlock and would not additional development negatively affect the gridlock?Is the City looking at easing the congestion due to choke points? Staff Response: The Traffic Division will respond to these questions during their presentation on May 20,2015. Chapter 8,"Potential Annexation Area(PAA)" During the January 21,2015 briefing,staff presented the following summary of proposed changes.These changes have already been reviewed by the Commission: • The Introduction has been changed to reflect the history of the Sub-area Plan/Chapter 8, and to explain that since the Sub-area Plan is more than 11 years old,the analysis as to the feasibility of annexing the PAA is outdated.Based on this reason,information related to the old feasibility studies are proposed to be removed from the chapter.It is the intent that new studies and feasibility analysis will be prepared at the time of any future annexation request. • The Policy Background has been updated to reflect VISION 2040 and the CWPPs,which were updated in 2012. • Old Section 8.2,City of Federal Way Potential Annexation Area: o Reference to the history of adopting the PAA boundary was deleted. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 23 of 34 o Information on the sub-area was updated to delete the Redondo East,North Lake,and southern portion of the Parkway Community Sub-Area,as those areas are now part of the City,having been annexed in January 2005.The respective acreages of the sub-areas have been updated. • Old Section 8.3,Feasibility Analysis: o All language related to the 2003 Annexation Feasibility Study and Assumptions was deleted because the information is outdated. o The section on Study Area Population and one related table(Table VIII-l), were deleted. • Old Section 8.4/New Section 8.2,Natural Environment: o Language was amended to clarify that the language was based on the 2002- 2003 study.It was updated where possible and stated that new studies would be done when the City receives requests for annexation.The Federal Way Revised Code(FWRC)sections that would regulate each critical area were added. • Old Section 8.5/New Section 8.3,Land Use: o Language was updated to not include the Redondo East Neighborhood,since it is now in the City and no longer in the PAA. o Figure VIII-1,Existing Land Use(pie chart),and Table VIII-2,Existing Land Use by Parcels,have been updated because the data in outdated and the PAA boundaries have changed due to annexations. o The section on types of businesses in the PAA has been updated to reflect the annexations of East Redondo and Northlake.We will be checking on whether there is still an auto salvage and towing business in the Parkway Sub-Area. o Outdated information related to subdivision and multi-family development activity in the PAA in 2000 and 2001 has been deleted. o Formatting changes were made to the section on Essential Public Facilities. o Change was made to reflect that the last inventory of historic properties in the PAA was done 27 years ago,not 15. o The section on the Land Use Plan was deleted because it pertained to the methodology of preparing the Pre-annexation Comprehensive Plan Designations Map and the Pre-annexation Zoning Map.Those maps were adopted in 2003 as part of the 2003 Sub-area Plan. o The section on Land Use Capacity was updated.The section on the methodology of calculating capacity was deleted. o The section on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Relationship to Pre- annexation Zoning was amended to delete a description of the process to adopt these plans. o Only housekeeping edits were made to the section on Land Use Goals and Policies. • Old Section 8.6/New Section 8.4,Housing: Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 24 of 34 o This section was deleted because the information is dated. o Only housekeeping changes were made to Housing Goals and Policies. • Old Section 8.7/New Section 8.5,Parks and Recreation: o This section was updated based on the January 13,2014,Parks,Recreation, and Open Space Comprehensive Plan.All outdated information was deleted. o The section on Future Parks and Recreation Needs was updated per the plan to reflect the 2013 Parks Level of Service(LOS). Since that time,the City has acquired an additional 21.84 acres of parkland.The LOS will be updated to reflect the additional parkland. • Old Section 8.8/New Section 8.6,Surface Water o Updated to delete dated information.This section is being reviewed by the City's Surface Water Management(SWM)Division. • Old Section 8.9/New Section 8.7,Transportation: o Updated to delete dated information.This section was reviewed by the City's Traffic Division. • Old Section 8.10/New Section 8.8,Private Utilities: o Updated to delete dated information.Further work needs to be done on updating telephone and wireless service and cable providers. • Old Section 8.11/New Section 8.9,Public Services and Capital Facilities: o Updated to delete dated information.These sections need to be routed to Police and Lakehaven for updates.South King County Fire and Rescue and the City's Solid Waste Division updated their sections. • Old Section 8.12/New Section 8.10,Public Participation: o Housekeeping changes were made. • Old Section 8.13/New Section 8.10,Governance and Inter jurisdictional Coordination: o Housekeeping changes were made. • Old Section 8.14/New Section 8.11,Annexation: o Housekeeping changes were made. • All maps were updated except for Year 2020 Roadway Level of Service and 20 Year Proposed Intersection Improvements. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 25 of 34 Public Comments Received None Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: One commissioner perceives a potential conflict between Chapter 9,"Natural Environment,"and this chapter.During the Open House on Chapter 9,many citizen comments were to discourage further growth.Chapter 8 appears to encourage growth. Staff Response: The Regional Growth Strategy as expressed in the GMA,VISION 2040,and the CWPPs is to concentrate growth in the Urban Growth area(UGA)and discourage growth in the rural areas. The City is required to adopt a PAA Element that is consistent with that strategy. Chapter 9,"Natural Environment" The goals and policies of the Natural Environment Chapter provide a basis to protect the GMA- identified environmentally critical areas which are: • Wetlands; • Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas; • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas; • Frequently Flooded Areas;and • Geologically Hazardous Areas. The chapter also provides goals and policies for other aspects of the natural environment, including air quality,noise,open space,and newly added tree preservation and climate change. Proposed edits to the chapter include those brought to the Planning Commission during the February 4,2015,study session.The edits incorporate feedback gathered in the public participation process,best practices,and recommendations from state agencies. Staff has also proposed edits that remove superfluous background,dated information,and goals/policies that are incorporated in other planning documents.Additional edits since February include those reflecting Commissioner's Carlson written comments presented during the study session in his absence and written comments from Mr.Martin Cannon.The following is a summary of substantive edits to Chapter 9: • Removed former King County Countywide Planning Policies(CWPP)from each sub section and replaced with overarching environment goals of updated CWPP,Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040 Plan,and GMA. • NEP6—New policy adding the practice of mitigation sequencing for proposals that impact critical areas.Government and private proposals should attempt to stay out of critical areas if possible. • NEP9—New policy codifying the department's recent practice of requiring applicants to test soils in areas that may be affected by the Tacoma Smelter Plume,as recommended by the state Department of Ecology. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 26 of 34 • NEP 10—Amended policy for environmental studies to recommended mitigation for impacts caused by proposed development,not only to environmentally critical areas but also to contaminated sites or proposed development that may cause contamination. • Private Property Rights—This is a new subsection in the chapter's overarching goals and policies.This stems from feedback received in the stakeholder interviews and public workshop. • Water Resources—Removed a portion of the section's preamble,goal NEG2,and its associated policies NEP8—NEPI 8.This language is already located in the Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan. Staff has cross-referenced the document for streamlining purposes. • Aquifer Recharge Areas—Aquifer protection was an area of concern at the public workshop. o Staff amended the overall goal NEG3 "To protect and enhance aquifer recharge areas." o NEP20 was amended to include Low Impact Development and Green Stormwater Infrastructure techniques wherever feasible in land use/building controls. o NEP21 is a new policy that encourages water reuse and reclamation for irrigation and other non-potable water needs. • Streams and Lakes(Surface Water)—NEP34 is amended to add language that encourages native planting and limiting the use of fertilizers/pesticides,or other chemicals,in lake environments.Habitat degradation in lake environments was a feedback item from the public workshop and stakeholder interviews. • NEP35 is amended to add language regarding water typing for streams that provide protections to salmon and salmon habitat.Ultimately,staff is recommending standardizing the stream rating system with the state system in the critical areas code update,which is moving forward concurrent with the comprehensive plan update. Standardizing rating systems for streams and wetlands is feedback that staff heard prior to and throughout the update process. • Frequently Flooded Areas—Preamble identifies that floodplains are located along the Puget Sound shoreline and regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. o Amendment to goal NEG6 to include the prevention of loss of habitat. o New policies NEP41 and NEP42 discourage new improvements in floodplains unless fully mitigated and all approved construction follow recommendations of a Habitat Assessment,respectively. • Wetlands—These edits reflect feedback we received for resource protection and standardization of rating/mitigation.Best Available Science is also reflected in these edits. o New policy NEP46 recommends limited impacts to wetlands and identifies the mitigation sequencing steps. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 27 of 34 • Noise—New NEP100 and NEPI01 supporting noise reduction measures from impacts to Interstate 5 and arterials on residential areas.Removed NEP73 as the City is no longer located in the 65dn1(day-night average sound level)contour. • Open Space—New policy NEP106 supports connections to critical areas as habitat corridors.New policies NEP109 and NEP110 supports safety programs in parks and open space which were added as a result of feedback from the public workshop. • Staff removed the Implementation subsection as all of the items have been completed. Chapter 10, `Private Utilities' During the September 17,2014 briefing,staff presented the following summary of proposed changes.These changes have already been reviewed by the Commission: • Goal PUG3 calls for the City to process permits for utility projects in a timely manner.We recommend deleting this goal because:a)it goes without saying;and b)it is redundant to other goals in the land use chapter,which call for an efficient and effective permitting process for all types of projects(including utility projects). • Goal PUG4 calls for the City to ensure that development regulations are consistent with utility obligations under state and federal law. Staff recommends deleting this goal because: a)it would be extremely difficult to continuously monitor state and federal law for consistency with our regulations;and b)in the case of a conflict,state and federal law would typically supersede our regulations. • Staff recommends adding a new goal that encourages opportunities for creation of renewable energy through solar and wind power.This goal is followed up by several proposed new policies. Policies The current chapter includes 23 policies. Staff recommends eliminating five policies and adding two new policies. Several existing policies are also recommended to be amended. • Staff recommends two new policies addressing the need for solar and wind power permitting and development regulations. • Policy PUP 1 addresses the City's permitting process for utility projects. Staff recommends deleting it for the reasons cited above under discussion of Goal PUG3. • Policy PUP8 calls for the City to adopt by reference Puget Sound Energy's(PSE)Electrical Facilities Plan. Staff recommends deleting this policy.PSE's plan does not need to be a part of the City's comprehensive plan.None of the other utilities plans are adopted by reference. • Policy PUP 13 calls for the City to continue monitoring the health effects of electromagnetic fields and microwaves(as they relate to cellular facilities). Staff recommends deleting this policy.The policy was written 20 years ago when the effects of these technologies were largely unknown.In the time since then negative health effects have not been documented. Further,if a public health issue did in fact exist,it should be addressed through state or federal legislation. • Policy PUP 23 encourages the City and private utility companies to develop an integrated Geographic Information System(GIS). Staff recommends deleting this policy because:a)it Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 29 of 34 is not clear what the benefit would be;and b)it would be highly impractical to integrate the City's GIS system with that of private utilities. During the briefing,we informed the Planning Commission that we were still in the process of updating some information from PSE and other utility companies. Public Comments Received None Planning Commission Comments Planning Commissioner Comment: Waste Management is not included in the chapter.Are they exempt? Staff Response: Staff has worked with the City's Solid Waste Division,and two new sections have been added: Section 10.6, Solid Waste Management,and Section 10.7,Moderate Risk Waste Management. Planning Commissioner Comment: The City has a franchise with the Zayo Group,LLC for a fiber optic network in the City.Utilities of this type should be added to the chapter. StaffResponse: A new section, 10.5,Fiber Optic Network,was added that describes the different private companies and public agencies that have networks within the City. Planning Commissioner Comment: Reference relevant goals and/or policies required by the state or county. Staff Response: Staff added a new section, 10.1,Policy Background,and has included relevant goals and policies from the GMA,VISION 2040,and the CWPPs. Other Staff Edits Since Planning Commission Briefing Since the briefing,staff has received edits from Puget Sound Energy(PSE). Staff has deleted all of the old language related to electric and gas service and replaced it with the new PSE language. PSE also provided a map on electric service only,which is included as Map X-1.All of the maps on existing and proposed electric and gas service(Maps X-2,X-3,and X-4)are proposed for deletion since they are outdated.In addition Map X-1, Council-Approved PAA,is proposed for deletion,since it does not add value to the chapter,and Map X-5 is proposed for deletion based on a request from Comcast. The following three goals are proposed to be added related to solid waste management: PUG 4 The City actively ensures appropriate recycling and disposal options are in place to protect the health and welfare of both residents and our environment. PUG 5 The City's goal is to ensure that ratepayers receive high-quality and reliable services at reasonable cost when contracting with collection service providers. