LUTC PKT 09-09-1996
~
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
Committee of the Whole
September 9,1996
5: 30pm
City Hall
Council Chambers
AGENDA
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Fred Stouder, Burien
Keightley
Miller
Miller
Clark
Laurent
Michaelson
Perez
McClung
Pratt
Pratt
2.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minute limit)
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A.
Airport Impact Study
Info
B.
Regional Transit Authority/City Position
Action
C.
324th Street Rehabilitation
Info
D.
1996 Sidewalk Replacement Project Bid Awards
Action
E.
Dash Pointe Final Plat
Action
F.
Legislative Agenda
Action
G.
Shared Funding Commitment Program -
Funding for Affordable Housing
Action
H.
Access Control Construction Project
Action
1.
Sign Code Update
Info
J.
Olympic View Park Stream Rehab - Bid Award
Action
K.
KingCo Proposed Regional Storm Water Control
Pond/Potential 1-5 Exit Ramp Conflict
Action
5.
OTHER ITEMS
6.
FUTURE MEETINGS/ AGENDAS
7.
ADJOURN
Committee Members:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Ron Gintz
Mary Gates
City Staff:
Greg Moore, CDS Director
Sandy Lyle, Administrative Assistant
661-4116
City of Federal Way
City Council
Land Use/Transportation Committee
August 19, 1996
5: 30pm
City Hall
Counci I Chambers
SUMMARY
In attendance: Committee members Phil Watkins (chair), Ron Gintz and Mary Gates; Council members Skip Priest (mayor), Jack
Dovey, Hope Elder, Michael Park; Deputy City Manager Philip Keightley; City Manager Ken Nyberg; Director of Community
Development Services Greg Moore; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Director of Management Services Iwen Wang; Deputy
Management Services Director Marie Mosely; Principal Planner Greg Fewins; Street Systems Manager Ken Miller; Assistant City
Attorney Jim McNamara; Surface Water Manager Jeff Pratt; Landscape Architect Barbara Simpson; Senior Financial Analyst John
Caulfield; Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Assistant Traffic Engineer Hazem EI-Assar; Project Engineer Pearl Kronstad; Street Systems
Engineer Al Emter; Senior Planner Mike Thomas; Administrative Assistant Tina Piety.
1.
2.
3.
4.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:30pm.
APPROV AL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of August 5, 1996, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment on items not included in the agenda.
BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Ten Year Street Overlay Fundin¡: Analysis - In 1992, the City developed a Pavement Management System in order to
provide a systematic and comprehensive approach to evaluating and managing the street surface condition of all public
roads. The current PMS system contains data on approximately 240 street center line miles. All streets are broken
out into segments between 500 and 1,000 feet in length. Each segment is rated for distresses such as alligator
cracking, longitudinal/transverse cracking, rotting and patching and this data is used by the program for analysis.
Most streets are currently rated as "good." The Pavement Management System goal is to rehabilitate streets rather
than allow them to deteriorate to the point of needing to be rebuilt. At the current level of funding, streets may be in
poor to fair condition within ten years. The committee discussed funding options such as a street utility, year-end
balance carry forward, admissions tax, dedicated property tax increase, and utility tax.
B.
Southwest Campus Drive and 6th Avenue SW Traffic Si¡:na1 Project. Street Li¡:ht Relocation/Replacement A~reement
with Pa¡:et Power - The Committee m/s/c forwarding to Council at the September 3, 1996, meeting the
recommendation to approve the Puget Power work order in the amount of $39,546.35 for street light replacement on
SW Campus Drive following street widening and installation of left turn lanes.
C.
BPA Trail Corridor Phase IT (First Avenue South to Campus Drive) Bid Award - Lloyd's Enterprises, Inc., was the
low bidder at $668,136.23. That amount is over budget by $55,000. Staff recommends making up the difference
from the Paths and Trails budget. Committee chose to proceed with Schedules C & E of the BPA Trail Phase IT
project. Committee so m/s/c and forwarded to the City Council at the September 3, 1996, meeting for review and
approval of Lloyd's Enterprises bid and the additional $55,000 to come from Paths and Trails budget.