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments • Page 30 of 34 PUG 6 The City actively engages and participates in KC-CSWMP updates and implementation,working toward aligning the plan with Federal Way's needs and the needs of ratepayers. The following ten policies are proposed to be added related to solid waste management: PUG21 The City recognizes the KC-CSWMP and its policies which will be referenced by the City as appropriate. PUG22 Promote the recycling of solid waste materials by providing opportunities for convenient recycling and by developing educational materials on recycling,composting, and other waste reduction methods.Waste reduction and source separation are the City's preferred strategies for managing solid waste.Materials remaining after effective waste reduction and source separation should be managed in accordance with the KC- CSWMP. PUG23 Encourage and actively seek an effective regional approach to solid waste management,to leverage economies of scale and move toward similarities in services and parallel educational messaging. PUG24 Maintain a cost-effective and responsive solid waste collection system,with the overarching objective of ratepayers receiving high-quality services at a reasonable cost.In selecting elements of our solid waste collection system,consider all costs (internal to the City's ratepayers—both residents and businesses,and external at the system level)as well as long-term factors such as cost-effective and environmentally benign disposal option(s). PUG25 Administer solid waste collection services in ways that minimize adverse impacts such as noise,litter,environmental pollution,and disruption to businesses and neighborhoods. PUG26 Provide uniform collection service to areas annexed to the City as soon as practicable,referencing RCW policies but also seeking uniformity via contract or franchise elements. PUG27 Develop and implement Preferred Building Code Elements,including space allocation for several waste streams(garbage,compostables,recyclables,hazardous materials,and other process wastes).Incorporate design elements that enable access to services,both for tenants and collection service vehicle.Consider development of a preference for covered solid waste enclosures or facilities that are tied to sanitary sewer to help reduce potential surface water management issues,and perform a comprehensive analysis to determine which elements should be grandfathered versus required improvements. PUG28 Cooperate with other private and public agencies in the region to manage and control hazardous waste and moderate risk waste,including household hazardous substances and moderate risk wastes generated by area businesses and institutions. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 31 of 34 PUG29 Educate the public in the proper handling and disposal of hazardous household waste and on the use of alternative products or practices which result in reducing the use and storage of hazardous materials in homes and businesses. PUG30 Provide for the safe and convenient disposal of hazardous household waste through a permanent and conveniently located collection facilities for residents and small businesses to access. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH FWRC 19.80.140 AND 19.80.150 1. FWRC 19.80.140, Factors to be Considered in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment—The City may consider,but is not limited to,the following factors when considering a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. (I) The effect upon the physical environment. Amending the chapters and maps of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWCP)is a non-project action and would have no effect on the physical environment. 2) The effect on open space, streams, and lakes. Amending the chapters and maps of the FWCP is a non-project action and would have no effect on open space,streams,and lakes. (2) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. Amending the chapters and maps of the FWCP will have no direct effect on land uses and neighborhoods within the City.However,code amendments adopted in order to implement goals and policies may result in development.At the time of development,the compatibility and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods will be evaluated. (4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads,public transportation,parks, recreation, and schools. Amending the chapters and maps of the FWCP is a non-project action and would not impact community facilities such as utilities,roads,public transportation,parks, recreation,and schools. (5) The benefit to the neighborhood, city, and region. The FWCP lays out a vision for the future of Federal Way during a 20-year period.It articulates the community's vision and reflects community values.Implementation of the goals and policies contained within the FWCP would benefit neighborhoods and the City by resulting in a more walkable community; less reliance on the automobile;concentrated urban development in the City's Center and secondary commercial districts;preservation of single family neighborhoods;and the addition of high paying jobs.Attaining these goals would benefit the region by resulting in less congestion on the freeway as citizens are able to find family wage jobs in the City. (6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land. Amending the chapters and maps of the FWCP is a non-project action,which will not in itself affect land use. Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 32 of 34 (7) The current and projected population density in the area. Amending the chapters and maps of the FWCP is a non-project action,which will not in itself affect current and projected population density in the area (8) The effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. All of the chapters of the FWCP are consistent with each other,and therefore,they do not affect each other. 2. FWRC 19.80.150, Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan—The City may amend the comprehensive plan only if it finds that: (1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, or welfare; The FWCP adopts the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan by reference.Implementing the goals and policies of the master plan is related to public health,safety,and welfare because implementation should result in citizens getting more physical activity through increased walking and biking in safe environments.There are also goals and policies related to access to healthy food. (2) The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the residents of the city. Amending the chapters and maps of the FWCP is in the best interest of the residents of the City because it lays out the vision of the citizens of Federal Way and updates information as to the current status of the City. (3) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amendments. All of the chapters,except Chapter 11,"Shoreline Master Program,"and Chapter 12, "Twin Lakes Commercial Subarea Plan,"are being updated as part of this major update. All proposed amendments are consistent with RCW 36.70A,the Growth Management Act and would not affect either Chapter 11 or 12. VIII. MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION The mayor recommends that the proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan be approved as presented. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consistent with the provisions of FWRC 19.80.240,the Planning Commission may take the following actions regarding each proposed comprehensive plan amendment: 1 Recommend to City Council adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment as proposed; 2. Recommend to City Council that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment not be adopted; Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 33 of 34 3. Forward the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to City Council without a recommendation;or 4. Modify the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and recommend to City Council adoption of the amendment as modified. LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Results of the On-Line Survey Exhibit B Comment Letter from Arthur Hopkins Exhibit C Comment Letter from the Seattle-King County Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services Exhibit D Comment Letter from the Housing Development Consortium Exhibit E Comment Letter from Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County Exhibit F Comment Letter from the YMCA Exhibit G Two Citizen Comments and One Planning Commissioner Comment on Chapter 9,"Natural Environment" Exhibit H City Responses to Comments on Chapter 9,"Natural Environment" K:\Comprehensive Plan\2015 Major Update\Planning Commission\051315 Report to Planning Commision 2.doc Planning Commission Staff Report May 15,2015 2015 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 34 of 34 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q1 It is important to have many different types of housing to provide for people in all stages of life and to retain our residents. Answered 33 Skipped: I 100% 80% 60% 39.39% 33.33% 40% 15.15% 12.12% 20% all 3 0% Responses Strongly Disagree =Disagree Neutral =Agree a Strongly Agree I Don't Know • EXHIBIT 1 /29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q2 It is important that there are quality parks and open space for recreation. Answered:34 Skipped: 0 100% 76.47% 80% 60% 40% 23.53% 20% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree InDisagree *Neutral 0 Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 2/29 • 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q3 It is important that new development be architecturally attractive. Answered;32 Skipped. 2 100% 80% 60% 50.00% 40.63% 40% 20% 8' ' 0% (no Zabel) Strongly Disagree •Disagree in Neutral n Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 3/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q4 It is important that existing properties are well-maintained. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 51.76% 60% 32.35% 40% 20% 2.94% 2.94% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree MI Disagree OW Neutral IM Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 4/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q5 It is important to promote health by implementing policies that provide opportunities for healthy eating and active life styles. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 35.29% 40% 28.47% 14.71% 14.71% 20% 5.86% 2.94% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree go Neutral Agree •Strongly Agree 01 Don't Know 5129 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q6 Multi-family development, such as apartments and condos, should be encouraged, together with commercial development, in the City Center Core and Frame (downtown area). Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 40% 26.47% 26.47% 14.71% 14.71% 17.65% 20% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree 5y Neutral Mg Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 6/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q7 Multi-family development, such as apartments and condos, should be encouraged, together with commercial development, in the city's commercial areas, such along Pacific Highway South. Answered:33 Skipped: 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 27.27% 30.30% 21.21% 20% 12.12% Ill 9.09% 111,111 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree is Disagree 44,,i Neutral 01,Agree =Strongly Agree I Don't Know 7/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q8 Multi-family development, such as apartments and condos, should be encouraged, together with commercial development, in existing neighborhood business areas, such as in the vicinity of 21st Avenue SW and SW Campus Drive. Answered:?,3 Skipped: 1 100% 80% 60% 40% 24.24% 27.27% 16.18% 12.12% 12.12% 20% 6.06% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree el Neutral NI Agree Strongly Agree Apt 1 Dont Know 8/28 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q9 Density in the single-family areas should be increased (more houses per acre) to allow smaller lot single-family homes. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 35.29% 40% 29.41% 14.71% 14.71% 20% 5.88% ONOMMI 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree IN Disagree ®Neutral n Agree •Strongly Agree No I Don't Know 9/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q10 Encourage a mix of housing,jobs, shopping, and entertainment so that people can do errands and get to work without using a car. n,r we ed.3`- SkippaW i 100% 80% 60% 39.39% 33.33% 40% 12.12% 12.12% 20% 3.03% IIIIII 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree 10 Neutral IN Agree •Strongly Agree .1 Don't Know 10/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q11 Allow new housing to be more dense (more house per acre) to support better transit service. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% B0% 60% 32.35% 40% 17.65% 17.55% 1431% 11.76•/. 20% 5.88% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree aDisagree W.Neutral n Agree •Strongly Agree Ito 1 Don't Know 11 /29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q12 Make improvements, such as adding sidewalks, bike lanea and walking/biking trails. Answered:33 Skipped: 100% 80% 60% 39.39'/. 36.36% 40% 18.18% 20% 3.03% 3.03% 11111 �-w 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree In Disagree Neutral ni Agree is Strongly Agree •.IDon't Know 12/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update QI3 Encourage transit-oriented development (housing and commercial uses) close to the Transit Center or transit hubs. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 44.12% 40% 20.59% I23.53% 20% 5.88% 2.94% 2.94% °I° 0 soL- (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree 00 Neutral W Agree IN Strongly Agree I Don't Know 13/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q14 Increase the capacity of existing street by widening streets and intersections. Answered:32 Skipped:2 100% 80% 60% 34.38% 40% 25.00% 12.50% 15.63% 20% 9.38% 3.13% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree al Disagree Neutral Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 14129 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q15 Provide more street connections within and between neighborhoods to reduce travel distance. Answered;33 Skipped:1 100% 80% 60% 36.35% 33.33% 40% 15.15% 20% 8.06% 5.08% 0% (no!abet) Strongly Disagree •Disagree Neutral Agree •Strongly Agree r I Don't Know 15129 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q16 Invest more resources in improving traffic signal timing. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 47.06% 40% 23.53% 11.76% 14.71% 11 20% 2.94% 111111 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree di Neutral a Agree •Strongly Agree =? 1 Don't Know 16/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q17 The city should fund transit service where the transit agencies can't or won't provide service. Answered: 34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 40% 29.41% 23.53% 20.59% 11.76% mi 8.82% 20% 5.88% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree =Disagree N Neutral RA Agree le Strongly Agree I Don't Know • 17/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q18 Improve access to and from 1-5. 100% 80% 60% 40% 30.30% 33.33% 15.15% 15.18% 20% 3.03% 1111 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree =Disagree at Neutral `r,Agree •Strongly Agree I Dont Know 18/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q19 Engage in private/public partnerships to act as a catalyst for development. Answered:33 Skipped:1 100% 80% 60% 39.39% 33.33% 40% 20% 12.12% 9.09% 6.06% III 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree in Disagree gp Neutral I Agree In Strongly Agree am I Don't Know 19/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q20 Work with the Chamber of Commerce and development community to proactively attract new businesses. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 58.82% 60% 40% 29.41% 20% 5.58% 5.88% MINOMON 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree ft Neutral •Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 20/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q21 Attract new businesses and retain existing businesses by providing excellent services and a safe environment. Answered:33 Skipped:1 100% 80% 57.58% 60% 33.33% 40% 20% 9•09% 111110 111 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree inDisagree 011!Neutral gp Agree NI Strongly Agree I Don't Know 21 /29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q22 Attract new businesses and retain existing businesses by continuing to provide a business friendly environment. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 47.06% 41.16% 40% 20% 11.76% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree mg Disagree a Neutral so Agree MI Strongly Agree I Don't Know • 22/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q23 Strictly enforce our Critcal Areas and Shoreline Regulations. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 41.18% 35.29% 40% 20% 11.76% 2.94% 5.86% 2.94% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree 1g Neutral a Agree I Strongly Agree I Don't Know 23/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q24 Encourage recycling, composting, and other ways to reduce the amount of waste we all generate. Answered:33 Skipped:1 100% 80% 54.55% 60% 36.36% 40% 20% 6.06% 3.03% ■rnrorrnar MUM 1111 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree IS Disagree go Neutral uN Agree •Strongly Agree .,. I Don't Know 24/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q25 Reduce greenhouse emissions by providing more alternatives to single- occupant vehicle trips. Answered:33 Skipped:1 100% 80% 60% 40% 27.27% 30'30% 24.24% 15.15% 20% 3.03% 0% (no Zabel) Strongly Disagree an Disagree no Neutral an Agree •Strongly Agree p, I Don't Know 25/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q26 Encourage sustainable/low-impact development that utilizes techniques such as: green roofs; solar and wind energy; rain gardens; recycled building materials; etc. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 38.24% 40% 29.41% 17.85% 11.78% 20% 2.94% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree IN Disagree Neutral Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 26/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q27 Look for opportunities to acquire and preserve the most sensitive natural areas within the city limits (e.g. the Hylebos wetland system). Answered:33 Skipped:1 100% 60% 60% 4848% 33.33% 40% 20% 9.09% 6.06% 3.03% 1.1111.1111111111.1191 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree =Disagree A Neutral ge Agree •Strongly Agree I Don't Know 27/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update 028 Develop additional projects, such as trail systems, that facilitate getting the public into the natural environment. Answered:34 Skipped:0 100% 80% 60% 41.18% 32.35% 40% 20% 11.76% 11.76% 2.84% 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree 111 Disagree at Neutral MI Agree II Strongly Agree SA 1 Don't Know 28/29 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Q29 Contine to provide education and outreach on ways to protect the environment. Answered:33 Skipped:1 100% 80% 60% 33.33% 33.33% 40% 18.18% 15.15% 111 20% IIIIII 0% (no label) Strongly Disagree •Disagree ab Neutral SI Agree le Strongly Agree I Don't Know • 29129 EXHIBIT --- 3936 SW 316th Street Federal Way,WA 98023 June 30,2014 Margaret H. Clark Principal Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way,WA 98003 Dear Margaret Clark, I'm writing to comment on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Chapter One. There were two areas I had questions about. I've listed them below by page number. In general I thought the changes to the previous plan were good, but I wanted to comment on things in the area concerning growth, and in the Vision Statement. p. 1-2 Where should growth occur? How can we manage that growth to realize our vision for the community? Why were these two removed? Encouraging desired development isn't the same as managing growth or deciding where it should occur. One of the things we should be careful about is where we allow different types of construction to take place, so that it doesn't conflict with the existing types of buildings or neighborhoods. Vision Statement p. 1-11 pedestrian friendly, multi-use City Center This is part of the vision for how Federal Way might be years from now. The city center today is far from pedestrian friendly. I see few people walking there. I, myself, usually drive there, and from shops on one side of 320th Street to those on the other side. Both 320th and Hwy 99 are hard to cross,especially for someone with limited mobility. How will this vision be achieved,and where will that be spelled out in the plan? a wide variety of dining and shopping options Again,how is this vision to be achieved? Federal Way has been described as a gastronomic wasteland. It's mostly chain restaurants and strip mall teriyaki places. Besides the Commons and a few other stores,there isn't a wide variety of options, such as small speciality stores. Any plan to make this vision a reality needs to take these things into account, and take steps to bring in more quality restaurants, cafes, and shops. p. 1-12 Economic Vitality This depends on the economic development plan,and how realistic it is. I don't think this city is likely to attract many company headquarters. Companies seem to want to locate in large cities with good transportation and a good potential work force. Seattle and Bellevue are much more likely to attract such companies. I think Federal Way needs to assess what it actually has to offer,and make realistic plans to attract businesses that will offer employment, and a tax base for the city. Efficient Traffic System This should be Transportation, not Traffic. The present system is inadequate. Locally, public transit is very limited, and the streets become clogged during rush hour.Area-wide,we have limited public transit to other parts of the Seattle-Tacoma area, and the highways are clearly inadequate. What's going to be done to remedy these shortcomings? When will these steps be spelled out in the plan? I realize that this is just the Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan, and that later sections will probably address these questions. But since this is the Introduction, I thought it well to raise these issues now, rather than wait until the later sections are presented for comments. Thank you for reading my comments. I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this process. By the way, I thought the section about Federal Way's history was interesting,although probably not needed in this update. Could you send me a copy of that part without the change highlighting? Thank you! Sincerely, atrisji Arthur Hopkins i8 (� - Margaret Clark From: Meinig,Gigi <Gigi.Meinig@seattle.gov> Sent Monday,October 27,2014 12:18 PM To: Margaret Clark Subject Comprehensive Plan suggestions Attachment= FederalWay.docx Please see the attached letter from the Seattle-King County Advisory Council on Aging & Disability Services. An organization sponsored by United Way, King County and the City of Seattle. The letter provides information about the upcoming demographic "Agewave" when people over the age of 60 will encompass 25% of the population. The Advisory Council asks Federal Way City Planners to include a vision statement and incorporate policies into Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan that recognizes the contributions of older adults, and supports children, families, and elders. A number of policy suggestions are outlined in the letter which I hope you will find helpful. More information can be found in the Area Plan on Aging for King County, mandated by the State of Washington and developed with the guidance of the Advisory Council www.agingkingcountv.org/area plan.htm. Appreciate your taking time to review the attached letter. My contact information is below if you have any questions. Gigi Gigi Meinig Planning and Development Specialist Aging and Disability Services,"The Area Agency on Aging" PO Box 34215,700 5th Ave.,Suite 5100,Seattle,WA 98124 Office:206.684-0652 I Main:206.684.0660 I FAX:206.684.0152, Cell 425-890-8652,Email:Gigi.Meinia)Seattle.gov For Aging and Disability Services news and information,visit www.aainakinacountv.org. 1 Advisory Council on Aging and Disability Services Creating choices for elders and adults with disabilities in Seattle-King County Mailing Address:PO Box 34215,Seattle,WA 98124-4215 Office Address:Seattle Municipal Tower,700 5th Ave,51st Floor Tel:206-684-0660 TTY:206-684-0274 FAX:206-684-0689 www.adsadvisorycouncil.org October 27, 2014 Attention: Planning Commission Members and Federal Way Planners Federal Way, WA RE: Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan To Whom It May Concern: The Seattle-King County Advisory Council on Aging& Disability Services(hereafter called the ADS Advisory Council) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the City of Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan. Our council comprises representatives appointed by King County,City of Seattle, and United Way of King County. Our mission is to identify the needs of older people and adults with disabilities in our community, advise on services to meet these needs,and advocate for local, state and national programs that promote quality of life for these populations. King County's elder population(age 60+)will near 25 percent of the total population by 2035.A similar increase is expected among the oldest-old in King County.Since 1995,the number of residents 85 and older has almost doubled, and by 2035 will almost quadruple. As the baby boom generation ages, as older immigrants arrive in our region, and as improved health and health care contributes to greater longevity,we hope that Federal Way is considering the impacts of the"age wave"on accessible communities,transportation, low-income senior housing, and demand for supportive services. Our data indicates that the older populations living in south and east areas of King County are growing most rapidly. This age wave presents both challenges and opportunities for suburban and rural cities. For example,the built environment and transportation systems may be difficult for older adults to navigate,safely and conveniently. However, older adults are a tremendous resource and have much to contribute to their communities. Cities that plan for and design safe and accessible communities that support people of all ages and abilities will be well positioned to benefit from these contributions. We encourage the City of Federal Way to include a vision statement in their Comprehensive Plan which recognizes and values the contributions of older adults and its role in making Federal Way the kind of place people of all ages want to live. We believe healthy aging—at every age—should be a goal of Federal Way government, as is creating a caring community that nurtures and supports children,families, and elders. In association with the Area Agency on Aging for Seattle-King County and sponsored by: Co-sponsored by: United Way City of Seattle United Way of King County King County Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan Page 2 of 3 The ADS Advisory Council participates in the development of the Area Plan on Aging for King County, as mandated by the State of Washington every four years:www.agingkingcounty.orgJarea plan.htm. We request that you consider incorporating the following goals and objectives into Federal Way's Comprehensive plan to the greatest extent possible: 1. Address Basic Needs:Alleviate the impacts of poverty and other conditions that make people, including older adults, vulnerable. • Access: Help older people meet their basic needs by providing information and assistance about services in the community. • Food and Shelter: Help individuals of any age who lack food or shelter,who are vulnerable,or face barriers to functioning independently to flourish.Address food insecurity(i.e., availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways). • Housing: Provide affordable housing designed to accommodate mobility and safety over the course of life. • Economic Security: Promote economic empowerment and security, especially among older women,with a goal of self-sufficiency.' • Nutrition: Encourage and support food banks and nutrition programs to meet the nutritional needs of the elderly and other vulnerable populations. • Mobility: Provide complete streets that allow older adults and individuals with disabilities to "stroll or roll", and cross streets safely. Identify resources to provide adequate public transit, including safe, comfortable, and convenient bus service. Encourage community shuttles and volunteer transportation. Encourage transportation services that ensure that individuals with special needs—including the elderly, individuals with disabilities,children,youth, immigrants, and veterans—who depend on public transit for their mobility to get to and from school, work, shopping,and services, can participate fully in the life of the Federal Way.2 2. Improve Health and Well Being:There is compelling research that shows that regular physical activity and social engagement positively affect overall health for older adults and increases life expectancy. • Parks and Recreation: Develop parks, open spaces, and community facilities to adequately serve all residents, including older adults,to expand their social and recreational opportunities. • Social and Civic Engagement: Embrace social and civic engagement of older residents. Promote creative ways for older adults to maintain,share and grow their talents,skills, and experiences. Promote cultural preservation programs or activities that draw on the strengths of older residents,who provide a direct connection with the past. 1 Consider the Elder Economic Security Standard'"Index for Washington,which includes data for Seattle(p.62),available online at www.wowonline.orp,Jdocuments/WashinRtonElderindexReport.pdf. 2 Aging and Disability Services represents the Federal Way of Seattle on the Puget Sound Regional Council's Special Needs Transportation Committee and the King County Mobility Coalition.The goals of the Coordinated Transit-Human Services Plan(www.psrc.org/transoortation/special-needs)should be considered in the Federal Way's comp plan revisions. Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan Page 3 of 3 3. Increase Independence:Enhance efforts that help older people maintain their independence as long as possible, and remain in their neighborhoods of choice. • Senior Housing: Renew focus on affordable housing strategies that provide older adults the opportunity to remain in their own neighborhood as their housing needs change, including a range of housing types,from independent living with supportive services nearby to skilled nursing facilities.3 • Housing with Services:Advocate for reduction of barriers to providing services to residents of subsidized housing. • Home Ownership: Encourage,support and promote existing programs and policies that help low-income elders retain ownership of their homes. 4. Promote Aging Readiness: Ensure livable communities that welcome all ages and abilities. • Universal Design:Adopt Universal Design principles—good design for all ages and all abilities.4 • Financial Literacy: Empower people of all ages to build financial literacy and prepare for retirement. • Technology: Utilize technology to enhance access to aging information, programs and services. • Negative Perceptions: Combat negative perceptions of aging, which carry a high cost to society(e.g.,ageism in health care and employment,social exclusion, and elder abuse and neglect). Develop new approaches that create a new and authentic perception that the wisdom,talents, and experience of older adults are community assets. The ADS Advisory Council is a resource for all agencies that plan or implement programs or services for older adults in King County. If you have questions or concerns about this input or any other issue, please feel free to contact me via our liaison,ADS planner Gigi Meinig(gigi.meinig@seattle.gov or 206-684-0652). Sincerely, jewva. Tony Provine,Chair Seattle-King County Advisory Council for Aging& Disability Services Cc: Jim Ferrell, Mayor 3 Please read A Quiet Crisis:Age Wave Mazes Out Affordable Housing,a 2009 report produced by the Cedar River Group on behalf of Aging and Disability Services,Seattle Human Services Department,Seattle Office of Housing,Seattle Housing Authority,King County Housing Authority,Seattle Human Services Department and the King County Housing& Community Development.The report is available online at www.aeinekingcountv.org/docs/SeniorHousingStudv.pdf. 4 The ADS Advisory Council endorses incorporation of Universal Design principles—equity,flexibility,simpliFederal Way/intuitive use,perceptible information,tolerance for error,and size and space for approach and use—in all aspects of the built environment,processes,and products.We are active in the Northwest Universal Design Council.Learn more at www.environmentsforall.org. INHOUSINGDDEVELOPMENT consortium EXHIBIT HDC's Affordable Housing Members' November 19,2014 L°Y,,nr:°n,e 1-t°a5.ng°'g alula"0"~ City of Federal Way Planning Commission Ga„;nu„ity DeyeioPment Corporal ions City of Federal Way ry 0, °„S,n� 33325 8th Avenue South see,a Orgamz1n' Federal Way,98003 vt•hl;c 4 ;,nR AuU'°nties Comm „ Acuon AKoncies RE: Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update w k,a`e l,°5 p,Kanl,.<a; Dear Commission Members, , 1,t)Fvcinnrnen'itutt,or•ties Go;�e�nmom Agents`anr'. Cr On behalf of the Housing Development Consortium of King County(HDC), a„t ,y K thank you for this opportunity to comment on your Comprehensive Plan update. ”""'teC Devetop,rent ,nec�alut p. 1�C faCCO��ntiflli5 HDC is a nonprofit membership organization which represents more than 100 N;rl e private businesses,nonprofit organizations,and public partners who are working Regto;,a,r,Inde,,al,o genders to develop affordable housing and provide housing related services in King PJatwna,;.,,n;,E.,s WI,?nners County. HDC's members are dedicated to the vision that all people should be ;,at^.muni.,.,ni,essme'.Suec,aists able to live in a safe, healthy, and affordable home in a community of opportunity. Nr°l ,r.,,.,,anrgers In other words,we believe all people,regardless of income,deserve the ;,.;v,`ums opportunity to thrive in a safe neighborhood with good jobs,quality schools, 0(5 strong access to transit, and plenty of parks and open space for a healthy lifestyle. °""a" We very much appreciate Federal Way's work toward achieving this vision, through your support of affordable housing developments like Multi-Service Center's Mitchell Place for older adults,and through your provision of development incentives that leverage the power of the private market to create affordable homes.This comprehensive plan update provides you an ideal opportunity to explore what other strategies are necessary to create an inclusive and affordable community for all of Federal Way's residents.To that end, we would like to provide the following comments to help guide your work over the next many months on the issues of: preservation,code flexibility,regional partnerships,and deeper affordability. 4./10,41.4.Opp°rriigit}, ,,t 98101 ;20b b87. "0,4i Fax 206(-, ,ir-GO •mwv,..houusing(onnso,tinm.ulg ❖ Preservation:Healthy Housing Given limited public dollars for the construction of new affordable housing, it is critical Federal Way maintains the affordability of existing homes. Preserving the quality and affordability of existing homes is one of the best ways to ensure Federal Way families can afford a decent place to live. Housing rehabilitation supports vibrant neighborhoods and healthy living situations, making it easier for Federal Way's residents to thrive. While the city's Housing Needs Assessment reports the housing stock to be in generally good condition,maintenance and rehabilitation needs will grow over time,as will the need to preserve the affordability of existing homes. If rental property owners and homeowners lack the funding necessary to maintain their homes,residents' health may be severely impacted by housing health and safety hazards.These include mold,pests, injury hazards,and poor indoor air quality. During a time when local resources are limited to address these problems, it is critical Federal Way works to strengthen federal and state funding streams that could advance the health and preservation of its affordable housing stock.The City should implement a policy to promote additional funding for rehabilitation,energy efficiency, and weatherization by supporting legislation at the state and federal level that expands these programs. ❖ Code Flexibility&Development Incentives: Creating Communities of Opportunity If low and moderate-income residents can afford to live in communities of opportunity— rich with jobs,transit, and other important amenities for a healthy lifestyle—they won't be forced to stretch their budgets so far.These communities are often home to mixed-use and multi-family developments that could promote dense,affordable living. Development incentives make it easier for Federal Way's lower-income families to afford these neighborhoods. We therefore ask that the city adopt the policies in its Draft Housing Element that promote the use of development incentives to provide affordable housing.Federal Way should encourage affordable housing in all neighborhoods throughout the city, but it is particularly important in proximity to transit,employment,and/or educational opportunities.The City can use development incentives like reduced parking standards, fee waivers,tax exemptions,and density bonuses to help accomplish this goal. By implementing these types of policies in services of affordability,the city can leverage the power of the private market to create affordable housing with very limited public investment. Additionally,we strongly urge the retention of HP 25,requiring a portion of new housing to be affordable.Although such a program has already been integrated into the zoning code, it is critical that the Housing Element continues to outline the policy framework for inclusionary housing programs. ❖ Partnerships: Working Regionally to Support Affordable Housing We appreciate the attention Federal Way has paid in its Housing Element Draft to collaboration with regional partners and other South King County cities. As poverty becomes increasingly concentrated in the suburban areas of the Puget Sound,inter- jurisdictional collaboration will become extremely important for addressing regional housing needs. We therefore ask that Federal Way adopt policies in its Housing Element that outline the importance of collaborating with other jurisdictions to assess housing needs,coordinate funding,increase capacity,and find cost efficiencies. ❖ Deeper Affordability: Preventing Homelessness More work remains to create homes for Federal Way residents earning less than 30%of Area Median Income(AMI).Nearly 1 in 3 Federal Way renter households is paying over half its income in housing costs and 297 students in the Federal Way School District were identified as homeless in the most recent count. These statistics reflect the fact that there is a severe shortage of housing for the city's lowest income populations. We can prevent and address homelessness by ensuring that quality,permanently affordable housing is available for these households.We greatly appreciate that the Housing Element Draft promotes the use of City funds for affordable housing. We recommend the following additional strategies to promote quality housing for those making less than 30% AMI: 1. Support legislation and funding at the state and federal level that addresses housing needs,particularly increased resources for the State Housing Trust Fund. 2. Explore all options for locally financing affordable housing,including the feasibility of creating a rehabilitation or land acquisition loan fund to support the creation of healthy, affordable housing. 3. Grant nonprofit affordable housing providers first right of refusal on any sale of surplus land.Consider discounting the sale of public land for the construction of affordable housing targeted to those earning less than 30% AMI. 4. Invest in capital infrastructure projects that reduce private costs for the construction of affordable housing targeted to those making less than 30% AMI. 5. Support nonprofit organizations during all stages of siting and project planning and when applying for county,state,and federal funding. We believe it is possible for all working people in Federal Way to afford housing and still have enough money left over for the basics like groceries,gas,medicine,and child care. We can get there by working together.We applaud your attention to the needs of your most vulnerable citizens and encourage you to strengthen your Housing Element by implementing the above recommended strategies. Thank you for your consideration. We at HDC look forward to working with you as you continue to update your Comprehensive Plan and would be happy to discuss these comments with you further.We can be reached by phone at(206)682-9541 or by email at hdc(«housingconsortium.org. We hope you will contact us with any questions. Best, Kayla Schott-Bresler Kelly Rider Policy Manager Policy Director 'NEAT Margaret Clark From: Kevin Hunter <KHunter@habitatskc.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20,2014 11:36 AM To: Margaret Clark Cc: Kirk Utzinger;Ania Alyson Subject Comments Attachments: About Habitat SKC and Westway.docx Margaret, I was unable to shoot this over to you yesterday as I understand you spent time as a Commission last night.Please excuse our tardy comments below and trust they are helpful as you continue to sharpen the plan moving forward. I have also attached a document regarding our work in and around the Westway Neighborhood for your review. Federal Way Planning Commission: On behalf of Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County we are thrilled that you are seeking input from the critical stakeholders within Federal Way. For the past 10 years Habitat has been actively partnering with faith communities, corporations and scores of individuals to promote safe,decent and affordable housing. We have been thrilled to have long term partnerships with organizations such as Build the Bridge coalition which has made a significant commitment to the West Way Neighborhood. We stand together with the many residents across Federal Way that are in support of affordable housing and the ongoing efforts to preserve the vital neighborhoods that make up this vibrant city. We urge the Commission to draft and approve policies that preserve and strengthen the stock of affordable housing for the next generation. Habitat is a strong advocate of ongoing programs that rehabilitate and repair existing housing stock as well as promoting effective weatherization initiative. As a non profit partner,Habitat recognizes the massive potential of mobilizing the citizens that care most deeply about Federal Way. We urge the commission to prioritize partnerships and collaboration across sectors to maximize investment and impact. Collaboration is critical in leveraging investment from both the private and public sectors. Lastly,we urge the commission to prioritize individuals living at the 30%-60%AMI levels. This segment of people is in the sweet spot for whom Habitat serves. These people tend to be the most vulnerable of not be able to become long term stakeholders within neighborhoods.They have much to offer if give some support and a hand up... Respectfully i Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County Kevin D.Hunter Vice President-Development&Community Engagement Habitat for Humanity Seattle-King County 560 Naches Ave.SW,Suite 110 Renton,WA 98057 Direct-206-866-7617 Mobile-253-230-9160 Email: khunter@habitatskc.org Web:www.habitatskc.org 2 Habitat for Humanity and the Greater Westway Neighborhood About Habitat SKC and Westway In addition to building or renovating homes, Habitat's work can have a profound impact on transforming communities.One such community is Westway,in Federal Way,a community of 136 homes.Westway was once a HUD award-winning national benchmark for affordable home ownership. It attracted families because of the low cost but they didn't have the means to make repairs.Over the years it became downtrodden and blighted with a large number of foreclosed and vacant homes.There were slum lords and deplorable housing conditions.Vacancies, disrepair,and crime were prevalent including illegal dog fights,gang activity, reckless endangerment,assaults and drug trafficking. Vacant homes and carports were an eyesore, often filled with trash,abandoned mattresses,refrigerators and other junk.According to City of Federal Way Police Department Commander Stephan Neal,Westway"was entrenched in crime and criminal behavior to the point the daily lives of everyone who lived in Federal Way were taken over by crime and a criminal element.""Safety was such a concern that you didn't even want to drive through there.It made me uncomfortable."says Susan Honda,City of Federal Way Councilmember. In 2002,Build the Bridge Community Coalition was formed. A group of civic, business, education and nonprofit organizations,including Habitat Seattle-King County,AmeriCorps, Franciscan Health System and the City of Federal Way combined forces to drive out crime and improve living conditions in the neighborhood.The Federal Way police department also began its Weed and Seed program that same year. From 2005-2011,38 homes were repaired or rehabbed. Building on this success,the City of Federal Way awarded a Neighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP)grant to Habitat SKC to acquire and renovate vacant or foreclosed homes over the past three years.To date, 10 additional homes have been acquired and renovated through this program.The homes dedicated in June were the 47th and 48th homes completed in the Westway area and the 9th and 10th under the NSP program. While Habitat's focus is on housing,it takes a holistic community development approach.We focus on the neighborhood.We work in partnership rather than isolation. We work with other community players together to deliver sustained community redevelopment, not band aids. It's truly been a pleasure working with the families and organizations that want Westway to be a healthy,safe,vibrant place to live.We would like to acknowledge the tireless and dedicated efforts of the Build the Bridge Coalition and the City of Federal way and its Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Efforts by other community groups included the building of a neighborhood playground and a soccer field.The police opened a substation at the entrance of the neighborhood that remained in place until recently when it moved across the street.The City installed street lights.These are just some of the community efforts in addition to our work. Impact We consider our work successful if it builds both houses and community.We believe the revitalization of a neighborhood begins the moment its residents become actively involved in shaping their own future.And that ongoing civic engagement is essential to establishing a sustainably healthy community.We listen to our homebuyers and their neighbors.When they talk about a sense of safety,cohesion,trust and friendship in their neighborhood,when they tell us they feel like part of a healthy,supportive community,then we're truly home.We feel we have achieved that in Westway. Impact includes: Crime is drastically reduced now. It's no different than many other communities in Federal Way,according to Commander Neal.Fewer vacant homes means less vandalism.Fewer places for gangs to hang out or drug deals to occur. The neighborhood at the beginning was very resistant,very fearful,and lacked trust in the police and other community agencies.That has changed now.The community is very comfortable;they reach out to law enforcement.They are very welcoming to having them in their neighborhood. It's a safe community. Improved quality of life The work done by the City and local churches and Habitat coming together has raised the quality of life in Westway.Westway is now one of Federal Way's more affordable and liveable neighborhoods for low income and middle income people according to Councilmember Honda. It's a place where you want to buy a home and have your children play. No longer the place of last resort "It's amazing what going into a neighborhood,repairing homes, rebuilding homes can do for your sense of pride.It's really amazing what it's done for the people who live there. It was not the neighborhood you went to because you wanted to,you went because it was the only place you could afford.We now have people who want to live there and before we didn't,"says Councilmember Honda. Habitat homeowners are invested in the community,it matters to them There has been a huge change in relationships within the community. Neighbors who had lived next door to each other for decades,who had never spoken or had a conversation with one another,are now working with one another on their homes.They're getting involved in community celebrations and taking pride in their community.New relationships are developing every day. It used to be that when churches and other community groups had clean up days you wouldn't get much help from the residents. It would be mainly the volunteers. Now when there are clean up days there are more residents than volunteers.Residents now know their neighbors which they didn't before;they are willing to help their neighbors. Healthy HOA—community participation The HOA was barely functional and almost bankrupt.At one point it had only$5 in the bank. People were suspicious of each other and the board.The HOA has completely turned around in the last couple of years. It's not only become active but it's also now viable.They have money in their bank account and the residents pay their dues.According to the current HOA president, "Every time Habitat would rehab a home we went from someone who wasn't paying the dues to someone who was. Habitat takes it and turns it into something with curb appeal.And brings in a responsible person. " Community spirit and pride of ownership-Habitat homeowners are invested in the community,it matters to them All I can say is if it wasn't for Habitat it would not have happened.No city initiative could have done this.There's a personal aspect to Habitat you can't minimize.You cannot replace the