D.
Mirror Lake Wireless Communications Facility - AT & T Wireless Services proposed to build a 150 foot monopole
facility fitted with various antennas and communications dishes. A 12' X 28' equipment building will be built at the
base of the pole and will house HV AC and battery back-up systems. The installation of this new communications
facility will serve to enhance cellular phone service for the public as well as emergency communications for King
County Fire District No. 39. The Committee m/s/c approval of this Use Process ill request as recommended by the
Hearing Examiner. Council will review the Committee's recommendation at it's September 3, 1996, meeting.
E.
South 316th & 20th Avenue South Project Finalization - The fmal cost for the South 316th Street/20th Avenue South
Traffic Signal & Channelization construction contract is $148,197.03, which is 4.9% over the approved contract
5.
budget of $141,283.30. The customary 10% constroction contingency was not formally requested for this project;
however, the final cost falls within the allocated budget. The 4.9% project overrun was primarily due to variance
between the Design Engineer's bid time quantity estimates and actual constroction quantities. The Committee m/s/c
acceptance of the South 316th Street/20th Avenue South constroction project as complete and authorized release of
retainage to Trans Tech Electric, Inc.
F.
South 336th/Kitts Corner Reeional Storm Water Control Facility - Services Durin¡: Constroction Contract - Volker
Stevin Pacific, Inc., have been involved in more that one past project in which there were considerable schedule and
cost overruns as well as legal claims. It was believed that a pre-construction conference to address these concerns
had resolved some of the past performance issues. Based on the complexity of the Kitts project and the disparate
locations of concurrent constroction activities, staff recommends in increase in constroction management oversight
services budget. The Committee decided not to increase the project budget in order to expand constroction services.
Rather, the increased cost of constroction management should come from the constroction contingency amount
authorized for the project.
G.
1996 Surface Water Mana~ement Annual lntprovement Pro~ram - Small Works Roster Bid for Joe's Creek Flow
Control Strocture - No bids were received on this project. The item was pulled from the agenda.
H.
1996 Surface Water Mana~ement Minor C~pitallInprovement Pro~ram - Small Works Roster Bids - As part of its
1996 Minor Capital Improvement program the Surface Water Management division requested bids from the list of
small works roster contractors on the second phase of a flood control project located on First Avenue at
approximately South 317th near the Fire Station and Lakehaven Utility District. Authorization was requested to
award the bid to RAM, Inc., the lowest responsive responsible bidder in the amount of $80,825.40. Engineering cost
estimate for the project was $80,068.00. There is adequate money to complete the project by offsetting costs with
money received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency on other associated projects. The Committee
m/s/c recommending approval of the bid award to Ram, Inc., to Council at it its September 3, 1996, meeting, in the
amount of $80,825.40 with a 10% constroction contingency of $8,082.54.
OTHER ITEMS
Staff reported that Federal Way would be included in the new "253" area code designation next year. The Committee would
like to see a phone book unique to Federal Way rather than being a part of the South King County directory. The Committee
noted the inclusion of the Federal Way street map in the South King County directory published by US West.
6.
FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDAS
Due to the Labor Day Holiday the regularly scheduled September 2, 1996, meeting of the Land Use/Transportation Committee
will take place September 9, 1996, at 5:30pm.
7.
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 7:25pm.
I: \LU- TRANS\A UG 19LUT.SUM
DATE:
4 September 1996
TO:
Council member Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee Ú
Philip D. Keightley, Deputy City Manage~/
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Regional Transit Authority
The SCA meets September 11, 1996, to review the final RTA plan and consider a resolution of support.
Attached is the following background infonnation on the final RTA plan:
1.
SCA Resolution (Attachment A). This is to be considered at the September 11, 1996,
SCA meeting.
2.
9/20/95 Citv Council Recommendation (Attachment B). The City Council reviewed the
preliminary RTA proposal and indicated what elements they preferred.
3.