personal side—the pride of ownership that people put into it.These people are really invested and the only way you can turn around a community is by bringing people in who care about their homes. The success of Habitat is not just about renovating and flipping. Their success is due to moving people in who care about their neighborhood and not just their house. Habitat has taken some of the worst homes and completely transformed them. A neighborhood can go one of two ways. If homes are neglected and left unchanged,that neglect will eventually spread from house to house. If homes once neglected begin to be improved,that improvement will also spread from house to house. When one neighbor sees another caring about their home,it can have an amazing impact on them. They,maybe for the first time,think,l can do that. Before Habitat,that sense of pride and community was completely non-existent. Habitat's work has impacted the entire community in a way that's much bigger than just the Habitat homes. It didn't just benefit the families who bought the homes but it also made a huge difference to the families that have been there for years." Roger Maggio,Windermere Real Estate eliminating racism empowering women !" ywCa1118 Fifth Avenue Seattle,WA 98101 Seattle I King I Snohomish February 2,2015 Margaret H. Clark,Principal Planner City of Federal Way RE: Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Update—Housing Element Dear Ms.Clark, On behalf of YWCA Seattle I King I Snohomish,we are submitting comments in this letter related to the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan update. Our YWCA works to eliminate racism and empower women. We serve more than 50,000 people a year with services in King and Snohomish Counties. For over 49 years,our YWCA has operated programs in South King County. Over the years,we have served thousands of South King County residents. Unfortunately,we have also had to turn away thousands of people because of limited capacity in our community. The ability to access shelter and safe,affordable housing are by far the greatest needs presented to our staff on a daily basis. We applaud statements in the plan that address the importance of continuing to meet basic needs of Federal Way residents such as food,clothing,shelter and the opportunity to live a healthy,active,safe and sustainable lifestyle. It should be possible for working people to afford housing and still have enough money for the basics like groceries and gas and child care. Everyone should have the opportunity to live in a safe,healthy,affordable home. The 2015 One Night Count identified 105 individuals without shelter in Federal Way. This number does not include the many more homeless individuals and families staying in emergency shelters,with friends and family or in other non-permanent housing. Additionally,it is assumed to be an undercount,because we do not count everywhere,and because many people take great care not to be visible. In the most recent report,297 students in the Federal Way School District were identified as homeless. One of the best ways to prevent and address homelessness is to ensure quality permanently affordable housing is available for very low and low-income households. According to the U.S. Dept.of Housing and Urban Development,households who pay more than 30%of their income for housing are considered cost-burdened,putting them at risk of homelessness. give help.get help. ywcaworks.org We urge the City to adopt policies and implement strategies to promote housing affordable to Federal Way residents that make less than 30%AMI. Almost one in three Federal Way renter households pay over 50%of income in housing costs. In order to increase affordable housing options,we ask that the City support non-profit organizations during siting and when applying for county,state,and federal funding. We urge Federal Way's leaders to support legislation at the state or federal level that addresses housing needs,especially robust funding for the State Housing Trust Fund. We also urge adoption of policies that promote additional funding for rehabilitation,energy efficiency,and weatherization. Our YWCA also encourages the City to continue to collaborate with other jurisdictions and human service agencies to increase capacity,find cost-efficiencies and develop a coordinated regional approach. We ask that the City expand and strengthen the range of development incentives so that Federal Way's neighborhoods continue to offer a diverse range of housing options. We urge the retention of HP 25 that requires a portion of new housing to be affordable. From our many years of serving South King County residents,we know firsthand that transportation can be a huge barrier to accessing housing,jobs and services. We support efforts that provide access for low-income households to transit opportunities and to provide affordable housing in mixed-use neighborhoods near transportation and job opportunities. In closing,we applaud the City of Federal Way for the work done to date to develop specific plans and look forward to the implementation. Federal Way's comprehensive plan update provides you a great opportunity to explore what policies are necessary to create a diverse, inclusive, and affordable community for all of Federal Way's residents.We very much value our partnership with the City and look forward to working together for the benefit of Federal Way residents. Thank you for your consideration. Liz Mills Director of Advocacy and Policy a ExHiBrr PROJECT MEMO TO: Planning Conrriseion Chair Medhurst DATE: February 4,2015 Members of the Federal Way Planning Commission CC: lasso Conlan&Mad Herrera,City of Federal Way NOM: ©ornresalolter Wayne Coition SUBJECT: Notes on Proposed Amendments to Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 9.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT GOALS AND POLICIES CommenttWC111 t c t l.311 n Ibetter r . . a;a trt, i.aI `sr ..,'e it -.i ',Loft C tir val• Cbmatent(WC2}:Tnczrract use of Figure 1 Example of proposed residential subdivision that seigpkgaentscomplements.natural surroundings. -- This is the language included in Source AHBL,Inc,courtesy of Puget Sounct Partnership P5A4-(2005) the act..1::ut btt a .t a:_toe ;de!.S Fa::ne111ap ::.eu lSui' tsr cltr;:.• tw.•, I11A..tC_tior. in 5:14 1:A. I; :ct .e t 'ft^'rio..E 9.2 WATER RESOURCES a a:fort )Comment[WC3J:x!_i. the :cdai_)e:Ad ,A:. is l`Ort_,:, ii Rea` .....•• coat .:t pAscc in t+.:A ^'ru gl.o+1 ntixatt . ..'.er•: ars lot, sf otour yt;:ea nr I-yule lt,z int:dencu voter"iafixa,:Ci I think thst :;he The City will permit development in a manner that iscuttsist ot with ft menu!SIESE1116 Act orovlsllns, Clean ir„tor rct a i nova through I' 3=apslr to:truCtior. protects water quality,and ensures continued ecological and hydrologic functioning of water resources. ilii Ir.:u•tt:el :1E3r1 remits oPd Protection should include maintenance of stream base flows,allowance of natural water level fluctuations in the Stetof rl.rhit-ta:at-rs a•_, ` guSoal, h..v _raver irsa on the wetlands,aquifer recharge,and stream corridor habitat preservation.Due to the limited capacity of the �.tt,'S ynsz rsScnrsl. underlying aquifers and increased water demand,the City also encourages groundwater conservation measures. r .au_',:4e4,to the tater At....c to the BSA in o.:11 the rvri.d atothvt leJieletioncs.well. Page 1o13 r NEP22 The City should adopt rggt'tititions that are adettuste to protect environmentally critical areas.but do not I Continent(WC 3.ereeumeyy bl this is !already occurred. unreasonably hinder private property rights. neasas it should be re-written as'follows: "Ate City should carefully review 'futons flModosnts to the City's NEPaO2$The City should encourage the retention of surface water runoff in wetlands,regional retention q.mNrokmptelly Grit/old areae facilities,arid-detention ponds,and low impact development stormwater facilities,or use other similar a s� reds now Po t?.. _ provisiow do sot oaswsaably stormwater management techniques to promote aquifer recharge. hinder private pecosety right.. COpnttWC5]:Retention and NEP22Q_The City should establish land use and building controls to use stormwater Infiltration such as low ! mns detention facilities are different. 'If the goal is aquifer enhancement, impact deveMpment and green stormwater glhasErtirgtychniaueswherever feasible,and to minimize the 'then detention ponds should be amount of Impervious surface created by development. i stricken from the list. Detention ponds are not encouraged, but certainly can be used where infiltration-based practices are NEP46 Impacts to wetlands eftoitid-stroll be limited All efforts should be made to use the following not feasible. mitigation sequencing approach:avoid,minimize, rectify,reduce over time,compensate,and monitor 'Delete reference to detention ponds. NEP50 The City's wetland inventory will be updated when new delineations and ratings are'submitted �CMbAgnt[WLb7tltre yon using the term for impact development and teaooroved b j the City green stormarater infrastructure interchabgeeyly or do they mean eoestkikg different to you? I ask this begaase it is a discussion that Ibpi during the first week. with•y Students et the University of mashibgtOn. cootim s w•a''ihs word •limited .lsvady providae 04idatiity that duan not neon fbrtlwr weakening by 'the,word'ehinlds. t cewasnttWC$lime timing of the i arondment of the City's wetland abed should be it the time that the delineation and assessment is approved. I've seen more than a few instances where the local municipality is not in agreement with the initially submitted delineation and Anent'report. Project MemoPROJECT MEMO Page 2 of 3 NEP564 Limit disturbances in Llandslide hazard areas.should be free of development,unless the risks and adverse impacts associated with such devetoprsent can be reduced to a negligible level Establish I setbacks landslide hazard areas to avoid risks to life safety and. {Comment[WC9):Replace *beyond the property damage. j perimeter of„," with -beyond thea j NE1368Oramete-Mainuansolt stability by retaining vegetation in geologically hazardous areas. •Comment tWCiOliReplace "Promote.? with `Maintain-" NEP1tt0 Provide noise reduction and mitigation measures to reduce the npise and visual impacts;of Comment(WCtlj wast dons this Interstate 5 and arterials on residential areas.Ensure the Washington State Department of mean? is the city providing noise ,reduction snd.mitigation measures Transportation provides appropriate levels of noise suppression when improving state highways. in concert with USPOT as a snared responsibility? I think that the policy should be divided between 1state highways and City:streets so I that there is no ammiquity that the Estate is responsible for its noise impacts. I have not divided this into two policies or one teat is clearer. -Staff should take the lead on this. 4 C:WsarnnaecadsoniDesktpiFWMemo.docx 4. Project MemoPROJECT MEMO Page 3 of 3 t. L�- -c-t- n -4.4" G...,,NY�-• \A ,•ti8 . tV.�T48 Here are some thoughts that I feel should be inserted into the `Intro and 9.1' section.. In each case I have tried to include some words that precede the suggested additions: I think it is essential to introduce our remarks and additions with the intent of demanding that the City go beyond existing GMA areas and exercise the role of the City in serving the economic needs of the citizens as well. Not to do so leaves the citizens unprotected from narrowly focused environmental goals. This entire document reflects virtually NO consideration for the needs and values of the individual property owners and their purposes--economic and lifestyle. It seems to presume that the `natural environment' of Federal Way can only be what existed long before the City was formed... In the `INTRO'... • ...Busines and citizens ke location decisions... • ...economic v uwbt a City. Much of the natural environment of Federal Way is a result of the selection, planting, and maintenance of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation by individual citizens and the City. Maintaining this greenery for the economic benefit to the City and • • ens is an es I . t i , ,. . • ... storm drainage facilities. Likewise proper trimming and removal of trees and other major vegetation helps mitigate storm damage, reduce tical outages, s well as preserve the valuable views and overall t citizens enjoy. The City must support these essential activities to protect the economic value so derived. In 9.1... After `... economic development... (insert) ...the economic benefit to local property owners, ... (before and private property rights) After the �y ., ' , • • .... ... watercourses, and vegetation. (add) Much of the vegetation in Federal Way has been chosen and maintained by the City and the citizens to enhance the beauty and value to the public and the private property owners. This : it a valuable part of the natural en • . •• . Matt Herrera From: Peter Townsend<petert8@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 04,2015 6:49 PM To: Matt Herrera Subject: Comp Plan Meeting Feb 1-Policy on Natural Environment Attachments: Summary of Comments on 5712-SN-PDF Converter Professional 8.1.docx Hello Matt, You and all the Planning Dept staff have been very helpful on our issues and I know our good relationship will continue. However,when I sense problems on the horizon,I try to address them squarely. Help!I have some issues with consultants/staff recent strike out Policy notes. If some of the detail in these notes is not right,it will be very bad because you will want to force the revised ordinance to conform to bad policy in the first place. It may be that you do not have enough time to a proper job. The original material was not to well done and many of the problems are still there. E.g,if new businesses coming into the Weyerhaeuser property saw this section of our Environmental Code Policy, I do not think that they be very impressed. It reads as though it is only written for policy wonks instead of for the public. Some additional items really belong in the ordinance,not in the policy statement. Reading it,you cannot see the wood for the trees.It needs good editing. This document should be written for the citizen to easily understand. Sections of code from somewhere,maybe PSRC, have been lifted wholesale and inserted when it really calls for plain,direct English. There are abbreviations that are not explained for the public. Some of it looks as it has literally been thrown together. I think that the Planning Commission should demand a higher standard of work product coming before them. My philosophy is to get anything I do better than it was before,easier to read and mare reasonable if necessary. 1.I contacted Steve Neugebauer,an engineer/hydrologist that I have used.He has been Chairman of Duvall,WA Planning Commission 2006-9. He does a lot of consulting on critical areas in the Northwest and is very knowledgeable on the various environmental laws. 2.He said that their City was 2 years behind and they got it caught up in 6 months. 3.He mentioned the City of Auburn and Pierce County next door to us where there have been some taking or potential taking issues. 4.On the Mark up sheets that you sent us,there are many,many pages to go through:he said that this is impossible before tonight's meeting. 1 5.I asked him to review your material.See the icon below below for some of his initial thoughts on the short summary that you sent out. 6.Some of his initial email comments included: a.There are certainly takings that are not realized in some of the staff'consultants's suggested changes. b.He mentioned the need to ask key staff members,consultants and planning commission members,and City council members if they are conversant with and understand the prescribed reading of the Dec 2006 Atty General Advisory Memo on Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property.RCW.36.70A.370.This includes warning signs of where this could be happening. I sent your draft to two friends in our community on Monday.One has the flu and the other had no time available before tonight.We just need more time and then have a meeting with you and the consultant. Thanks for including the article about protection of private property ownership.I would like it to be further up in the material and also inserted right at the beginning of the Comp Plan if possible. I would like to have another week with my Marine View Estate Neighbors to give you a detailed response before the Commission responds finally to your input. Our community did this with you on the Trees and Grading regulation and it included two three meetings with Janet Shull on a collaborative basis.The end result was acceptable to the City and to us.We can do the same with you on a.Policy, and b.the Revised Ordinance. Sony for being a bit long winded but I think that we can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. See you at the meeting. Peter 2 CITY OF Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: January 30,2015 TO: Tom Medhurst,Chair and Members of the Federal Way Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Herrera,AICP—Senior Planner Isaac Conlen—Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2015 Major Comprehensive Plan Update Proposed Amendments to Chapter 9—Natural Environment ATTACHMENT: Chapter 9—Natural Environment Track Changes Clean copy accessed here: http://www.cityoffederalway.com/DocumentCenterNiew/5710 MEETING DATE: February 4,2015—Briefing I. BACKGROUND Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(4),the City of Federal Way is required to update the comprehensive plan every eight years to ensure the plan complies the State's Growth Management Act(GMA). The deadline for this update is June 30,2015.An extensive background discussion was provided in the staff report for the July 2,2014,Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the chapter showing all of the proposed underline and strikethrough changes is attached.For your convenience,a clean copy that details how the proposed changes would look can be accessed at: http://wvvw.cityoffederalway.com/DocumentanterNiew/5710 H. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE PROCESS Planning Commission Briefings—Staff will provide edits to the existing chapters in Track Changes format to the Planning Commission for their input and feedback. Edits to Chapters—Staff will incorporate Commission requested edits to the chapter following the briefing and prior to the public hearing. Planning Commission Public Hearing—All amended chapters of the plan will be presented to the Planning Commission at one public hearing.At this point,the Planning Commission will have already substantively reviewed the entire comprehensive plan in the earlier chapter-by-chapter format.The only new material would be any edits that the Commission had requested during the earlier review.From a timing perspective,it will be important that the Commission understands this and does not re-open or reconsider the issues that have been agreed to in the earlier chapter-by- K\Planning Commission\2015\2-4-2014\Staff Report.docx Summary of Comments on 5712 - SN - PDF Converter Professional 8.1 This page contains no comments chapter review. IlL STREAMLINING THE PLAN Staff is proposing to make the document easier to use by providing a short preamble for each chapter subsection,creating a clear focus on the goals and policies,and deleting superfluous language from the existing chapter.This is a theme throughout the entire comprehensive plan major update process. IV. CHAPTER 9—NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The goals and policies of the Natural Environment Chapter provide a basis to protect the GMA-re identified environmentally critical areas which are: • Wetlands; • Areas with a Critical Recharging Effect o• , ..• • used for Potable Water; • Fish and Wildlife Habitat a ton Areas; • Frequently Flooded Ar•. I • Geologically Hazardous Areas. The chapter also provides goals and policies for other aspects of the natural environment including tree preservation,air quality/climate change,noise,and open space. V. PROPOSED EDITS The edits proposed by staff incorporate feedback gathered in the public partici!): ••n process,best practices,and recommendations from state agencies.Staff has also propo • -4 its that remove superfluous background,dated information,and goals/policies that ar- ' corporated in other planning documents.The following is a summary(in order)of s antive edits to the Na . Environment Chapter: • Removed former King County Countywide P . ing Policies(KCWPP om each sub section and replaced with overarching environ goals of updated KC '',Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040 Plan,and GMA. • NEP6—New policy adding the practice of mitig: '• sequencing for proposal that impact critical areas.Government and private proposals s •. • attempt to stay out of critical areas if possible. • NEP9-New policy codifying • •epartment's recent practice of requiring applicants to test soils in areas that may be ..:�;ted by the Tacoma Smelter Plume as recommended by the stat Department of Ecology. l • NEP10—Amended policy for environmental studies to recommended mitigation •r impacts caused by proposed development not only to environmentally critical areas bb • o to contaminated sites or proposed development that may cause contamination. • Private Property Rights—This is a new subsection in the chapter's overarching goals and policies. This stems from feedback received in the stakeholder interviews and public workshop. Page:2 / Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:14:03 PM If I were the City, I would defer all wetlands that are jurisdictional to the Corps of Engineers.This protects the City from enforcement actions by the Corps or USEPA(if the City makes a decision the Corps does not agree with,the City can be fined for violations of the Clean Water Act and these fines are$37,500 per day per violation.The City of Auburn got into trouble with the Corps because the City allowed a wetland to be filled without a Section 404 permit. The best thing the City can do is to only regulate those wetlands the Corps has determined are not jurisdictional. Fish and Wildlife Habitat conservation areas are already incorporated into the WDFW hydraulic code.It would save the City a lot of time and money to simply have the WDFW make the determinations on fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas since they will be involved with these anyway if any land disturbances are conducted. AuthorSteve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:19:58 PM These are relatively rare and typically pertain to lakes,ponds,and marine shorelines. It is NOT the same as the 1%floodplain(this only occurs about once every 100 years).The FEMA FIRM maps are not scientific they are flood insurance rate maps that are prepared for determining flood insurance rates for those who live in or near a floodplain. Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:25:40 PM Why is the City using the Puget Sound Regional County Vision?The GMA is created for the citizens of a community to determine what the goals should be not an NGO(non-government organization). It is unclear why the King County planning policies or the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision are being used,since each Comprehensive plan is supposed to represent what the citizens of the municipality want not the opinions of others. Author Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:31:12 PM This is NOT a wise idea.The ASARKO smelter is listed as a federal Superfund site and the pollutants from this facility are supposed to be addressed under the Superfund, not under municipal code. What the City is doing is making property owners potentially responsible parties(PRPs)even though they had nothing to do with the ASARKO Super Fund site.This means that if contaminants are present,the USEPA would need to address this,not the property owner. I would not include anything recommended by the Department of Ecology because this can lead to real problems for property owners,the city and the USEPA. Unless the USEPA will pay to clean up each affected property. / Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:33:32 PM Do not wrap this into the municipal code,especially in the comprehensive plan.This falls into the USEPA and Ecology venues under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,CERCLA(Superfund),and the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA)administered by Ecology. • Water Resources—Removed a portion of the section's preamble,goal NEG2,and its associated policies NEP8—NEPI8.This language is already located in the Surface Water Management Comprehensive Plan.Staff has cross-referenced the document for streamlining purposes. • Aquifer Recharge Areas—Aquifer protection was an area of concern at the public workshop. o Staff amended the overall goal NEG3"To protect and enhance aquifer recharge areas." o NEP20 was amended to include Low Impact Development and Green Stormwater Infrastructure techniques wherever feasible in land use/building controls. o NEP21 is a new policy that encourages water reuse and reclamation for irrigation and other non-potable water needs. • Streams and Lakes(Surface Water)—NEP34 is amended to add language at encourages native rilj planting and limiting the use of fertilizers/pesticides or other chemicals in lake environments. Habitat degradation in lake environments was a feedback item from the public workshop and stakeholder interviews. NEP35 is amended to add language regarding water typing for streams that provide protections to salmon and salmon habitat.Ultimately,staff will recommend standardizing the stream rating system with the state system when updating the development regulations.Standardizing rating systems for streams and wetlands is feedback that staff heard prior to and throughout the update process. • Frequently Flooded Areas—Preamble identifies that floodplains are located along the Puget Sound shoreline and regulated by the Shoreline Master Program. o Amendment to goal NEG6 to include the prevention of loss of habitat. o New policies NEP41 and NEP42 discourage new improvements in floodplains unless fully mitigated and all approved construction follow recommendations of a Habitat Assessment, respectively. • Wetlands—These edits reflect feedback we received for resource protection and standardi ion of rating/mitigation.Best Available Science is also reflected in these edits. o New policy NEP46 recommends limited impacts to wetlands and identifies the mit'_ation sequencing steps. o New policy NEP47 is added for the importance of wetland buffers. o New policy NEP51 encourages the adoption of the state's wetland rating syste o New policy NEP55 encourages the city to consider a partnership with the King County Mitigation Reserves program for offsite mitigation options. • Geologically Hazardous Areas—New policies NEP62,NEP65,and NEP66 are added for professional study and analysis associated with proposed construction,utilization of erosion control best practices,and encouraging vegetation retention. Staff removed the existing policy NEP59 that encouraged special regulations to address improvements near marine bluffs as this was an issue that was rejected in the SMP update process. Staff also removed the existing policy NEP60 that encouraged the development of special regulations that would allow development on or near marine bluffs only if the applicant could substantiate the improvement(s)had less than a 25 percent chance of failure.The 25 percent Page:3 Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:36:33 PM How many hydrogeologists did the City consult for this change?How do you enhance an aquifer recharge area? This assumes that there-is a regional,-near surface,unconfined-aquifer-in the area, however,SNR has not observed these in the Puget Lowlands in any areas other than the marine shorelines. ` Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:39:29 PM Why?How are native plants any different from other plants?What BAS is the City relying on?Where are the studies that suggest grass lawns produce more nutrients and pollutants than the forest litter,duff,and humus that naturally occurs?The runoff from forested areas always have much higher levels of nutrients and pollutants than grass lawns. �❑Author:Steve Subject:Highlight Date:2/2/2015 2:36:55 PM Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:41:01 PM How does water typing meet BAS requirements especially when no one seems to be able to accurately identify streams in Federal Way.It would be better to improve the definition for streams so that non-streams are not , identified as streams. / Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:44:47 PM NO!!!!Wetlands only make up 2%of the states land area(Ecology and the USGS)and 90%of these wetlands are in marine shoreline areas.The City would be better served to not regulate ANY jurisdictional wetlands(those that are federally regulated,which is most of the streams and rivers in this state and most of the wetlands).The City should amend the code to only regulate isolated wetlands(as determined by the Corps or USEPA)under their critical ares ordinance. Fines can get very costly at$37,500 per day per violation of-the Clean Water Act. threshold is a difficult measure to quantify.Further,staff believes a one in four chance of failure is too high to allow. • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas-Added preamble language that describes which areas GMA identifies as habitat conservation areas.These two new policies reflect feedback obtained at the public workshop. o Added new policy NEP74 that supports community and non-profits efforts for restoration. o Added new policy NEP75 that continues support for the Spring Valley property acquisition. o New policies NEP78 and NEP79 minimize lighting around habitat areas without compromising public safety. • Tree Preservation-New goal and policies added to reflect feedback from stakeholder interviews and public workshop.Policies incentivize tree retention,encourage only minimal modification to vegetation in critical areas,and discourage topping of healthy trees.Workshop,survey,and interview feedback identified this as an important issue. • Air Quality and Climate Change-Added new preamble,goal,and policies that reflect the GMA requirement to include comprehensive plan language regarding climate change.The following are all newly added: o NEG12 promotes land use and transportation that minimize pollution. o NEP87 encourages building techniques that mitigate the effects of a' ution. o NEP90 encourages compact growth in appropriate zones. o NEP91-NEP93 supports alternative modes to vehicle use. o NEP94,NEP95,NEP97,NEP98 supports city programs mplement energy efficiency and climate change considerations. o NEP96 encourages new development to incorporate green building certifications. • Noise-New NEP100 supporting noise reduction measures from impacts to Interstate 5 and arterials on residential areas.Removed NEP73 as the city is no longer located in the 65dn1(day- night average sound level)contour. • Open Space-New policy 105 supports connections to critical areas as habitat corridors.New policies NEP108 and NEP109 supports safety programs in parks and open space which were added as a result of feedback from the public workshop. • Staff removed the Implementation subsection as all of the items have been completed. Page:4 Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:47:32 PM All of these should be rejected,there is no need and the municipalities cut their own throats by buy up private property because there are zero tax revenues for property owned by the City(or state).What Best Available Science supports the lighting issues? / Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 2:57:34 PM Citizens should be able to remove any vegetation they want on their property unless the City wants to purchase the property. It is unclear how the City can use the police powers to control what property owners can do on their own property. However, if the City wants to include this,it should include reasons why the City would have a right to conduct eminent domain takings simply to prevent tree and shrub cutting activities on properties,plus the costs would be extremely high if the City were to take ownership of every property where trees and shrubs cannot be removed.This is clearly an abuse of the State's police power and can be very costly to the city,especially if it can be determined that the city imposed inverse condemnation or or otherwise impacted the rights of property owners, including rights pursuant to the State of Washington constitution Section 1,Article 16 and the 5th and 14th Amendments.The City should not impose a tree preservation plan on private property because this an lead to a land devaluation,such as a marine shoreline property with a beautiful view if it were not obscured by trees and shrubs. If the property taken is worth$5,000 or more it is possible that the City staff will have committed a class B felony and possibly a civil rights violation for violations of constitutional rights. Author:Steve Subject:Sticky Note Date:2/2/2015 3:09:47 PM NO.Global warming has been occurring for the last 11,000 years.The City of Federal Way was under approximately 1 kilometer of ice about 12,500 years ago.We are now in an interstade(there have been at least 8 different continental glaciation events in the Puget Lowlands,.all of thesehappened before humans could have any impact. Each ice age retreated as the global warming of an Interstade occurs.All of these warming events occurred before any humans were driving cars or burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. There is NO direct evidence that carbon dioxide is causing global warming since this did not occur when the interstates occurred in the past. In fact we are in an ongoing Interstade which is global warming that is not caused by carbon dioxide.This is a waste of money. If the City has any properties that are located within 5 feet of mean sea level,the City could construct a levee system similar to what Holland has to protect these properties,because blaming carbon for the interstades that created global warming is a bit difficult considering that these events have been occurring since the beginning of the Pleistocene 1.8 million years ago and that most of the advances into Washington state occurred in the last 800,000 years. Humans and carbon dioxide cannot be blamed on this cycle because there were no humans burning copious quantities of fossil fuels when each Interstade began. CITY OF LL vv �.