5/9/96 letter to RTA (Attachment C). The City Council on May 7, 1996, reviewed the
proposed RTA plan and agreed to send the RTA this letter with five comments on the
plan. The final RTA plan addresses all five comments. Under comment #2, the Legislature
has indicated that they will retain responsibility for the freeway HOV lanes. The RTA
plan has been coordinated to include the access to the HOV lanes. Under comment #5,
the RTA plan states that financial policies for future capital programs "will be reviewed
for applicability prior to any submittal of a future capital program to the RTA district
voters" .
4.
Sound Move. Launching a Rapid Transit System for the Puget Sound Region (Attachment
Q1 This summarizes the final RTA plan.
5.
Sound Move. South King Countv Benefits (Attachment E). This details South King
County benefits and the proposed improvements.
6.
Sound Move for Federal Way (Attachment F). This summarizes the RTA benefits to
Federal Way.
Recommendation
Land Useffransportation Committee consider whether to support the SCA resolution on RTA.
I:\SCARTA.res
ATìACHME.N,- HA\I
Suburban Cities Association of King County
Resolution No.
A RESOLUTION of the Suburban Cities Association of King County
in support of the Regional Transit Authority Final Plan
WHEREAS, the quality of life in our region continues to be negatively impacted by ever-
increasing traffic irrespective of city boundary lines; and
WHEREAS, this ever-increasing slowdown of transportation is also negatively impacting our
economic viability; and
WHEREAS, the traffic problem is not self-correcting and requires immediate and substantial
changes and improvements in the regional transportation network; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of all jurisdictions to work cooperatively to develop and
fund solutions to the problem; and
WHEREAS, the only viable way to protect our communities from transportation stagnation
and support economic development is to provide alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle including
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and transit improvements; and
WHEREAS, our cities have enthusiastically supported the new Six Year Transit Plan and see it
as the needed first step in improving transit service throughout the region; and
WHEREAS, the RTA Final Plan responds to the Suburban jurisdictions' concerns and
provides a range of multi-modal transportation options; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE SUBURBAN CITIES ASSOCIATION OF KING COUNTY
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The above recitals are found to be true and correct in all respects.
SECTION II. The Suburban Cities Association of King County finds that the participation of
all the cities in the RT A Final Plan is of great value to the individual communities and to the region as
a whole. The Suburban Cities Association of King County does hereby endorse the RT A Final Plan.
ADOPTED, by the Suburban Cities Association this
and signed in open session in authentication of its adoption the
day of
day of
, 1996,
, 1996.
Erselle Eade, President
Suburban Cities Association of King County
Charles A. Booth, Secretary/Treasurer
Suburban Cities Association of King County
Attest:
Win:resolutions:resoRT A.doc
8/7/96
A TTA c.HI'1 eNT "B"
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
COMMUNITY TASK FORCE
RT A PROPOSAL
9/11/95 DRAFT
1. Light Rail (Note 1 & 3)
-University to Seattle Downtown
"'¡2. Commuter Rail Peak Hour Only (Note 2)
-Seattle to Tacoma
..¡ 3. HaV (Note 3 & 5)
-Freeway Access & HOV lanes (Federal match?)
-Arterial
-Hay
-Freight & Goods
-Missing Links
-Urban Center Circ.
420M 2. -So '~1
100M lcø"~
212M ISO ,'1
50M I H ,'~
CAPIT AL
OPERATING
1997-2007
ANNUAL
105M .,200'-1
8M (Note 4) ,~. $"'1
8M 14.5 (1
314M
61M
6M 0
ø
0
400M 400 .1
(Note 5)
(Note 5)
4. Transit Development Fund (Note 3 & 6)
-Technology and TDM. Primarily-
..J - Van & Carpool @ 75 to 80% subsidy
~ - Fare integration
-..I t;. Regional Bus (16 Routes)
-Bus (King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties)
-Transit Facilities
-Maintenance Facilities
--Transit Center
-Parking at Transit Centers
-Public/Private Initiatives Park & Ride
..¡ 1. Redeploy at 15 minute headways
buses to local service (Metro not RT A)
Sub Total
Grand Total
Notes:
842M '7«Jt<f
1M
0
11M 0
S'OM
11M
12M 8~,"1
200M 2.""'"
384M 3x»r1
2M 0
61M '70 1'1
1M 0
40M 4oM
t..6'3fN
2,S34M
2.qCt~.~M
3,OOOM
~'..~ì'1
466M
1. Light Rail Alternatives
A. Use 2 tiér financing for the $655 M extension plus $50M to convert Seattle bus tunnel to trains.
B. Use 2 tier financing for an additional $150 M to fully underground.
2. Peak hour Commute Rail assumes 32 trains per day instead of 55 per day. Costs above do not include -
A. Tacoma to Lakewood $44M Capital, $IIM operating
B. Seattle to Everett $16M Capital, $52M operating
3. RTA legislation may need revision to allow Arterial Hay, TechnologyrrDM, and 2 Tier Funding.
4. Light rail is assumed to take 9 years to build. Only year 2007 operating costs are included.
5. Hay operation costs are assumed to be .the responsibility of the WSDaT and local agencies.
6. Fare integration is assumed to cost about $IOM in first 10 years and $IOM year thereafter.
7/'15/ff-r ~1oe'!.,'YY fN'TtATI'I!? - t</NG COrJt.rTV ~C()TtV!
~: Q!2.0/4) ffbeRAl UA'1 C"..., ~UNc.H..
-, .
-
.
AT7A'HMfNr '~.,
May 9, 1996
ED~
(206) 661-4000
FEDERAL WAY. WA 98003-6210
Bob Drewel, Chair
Regional Transit Authority
821 Second Avenue, M.S. 151
Seattle, Washington 98104-1598
Re: Regiona/ Transit A uthority Plan
~/I , ¡-/
././ þG/,{;;;
Dea~..M'r. Drewel:
~-
The Federal Way City Council on May 7, 1996, reviewed the March 29, 1996 Draft
of the proposed RTA Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan for Phase 1
implementation and would like to make the following comments:
1.
The Federal Way City Council supports the SCA TB recommendation
that the light rail corridor study between SeaTac airport and the
KinglPierce County line be included in the Phase 1 project and further
that there be corridor preservation in Phase 1.
2.
The HOV lanes in the RT A plan are essential and need to be built as a
high priority. The RTA, State legislative leaders, and the Secretary of
Transportation must find ways to sort out who funds the HOV lanes
before the vote on RT A.
3.
If funds become available, then the electric light rail should be
constructed south of Seattle as far as possible.
4.
It is essential that adequate south-end Park-n-Ride lots be funded in
Phase 1, whether on grade or in structures. They include, but are not
limited to, additional parking at the Federal Way Transit Center at
South 320th Street and 1-5, and the Star lake Park-n-Ride lot at South
272nd Street.
5.
That for Phase 2 improvements, the RT A Board consider readdressing
the equity issue especially for capital improvements.
-".
ReQional Transit Authority Plan
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide input before the RT A Board
makes its final decision.
Sincerely,
~
I /
. t~_../~c.~/'
V :
.J
,~.~J}
¡,
Mahlon "Skip" Priest
Mayor
CQUNCIL\SP96-013.pb
c:
Federal Way City Council
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
Philip Keightfey, Deputy City Manager
Cary Roe, Public Works Director
Gary Locke, King County Executive
Peter von Aeichbauer, King County Council
Bob White. AT A Director
PaQe 2
Sound Move
Launching a Rapid Transit System
for the Puget Sound Region
There's an old saying that advises
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it" But if
you are one of thousands of people
traveling on our region's
overburdened and clogged
highways each day you can
probably relate to a modified
version of that proverb - it's
broke, let's fix it.
On May 31, the Regional Transit
Authority Board took the first step
towards "fixing" our region's
transportation problems by
adopting Sound Move - the Ten-
Year Regional Transit System Plan.
Sound Move is a cost-effective
and balanced approach to
increasing our transportation
system capacity by offering a mix of
high -occupancy - v ehi cl e
expressway, regional express bus
routes, commuter rail and light rail,
plus new community "gateways"
- connections in urban and
suburban areas for communities to
connect to the rest of the region. By
adding capacity and offering new
choices for getting around the
Puget Sound, we can also help keep
the region's economy moving.