•'^ CITY HALL Ahi. GJo �I � __._., 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 (253)835-7000 www.cityoffederahvay.corn Jim Ferrell, Mayor May 13,2015 Mr.Martin Cannon 29437 10th Avenue SW Federal Way,WA 98023 Re: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Dear Mr.Cannon: Thank you for your comments and suggestions regarding the Natural Environment Element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWCP).The Natural Environment Element provides goals and policies,in part,for the protection of environmentally critical areas within the City.Protection of these areas is a requirement of the State Growth Management Act(GMA)and is implemented in the zoning and development code. Below I have provided responses to written comments you provided to me during our meeting at City Hall on February 13,2015. For context,I have provided your comment in its entirety first and City response second. Comment#1 Mr.Cannon Here are some thoughts that I feel should be inserted into the`Intro and 9.1'section.In each case I have tried to include some words that precede the suggested additions: I think it is essential to introduce our remarks and additions with the intent of demanding that the Citygo beyond the existing GMA areas and exercise the role of the City in serving the economic needs of the citi<ens as well.Not to do so leaves the atkens unprotected from narrowlyfocused environmental goals. This entire document reflects virtually NO consideration for the needs and values of the individual property owners and theirpurposes—economic and lifestyle.It seems to presume that the `natural environment'of Federal Way can only be what existed long before the City was formed... City Response Amendments to the element also include goals and policies that aim to recognize private property rights(see NEG2 and NEP11 through NEP17),provide a level of inter-jurisdictional consistency for permit applicants (see NFP35,NEP49,and NEP51),and allow flexibility in vegetation management on single-family residential lots (see NEP80).Below I have provided responses to your suggestions for text amendments to the draft document that was presented to the Planning Commission on February 4,2015. Mr.Martin Cannon Page 2 May 13,2015 Comment#2 Mr. Cannon In the`INTRO'... • ...Businesses and citizens make location decisions.... • ...economic vitality of the City.Much of the natural environment of Federal IVay it a result of the selection, planting,and maintenance of trees,shrubs,and other vegetation by individual citizens and the Ciy.Maintaining this greeneryfor the economic benefzt of theCity and citizens is an essential role of the City(emphasis added, originaltype in red font). • ...storm drainage facilities.Likewise proper trimming and removal of trees and other major vegetation helps mitigate storm damage,reduce electrical outages,as well as preserve the valuable views and overall surroundings that citizens enjoy. The City must support these essential activities to protect the economic value so derived (emphasis added,original in red font). City Response Staff agrees to your suggestion to add citizens to the following sentence:`Businesses and citizens also make location decision based on quality of life factors and therefore the quality of the natural environment is also important to the economic vitality of the City."Staff will incorporate the change to the draft for Planning Commission review and recommendation. The proposed addition of language regarding planting,maintenance,proper trimming,and removal of trees within the introduction affords a level of specificity to the section beyond its purpose as a broad overview for the entire Natural Environment element.Therefore,staff will not recommend the addition. Comment#3 Mr. Cannon In 9.1... After`...economic development...(insert)...the economic benefit to lacalproperty owners,(empbasir added, • original type in redfont)...(before and private property rights) City Response The proposed addition of"economic benefit to the local property owners"within the Environmental Stewardship subsection is redundant as economic development is already included in the sentence.It is generally understood that economic development provides economic benefit to local property owners,and therefore, staff will not recommend the addition. Comment#4 Mr. Canon After the first sentence in`Policies'.... ...watercourses,and vegetation. (add)Much of the vegetation in Federal Way has been chosen and maintained by the Cay and the citizens to enhance the beauy and value to the public and private property owners. This too(is)a valuable part of the natural environment of the City(emphasis added,original type in red font). Mr.Martin Cannon Page 3 May 13,2015 City Response The proposed addition of specific information regarding vegetation in"Policies"within the Environment Stewardship section adds specificity to a topic that is meant to cover a broad area,and therefore,staff will not recommend the addition. Closing Again,thank you for your comments on the comprehensive plan update.Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this letter or the update process.You may reach me at 253-835- 2638,or matt.herrera@n,cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Vir Matthew Herrera,AICP Senior Planner • K:\Critical Areas Ordinance Update\MCannon Response.docx 41/4, CITY OF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South ..' Federal Way Federal Way,WA 98003-6325 (253)835-7000 www.cityoffederalwaycom Jim Ferrell, Mayor May 13,2015 Mr.Peter Townsend 1648 South 310th Street,Suite 6 Federal Way,WA 98003 Re: 2015 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update Dear Mr.Townsend: Thank you for your comments regarding the Natural Environment Element of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan(FWCP).The Natural Environment Element provides goals and policies,in part,for the protection of environmentally critical areas within the City.Protection of these areas is a requirement of the State Growth Management Act(GMA)and is implemented in the zoning and development code. Below I have provided responses to comments prepared by Steve Neugebauer on your behalf.You had stated in the email which forwarded these comments that Mr. Neugebauer is an engineer/hydrologist and former Planning Commissioner for the City of Duvall. The comments correspond to specific items in the January 30,2015,staff report to the Planning Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Natural Environment element of the FWCP.For context,I have provided the specific staff report item first,Mr.Neugebauer comment(in its entirety)regarding the staff report item second,and the City response third. Comment#1 Staff Report Item The goals and policies of the Natural Environment Chapter provide a basis to protect the GMA-identified environmentally critical areas which are: • Wetlands; • Areas with a Critical Recharging Effect on Aquifers used for Potable Water; • Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas; • Frequently Flooded Areas;and • Geologically Hazardous Areas. The chapter also provides goals and policies for other aspects of the natural environment including tree preservation,air quality/climate change,noise,and open space. Mr.Peter Townsend Page 2 May 13,2015 Mr.Neugebauer's Comment If I were the City,I would defer all wetlands that are jurisdictional to the Corps of Engineers.This protects the City from enforcement actions by the Corps or USEPA(if the City makes a decision the Corps does not agree with,the City can be fined for violations of the Clean Water Act and these fines are$37,500 per day per violation.The City of Auburn got into trouble with the Corps because the City allowed a wetland to be filled without a Section 404 permit. The best thing the City can do is to only regulate those wetlands the Corps has determined are not jurisdictional. Fish and Wildlife Habitat conservation areas are already incorporated into the WDFW hydraulic code.It would save the City a lot of time and money to simply have the WDFW make the determinations on fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas since they will be involved with these anyway if any land disturbances are conducted. (Frequently flooded areas)are relatively rare and typically pertain to lakes,ponds,and marine shorelines.It is NOT the same as the 1%floodplain(this only occurs about once every 100 years).The FEMA FIRM maps are not scientific they are flood insurance rate maps that are prepared for determining flood insurance rates for those who live in or near a floodplain. City Response The Washington State Growth Management Act(GMA)requires all cities to designate and protect critical areas with wetlands being one of the five critical areas defined by GMA.The City does not have the option of simply deferring to the Army Corps of Engineers for all wetland matters.Additionally,the Corps does not regulate wetland buffers so it is appropriate for the City to regulate impacts to this critical area.Proposed impacts to wetlands can be reviewed concurrently for impacts by the City,State Department of Ecology,and Army Corps of Engineers utilising the joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application(JARPA)and State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA).Following any City approval to impact a wetland,it is the applicant's responsibility to move forward with state and federal permitting prior to construction. Fish and wildlife habitat areas are one of the five critical areas defined by GMA which require designation and protection.Proposed impacts to streams or lakes less than 20 acres are can be reviewed concurrently with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)with JARPA and SEPA.For water bodies,WDFW only reviews impacts below the Ordinary High Water Mark.Impacts to the buffer are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction and for that reason the City cannot simply defer to WDFW. Frequently flooded areas are one of the five critical areas defined by GMA which require designation and protection.To clarify,at a minimum frequently flooded areas are those areas that have a one percent chance of flooding in 100 years.The City's frequently flooded areas are within the Shoreline Master Program(SMP) overlay along the marine shoreline.The Critical Areas Ordinance(CAO)update will cross reference to the SMP(which is not being updated) for frequently flooded areas regulations. Mr.Peter Townsend Page 3 May 13,2015 Comment#2 Staff Report Item Removed former King County Countywide Planning Policies (KCWPP) from each sub section and replaced with overarching environment goals of updated KCWPP,Puget Sound Regional Council Vision 2040 Plan, and GMA. Mr.Neugebauer's Comment Why is the City using the Puget Sound Regional County Vision?The GMA is created for the citizens of a community to determine what the goals should be not an NGO (non-government organization).It is unclear why the King County planning policies or the Puget Sound Regional Council Vision are being used,since each Comprehensive plan is supposed to represent what the citizens of the municipality want not the opinions of others. City Response To clarify,the Puget Sound Regional Council(PSRC)is a Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO)and governmental agency.Under federal law,MPOs are responsible for regional planning responsibilities such as transportation,economic development,and growth management.The PSRC distributes federal funding to jurisdictions within its planning boundary. The comprehensive plan is required to be consistent with PSRC policies.PSRC policies are included in the comprehensive plan to demonstrate how the City's goals and policies are consistent.King County-Wide Planning Policies are not King County's comprehensive plan policies,but instead are county-wide policies that each jurisdiction in King County must be consistent with, which again is why these policies are included in the City's comprehensive plan. The City's comprehensive plan is a planning document that is tailored for the values of the local Federal Way community,but remains consistent with the state GMA,PSRC Vision 2040 plan,and King County-Wide Planning Policies. Comment#3 Staff Report Item NEP9—New policy codifying the department's recent practice of requiring applicants to test soils in areas that may be affected by the Tacoma Smelter Plume as recommended by the state Department of Ecology. NEP10—Amended policy for environmental studies to recommended mitigation for impacts caused by proposed development not only to environmentally critical areas but also to contaminated sites or proposed development that may cause contamination Mr.Neugebauer's Comment This is NOT a wise idea.The ASARKO [sic] smelter is listed as a federal Superfund site and the pollutants from this facility are supposed to be addressed under the Superfund,not under municipal code.What the City is doing is making property owners potentially responsible parties (PRPs) even though they had nothing to do with the ASARKO Super Fund site.This means that if contaminants are present,the USEPA would need to address this,not the property owner.I would not include anything recommended by the Department of Ecology because this can lead to real problems for property owners,the city and the USEPA.Unless the USEPA will pay to clean up each affected property.Do not wrap this into the municipal code,especially in the comprehensive plan.This falls into the USEPA and Ecology venues under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,CERCLA(Superfund),and the Model Toxics Control Act(MTCA)administered by Ecology Mr.Peter Townsend Page 4 May 13,2015 City Response This policy is proposed for the Natural Environment Chapter of the comprehensive plan and is implemented when soils are disturbed in areas that have been undeveloped during the smelter's existence.The Department of Ecology provides free technical assistance to cities and property owners that may be affected by the smelter plume.The policy provides assurance that City issued construction permits adequately address any contaminated soils which may include remediation and disposal.The City has implemented this type of provision before,as have many local jurisdictions,and it has not resulted in any of the problems identified by Mr.Neugebaur.Instead,it has resulted in contaminated soils being identified and properly remediated. Comment#4 Staff Report Item Aquifer Recharge Areas—Aquifer protection was an area of concern at the public workshop. o Staff amended the overall goal NEG3"To protect and enhance aquifer recharge areas." o NEP20 was amended to include Low Impact Development and Green Stormwater Infrastructure techniques wherever feasible in land use/building controls. o NEP21 is a new policy that encourages water reuse and reclamation for irrigation and other non- potable water needs. Mr.Neugebauer's Comment How many hydrogeologists did the City consult for this change?How do you enhance an aquifer recharge area?This assumes that there is a regional,near surface,unconfined aquifer in the area,however,SNR has not observed these in the Puget Lowlands in any areas other than the marine shorelines. City Response Enhancement includes the reduction of impervious areas,when possible,which then allows natural infiltration into the ground.Allowing more infiltration opportunities will result in greater recharge to the aquifer. Comment#5 Staff Report Item Streams and Lakes(Surface Water)—NEP34 is amended to add language that encourages native planting and limiting the use