One piece of the puzzle
Sound Move isn't the only thing
planned to fix our regional
transportation system, nor has it
been prepared in a vacuum without
coordination with other regional
efforts and agencies. The plan was
developed to fit within the region's
comprehensive Metropolitan
Transportation Plan. That plan
includes all forms of transportation
- high-capacity transit, local
transit, HOV lanes, ferries, airports,
automobiles, freight traffic,
bicycles, and pedestrians.
Sound Move also fits with the
plans of local transit agencies who
have been partners in regional
transit plaruùng. The RT A has
designed new regional services that
work with services provided by
local transit agencies, offering a
regionwide integrated system of
routes, schedules and fares.
Sound investments-
the plan components
HOV Expressway
The HOV Expressway will be
developed through a partnership
between the RTA and the state
Transportation Department. The
HOV Expressway will improve
speed and reliability for buses and
carpools. It will include:
. more than 100 miles of HOV
Expressway combining state-
funded completion of continuous
(left side) HOV lanes, and
. RTA-funded direct access ramps
to make it easier (and safer) for
transit and carpools to reach and
use the HaV Expressway by
eliminating the need to weave
through several lanes of traffic to
reach the HaV lanes.
Regional express bus services
Twenty new regional express bus
routes will take advantage of the
improved speed and reliability of
the HaV Expressway. The regional
express bus routes will:
. offer frequent, two-way service to
ATTftCH MSN'r .'/)"
major regional centers and
destinations throughout the day
. free up as many as 300,000 hours
of existing local bus service to be
used for other local needs.
Commuter rail
Commuter rail adds two-way,
rush-hour train service using
existing railroad tracks between
Everett, Seattle, Tacoma and
Lakewood. The 81-mile commuter
rail system - developed in
partnership with railroads, the state
intercity rail program, the ports and
local jurisdictions - will:
. include 14 stations as part of the ten-
year system plan (more stations may
be built if funding permits)
. share several stations with Amtrak
and the state's expanding intercity
rail service between Portland and
Vancouver, B.C., creating
opportunities for interstate and
local connections
. improve track and signal system,
benefiting freight and passenger
train operations.
Electric light rail
Sound Move introduces a new
form of high-capacity transportation
to our region. It includes 25-miles
of a starter light-rail system with 26
stations within walking distance of
major destinations as well as
connections to local and regional
bus service. The service is designed
to connect SeaTac, the Rainier
Valley, downtown Seattle, First
Hill, Capitol Hill, the University
District, and if additional funding is
secured, Roosevelt and Northgate.
continued on back
..~. ~..~..[7.... ~ Sound Move
q...................... ..'
............... '
There is also a 1.6-mile segment
between downtown Tacoma and a
Tacoma Dome regional transpor-
tation terminal with five stations
serving major destinations and
providing connections to regional
and local bus service, commuter rail
and Amtrak, tying Tacoma to other
regional economic centers.
The Seattle portion of the light-
rail system includes three segments:
. Downtown Seattle to SeaTac (the
preferred alignment is through
the Rainier Valley to SeaTac at
South 200th Street)
. Downtown Seattle to the University
District (the preferred alignment
is through First Hill and Capitol
Hill to the University District)
. The University District to
Northgate (this segment will be
built as part of the plan's ten-
year period only if additional
funding sources are secured).
The Seattle segments of the light-
rail system serve areas with the
highest concentration of homes and
jobs in the region. They are the
most cost-effective parts of the
long-range rail system envisioned
for the region. The Seattle segments
will take advantage of a critical part
of the system already in place -
the downtown Seattle transit tunnel
(which was designed to
accommodate rail).
Community connections
Sound Move includes creating
many new "gateways" from
communities to the region and from
the region to communities.
Community connections include
rail and bus stations, park-and-ride-
lots, transit centers and hubs.
,~~"
+~
~ORegional Traosit Authority
Systemwide programs
One of Sound Move's most
important features is creation of a
network of frequent, convenient
and dependable services that can
be used with a single ticket. A
Regional Fund will be used for
programs such as:
. regional fare integration with
other transit services - the "one-
ticket" ride
. studying new or improved ways
to provide transit service
(including innovative
technologies and programs)
. planning and engineering for
future transit system phases.
Funding Sound Move
Sound Move will be paid for with
a combination of local revenues
generated within the RT A District
boundaries, municipal bonds,
federal grants and farebox
revenues. The RTA assumes no
state funds. The local revenues
include a local sales tax increase not
to exceed 4/10 of one percent and
motor vehicle excise (license tab) tax
increase of 3/10 of one percent. No
property taxes will be used for
Sound Move.
Financial policies
The RT A developed the
following financial policies for
funding Sound Move:
. local taxes will be invested to
benefit the subarea where they
are raised
. there will be limited borrowing
. the RT A will hire independent
auditors and appoint a citizen
oversight committee to make sure
the agency is held accountable
HIT/tCH 1'1 ENT
'0
~
. voters must approve funding for
any capital investments beyond
the ten-year plan. If voters decide
not to extend the system, the RT A
will roll back the tax rate to a
level sufficient to payoff the
bonds and operate and maintain
Sound Move investments.
Costs
All figures in $millions
$738
Hay Expressway
- HOY access - $377
- Regional Express Bus routes - $361
Commuter Rail $669
Electric Light Rail $1,801
Debt service $171
Community connections $255
Regional fund / reserves $280
TOTAL
$3,914
Revenues All figures in $millions
Local taxes $1,980
- Sales tax (0.4%)
- MVET (0.3%)
Bonding $1,052
Federal $727
Farebox / other $155
TOTAL $3,914
For more information
If you'd like more information
about Sound Move, write or call the
RTA at 821 Second Avenue, M.s.
151; Seattle, W A 98104-1598; 1-800-
201-4900 or e-mail rta@scn.org.
This information is available in
accessible formats 011 request at
684-6776 (voice) or 684-1395 (TOO).
RTA information is also available
through the Worldwide Web at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/CPSRTA/.
Theater District
Station
S.13th StreetQ
Station Õ
. . . ¡'
UniverSIty 0 Tacoma '
Station IL Dome Station _:
s. 24th StreetO~."...".. 1:: ," -
Station .... \ j"" . . I Federal Way'
- ....'/' '" l
~ ,,~
Tacoma J
Ov'
j::":~gr" ~;f:~::...~.
: Puyallup
... .
//' ~_:
,
'\ ,.,
\" r'.... !
~_ì"_) L___._'
Sound Move
Downtown Everell detail
Bond Street ."'.".
Station ø ..
.... )¡tf.> ~r:~~~
.../ / .¡,""".~
Downtown Seattle detail
,...... fonvention J
.., .~laceStation
weStlakeç'
...;tation a
""" University . .
" Street Station First HIli
'\ ,\. Station
\ .. Pioneer
,. . Square Station
""'" '\:~ .. "
'" \
,--...-: I
International
District \
Station 1\
King Street
Station.
.
.
.
Downtown Tacoma detail
C~m~,_",",
l
J
í
DuPont ø
As adopted May 31,1996
~
""""""', "
. ""n,."
, Overtake l
i
I J
!
I:
, Kent
.
:
:
: .
¡ /
: /
. Auburn
, C.:.::
L,-
)
/-
¡-
r:-~
\
, I
l
I
r'
i
ì
..-1
r
I
.I
0
Parkland
South Hill
f
.I
--_\__m____..------.--. "'--ï J
NoIe: Full implementation ot Ihe HOV Ex"",..,
"Qui"s partnership with the Washington Stale
Department 01 !ransport."on.
. Pro,isional sta"on subjed 10 funding ",ilabili~ from
within!heNorthK¡ngCoun~suba"a.
1 1\...
J
-,/'
Map key:
1I1I1tI1i1tI1I1I
Etectric Light-Rait Service
Electric light-rail trains in the
region's most denseiy-developed
areas. Dashed line indicates the
portion of the light-rail system
that will be built if additional
funding is secured.