of fertilizers/pesticides or other chemicals in lake environments.Habitat degradation in lake environments was a feedback item from the public workshop and stakeholder interviews. Mr.Neugebauer's Comment Why?How are native plants any different from other plants?What BAS is the City relying on?Where are the studies that suggest grass lawns produce more nutrients and pollutants than the forest litter,duff,and humus that naturally occurs?The runoff from forested areas always have much higher levels of nutrients and pollutants than grass lawns. City Response Native plants typically grow and thrive without the need to irrigate or fertilize.Additionally,native plants provide a natural buffer that removes sediment and pollutants before runoff reaches the water body.No reference to grass is mentioned in the policy,although lawns often require fertilizer to maintain their green appearance,which can impact water quality.The policy encourages the use of native plant species that Mr.Peter Townsend Page 5 May 13,2015 normally grow in and around lakes.Runoff from native forested areas is lower in quantity due to higher infiltration and transpiration opportunities.There is no evidence to support the statement that runoff from forested areas always have much higher levels of nutrients and pollutants than lawns. Comment#6 Staff Report Item NEP35 is amended to add language regarding water typing for streams that provide protections to salmon and salmon habitat.Ultimately;staff will recommend standardizing the stream rating system with the state system when updating the development regulations.Standardizing rating systems for streams and wetlands is feedback that staff heard prior to and throughout the update process. Mr.Neugebauer's Comment How does water typing meet BAS requirements especially when no one seems to be able to accurately identify streams in Federal Way?It would be better to improve the definition for streams so that non-streams are not identified as streams. City Response Staff proposes to adopt the Washington State Department of Natural Resource stream typing system.This will provide a level of consistency between the local and state review to proposed impacts.Typing will be based on fish bearing(which includes the potential under normal circumstances to be fish bearing),non-fish perennial,and non-fish seasonal.The stream definition in the proposed critical areas regulations has been amended to identify watercourses that are not streams. Comment#7 Staff Report item New policy NEP51 encourages the adoption of the state's wetland rating system. • Mr.Neugebauer's Comment NO!!!!Wetlands only make up 2%of the states [sic] land area(Ecology and the USGS) and 90%of these wetlands are in marine shoreline areas.The City would be better served to not regulate ANY jurisdictional wetlands (those that are federally regulated,which is most of the streams and rivers in this state and most of the wetlands).The City should amend the code to only regulate isolated wetlands(as determined by the Corps or USEPA) under their critical areas ordinance.Fines can get very costly at$37,500 per day per violation of the Clean Water Act. City Response The Growth Management Act requires local jurisdictions to protect and regulate critical areas,wetlands included.Again,state law does not give the City the option of deferring regulation to other agencies.The updated critical areas regulations propose to adopt the State Department of Ecology's rating system and buffer requirements.This will result in a level of consistency for review by the City,State,and Army Corps of Engineers for proposed alterations to wetlands. Comment#8 Staff Report item Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas—Added preamble language that describes which areas GMA identifies as habitat conservation areas.These two new policies reflect feedback obtained at the public workshop. Mr.Peter Townsend Page 6 May 13,2015 • Added new policy NEP74 that supports community and non-profits efforts for restoration. • Added new policy NEP75 that continues support for the Spring Valley property acquisition. • New policies NEP78 and NEP79 minimize lighting around habitat areas without compromising public safety. Mr.Neugebauer's Comment All of these should be rejected,there is no need and the municipalities cut their own throats by buy up private property because there are zero tax revenues for property owned by the City(or state).What Best Available Science supports the lighting issues? City Response Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA)are a specific critical area that is required to be regulated by the Growth Management Act.The City does not have the ability to opt-out of designating and protecting FWHCAs. Policies that support community efforts for restoration and Spring Valley property acquisition were popular issues during the public outreach process.Further,Spring Valley provides a natural stormwater retention and filtering area for impacts created upstream.Without areas dedicated to natural stormwater retention,the City must rely on artificial means,such as detention ponds,conveyance system infrastructure,etc.,to slow down and treat stormwater created from new impervious areas.Spring Valley also provides recreation opportunities for citizens to enjoy natural habitat settings. Lighting disrupts nocturnal wildlife in wetland and riparian habitats.Guidance jointly published by the federal Environmental Protection Agency,Allay Corps of Engineers,.and State Department of Ecology—Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1:Agency Policies and Guidance directs cities to include light disturbance mitigation measures in policies and regulations. Comment#9 • Staff Report Item Tree Preservation—New goal and policies added to reflect feedback from stakeholder interviews and public workshop.Policies incentivize tree retention,encourage only minimal modification to vegetation in critical areas,and discourage topping of healthy trees.Workshop,survey,and interview feedback identified this as an important issue. Mr.Neugebauer's Comment Citizens should be able to remove any,vegetation they want on their property unless the City wants to purchase the property.It is unclear how the City can use the police powers to control what property owners can do on their own property.However,if the City wants to include this,it should include reasons why the City would have a right to conduct eminent domain takings simply to prevent tree and shrub cutting activities on properties,plus the costs would be extremely high if the City were to take ownership of every property where trees and shrubs cannot be removed.This is clearly an abuse of the State's police power and can be very costly to the city,especially if it can be determined that the city imposed inverse condemnation or otherwise impacted the rights of property owners,including rights pursuant to the State of Washington constitution Section 1,Article 16 and the 5th and 14th Amendments.The City should not impose a tree preservation plan on private property because this can lead to a land devaluation,such as a marine shoreline property with a beautiful view if it were not obscured by trees and shrubs. If the property taken is worth $5,000 or more it is possible that the City staff will have committed a class B felony and possibly a civil rights violation for violations of constitutional rights? Mr.Peter Townsend Page 7 May 13,2015 City Response Proposed policies reflect health,safety,and welfare concerns relating to tree removal in areas that contain hazards and/or wildlife habitat and overall benefits to soil,air/water quality,and economic value that trees provide.Regulating vegetation within critical areas is clearly a reasonable use of the City's police powers and does not constitute a taking. Comment#10 Staff Report Item Air Quality and Climate Change—Added new preamble,goal,and policies that reflect the GMA requirement to include comprehensive plan language regarding climate change.The following are all newly added: • NEG12 promotes land use and transportation that minimize pollution. • NEP87 encourages building techniques that mitigate the effects of air pollution. • NEP90 encourages compact growth in appropriate zones. • NEP91-NEP93 supports alternative modes to vehicle use. • NEP94,NEP95,NEP97,NEP98 supports city programs that implement energy efficiency and climate change considerations. • NEP96 encourages new development to incorporate green building certifications. Mr.Neugebauer's Comment NO.Global warming has been occurring for the last 11,000 years.The City of Federal Way was under approximately 1 kilometer of ice about 12,500 years ago.We are now in an interstade(there have been at least 8 different continental glaciation events in the Puget Lowlands,all of these happened before humans could have any impact. Each ice age retreated as the global warming of an Interstade occurs.All of these warming events occurred before any humans were driving cars or burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. There is NO direct evidence that carbon dioxide is causing global warming since this did not occur when the interstates occurred in the past.In fact we are in an ongoing Interstade which is global warming that is not caused by carbon dioxide.This is a waste of money.If the City has any properties that are located within 5 feet of mean sea level,the City could construct a levee system similar to what Holland has to protect these properties,because blaming carbon for the interstades that created global warming is a bit difficult considering that these events have been occurring since the beginning of the Pleistocene 1.8 million years ago and that most of the advances into Washington state occurred in the last 800,000 years.Humans and carbon dioxide cannot be blamed on this cycle because there were no humans burning copious quantities of fossil fuels when each Interstade began. City Response This is not the appropriate forum to debate the effects or cause of global climate change.It is generally accepted that global climate change is caused,in part,from human activities that result in the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.The State Department of Commerce periodic comprehensive plan update checklist has identified the need to add climate change goals and policies to the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan. Staff has identified the proposed goals and proposals to meet state requirements. Mr.Peter Townsend Page 8 May 13,2015 Closing Again,thank you for your comments on the comprehensive plan update.Please feel free to contact me should you have any question regarding this letter or the update process.You may reach me at 253-835-2638, or matt.herrcra@cityoffederalway.com. Sincere! Al ...4111,11.111111rAll Matthew Herrera,AICD Senior Planner K:\Critical Areas Ordinance Update\Townsend Responsc.doca CITY OF Federal Way INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: 20 May 2015 TO: Tom Medhurst, Chair, Planning Commission FROM: Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer RE: Response to Planning Commission Comments on Comprehensive Plan Amendments This memo summarizes responses to the transportation-related comments from Commissioners. 1. Noble-Gulliford (City Center): agrees with Mr. Hopkins'concerns,especially in regards to transportation and specifically if any roads in the City Center are in the current Transportation Improvement Plan. Hopkins'letter: a. How will the vision of a pedestrian friendly, multi-use City Center be achieved? With respect to public roadways,the City's standards for new streets include 12-foot sidewalks with street trees and pedestrian-scale lighting.We attempt to minimize pedestrian crossing distances at intersections.The comprehensive plan anticipates the need to add grade-separated walkways across South 320th Street as density increases, and will be implemented using pedestrian-friendly design guidelines. b. What will be done to remedy the shortcomings of clogged streets and limited public transit? The comprehensive plan outlines the anticipated need to add access to 1-5 at South 324th Street to divert traffic from South 320th Street and provide more capacity to serve development in the City Center. In addition,a new Intelligent Transportation Systems Plan described in the Transportation Element calls for implementation of an adaptive traffic control system,which would respond to real-time traffic conditions to optimize traffic signal timing. The City works closely with transit providers King County Metro, Pierce Transit,and Sound Transit to address transit needs in the City. City of Federal Way Public Works Department Marwan Salloum,Public Works Director 2. Elder(Transportation):concerned about with PACC;afraid people won't come back if stuck in traffic the first time they visit;concerned traffic will make or break PACC;needs to be dealt with soon. All but the largest events at the PACC are expected to generate less traffic than the Toys R Us store it replaces did. However, most performing arts facilities do generate a fair amount of traffic congestion,thus most patrons would expect a certain amount of delay in their travel to the facility. 3. Bronson (Transportation):consider making South 320th Street two levels. Although South 320th Street traffic volumes are consistent with freeway and expressway facilities,grade separation creates a number of challenges:cost,visual impacts, additional right- of-way needed for ramp connections, pedestrian access,and access spacing would all combine to make this an expensive project that would add less utility than one might think due to access spacing.A very rough cost estimate would be$300 million. 4. Bronson (Transportation):Suggest cross-section diagrams be removed from comprehensive plan and placed in Development Standards. Cross-sections are also shown in the Public Works Development Standards.The purpose of providing them in the comprehensive plan is to have one document where the public can look at a map to determine the planned cross-section of a given major street. 5. O'Neil (Transportation): Consider a streetcar system for commuters on South 320th Street from Hoyt Road to I-5. Given that most of the corridor traverses single-family neighborhoods,the comprehensive plan does not anticipate any land use changes that would increase density along the corridor to the extent that would be necessary in order to support the high capital and operating expenses associated with development of any type of rail transit. 6. Murrietta (City Center): What about traffic mobility?Smaller street grid?Have something that addresses current gridlock?Won't additional development negatively affect gridlock?Is the City looking at easing the congestion caused by chokepoints? The comprehensive plan includes plans to reduce the lengths of blocks in City Center to improve pedestrian circulation. However,widening streets to reduce congestion make crossing them by foot more intimidating,and travel demand forecasts suggest that capacity improvements would encourage more traffic to divert from the freeway system through Federal Way.As a result, capital projects would shift from capacity improvements to safety improvements,traffic optimization, and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.One major improvement contemplated is the addition of access to 1-5 at South 324th Street to divert traffic from South 320th Street. Beyond that, in City Center,the emphasis will be on completing the street grid. City of Federal Way Public Works Department Marwan Salloum,Public Works Director 7. Bronson (City Center): Consider new network of streets should be aligned for views of Mt Rainier, if only for PACC. The only new street serving the PACC is South 314th Street,which is currently private and would be developed as a public street running east-west between 20th Avenue South and 23rd Avenue South.A southeasterly orientation would not be consistent with the existing street grid or plans for the PACC. 8. O'Neil (City Center):street development should be more a City goal than private development. Any publicly funded street improvements are subject to the prioritization process adopted by City Council. Historically,the grid street improvements have not typically ranked well,and therefore the expectation has been that development would be providing these improvements before the City would be able to fund them.As priorities shift,this could change. City of Federal Way Public Works Department Marwan Salloum,Public Works Director Amendments to Chapters 1 - 10 of the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan are too large for this document. The amendments as presented can be viewed electronically using the link shown below.