..................
Commuter Rail Service
Trains using existing railroad
tracks between Everett, Seattle,
Tacoma and Lakewood.
(Ó/()-----
HOV Expressway
A continuous system of HOV
lanes with special access ramps
for transit and carpools.
Diamonds indicate direct access
ramps or flyerstops.
Regionat Express Bus
Service
New express bus routes using
the HOV Expressway and
expanded system of park-and-
ride lots.
Local Bus Service
Network of bus routes prm'¡ded
by local transit agenCIes
00
Community Connections
Major points where local and
regional transit services connect.
"P" indicates park,and-ride
enhancements or new capaCIty.
Sound Move
~ 1"rItc- M H EJJ T
"e4
What's in the Ten- Year Regional Transit
System Plan for South King County
South King County benefits
Improving South King County connections
Sound Move will improve transit connections by:
8 adding five new regional express bus routes
making seamless two-way connections
throughout the day between employment,
shopping and recreation centers within South
King County and connections to other
regional destinations.
. providing new and expanded park-and-ride
lots throughout South King County.
8 creating more and better region-wide
connections for everyone regardless of
whether they have access to a car. The system
will improve regional and local access to city
centers throughout South King County plus
improve connections to businesses and
destinations such as Southcenter, Boeing
employment sites, the airport, the Auburn
Super Mall and Weyerhauser in Federal Way.
Contributing to the economy
Sound Move contributed to the economy by:
8 attracting businesses and jobs to the region
by helping make the overall transportation
system work better and give employees
better (and more) transportation choices.
8 encouraging long-term commitments from
developers to invest and locate housing or
businesses near transit facilities where
desired by the community. Sound Move
includes commuter rail stations in Tukwila,
Kent and Auburn; a joint commuter rail and
electric light-rail station at Boeing Access
Road; light-rail stations in Tukwila, the city
of SeaTac and at Sea-Tac Airport; plus new or
expanded park-and-ride lots at Federal Way
and Star Lake.
Helping the environment
Sound Move preserves the environment by:
8 providing several convenient, reliable and
energy-efficient alternatives to driving alone.
8 supporting adopted community plans and
helping meet cities' community
development goals.
Improving mobility
Sound Move will improve South King
County mobility by:
8 providing new electric light-rail service
connecting SeaTac, the Rainier Valley,
downtown Seattle, First Hill, Capitol Hill, the
University District, and if additional funding is
secured, Roosevelt and Northgate. The system:
- provides the first 25-miles of a starter
light-rail system with 26 stations within
walking distance of major destinations as
well as connections to local and regional
buses.
. adding two-way, rush-hour commuter rail
service between Lakewood, Seattle and
Everett serving Green and Puyallup River
Valley communities with stations at Auburn,
Kent and Tukwila.
8 working with the state Transportation
Department to create an HOV Expressway that:
- adds direct access ramps to the 1-5 Hav
lanes, eliminating delays caused by buses
and carpools weaving through general
traffic to reach Hav lanes
- adds people-carrying capacity on 1-5.
8 offering fast, frequent service and an array of
transportation options with regionwide
connections to make public transportation an
attractive alternative to driving alone.
8 expanding on the services provided by local
transit agencies with a convenient, reliable,
easy-to-use regional system that is less
susceptible to congestion. New regional
transit services will free up existing local bus
, service regionwide and allow local transit
agencies to reallocate those resources to
deliver new and better local transit services,
including much needed east-west
connections.
8 creating a single-fare system allowing people
to travel around the region using local buses,
ferries, commuter rail, light rail or regional
express buses with a single ticket or pass.
D<¡->\.'PUGfr....
::;+ O",...
0
~ Regional Transit Authority
iii
a
_u__u"-
.-(
~
¡_U_--;
--....--_u_-
, --_u_---,
'f
",
.------ .
f 1
1\
I;'
u
,
-.,-
¡.
..:
----------,
ItrrÞtCHMENi "C.l ,.
."
'v
a --------r----- ¡
-'--~::J
Map key:
Electric light-rail service
..............
Commuter rail service
..---
~OV Expresswa - -
Indicates d' y diamond
b' trect access ra
us Indicates flyer stop mp;
Regional express bus se -
rvlce
muumum_mu_muu -<.
Metro Six-Year PI~ -,.
bus network' d tt dn sample
- d' . 0 e line
rn Icates flexible servl'c
e area
80œ
~p~mmunity Connections
and 'rc' ind- -
and- -d Icate park-
e h rt e or transit center
n ancements or new
capacity
.¡;m
(~~gr employment sites
+ employees)
colleges and d t-' -
es ¡nations
D
Park-and-ride lots
""'~
<~'RegiOnal Transit Authority
Sound Move for Federal Way Area
Ft-ìïAt:.HI'-1E:N"í ~"
New regional express bus service
. All day, two-way, limited stop, generally every 30 minutes
. Uses HOV Expressway on 1-5 with direct access ramps
. Connects with electric light-rail at SeaTac and Tacoma Dome stations
. Connects with commuter rail at Auburn station
New routes
. Tacoma-Federal Way-SeaTac
. Federal Way-Auburn-Renton-Bellevue
More local community service
Connections from Federal Wav Transit Center and Star Lake Park-and-Ride
. Regional express bus service
. Local bus service
. Park-and-Ride lots
. HOV access
. Pedestrian and bicycle access
Better connections to communities and maior destinations
. Connections to Auburn, Kent, Bellevue, Tacoma, Seattle, Edmonds
. Connections to Highline Community College, Green River Community College,
Tacoma Dome, Kingdome and new ball park, University of Washington (Seattle and
Tacoma campuses), Sea-Tac Airport, Tacoma Theatre District
. Single fare for travel throughout the RT A District
Transit travel time savinGs (sample routes in minutes)
Existing Transit Sound Move
Svstem 2010
78 47
1011 64
80 21
. Federal Way to Renton
. Federal Way to Bellevue
. Auburn to Tacoma Dome
SavinGs
31
37
59
1 This trip requries a transfer between bus routes.
CITY OF -
- . EJ:J~
~~~
DATE:
September 4, 1996
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
'?~
SUBJECT:
Final Acceptance of the S 324th Street Rehabilitation
Construction Contract
BACKGROUND
Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works project, the City Council has to accept the work
as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and Department of Labor and Industries
requirements. The final cost for the S 324th Street Rehabilitation construction contract is
$440,469.17 which is $20,802.52 below the approved contract budget of $461,271.69 (includes
contingency).
RECOMMENDATION
Place the following item on the next scheduled Council Consent Agenda for approval:
1.
Acceptance of the Woodworth Incorporated, S 324th Street Rehabilitation Contract as
complete.
KM:mh
K:\LUTC\S324rch.mem
DATE:
September 4, 1996
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
~tJ'
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
SUBJECT:
The 1996 Sidewalk Replacement Project Bid Results
BACKGROUND
The following three (3) bids were received August 28, 1996, at 10:10 a.m., for the 1996 Sidewalk
Replacement Project (see attached memo for further detail):
All Schedules
With Schedule C, Deleted
$ 82,248.50
$ 96,231.00
$ 210,514.50
$ 65,324.72
$ 48,514.00
$ 58,404.00
$ 85,569.50
$ 36,481.66
Ram Inc. Contractors
Brad Mason Trucking
Laney Construction Co.
Engineer's Estimate
The apparent low bidder is Ram Inc. Contractors Their bid is broken down into the following
schedules.
Schedule
Bid
Project
A
B
C
$ 30,464.00
$ 18,050.00
$ 33,735.50
SouthlSouthwest 320th Street - North Side
SouthlSouthwest 320th Street - South Side
21st Avenue Southwest - West Side
In order to assure that the contract is awarded within budget, Schedule C will be deleted from the
contract. The following is breakdown of the construction costs.
Contract Amount
Inspection
10 % Contingency
Total
$48,5l4.00
2,000.00
4,851.40
$55,365.40
The total project cost estimate including a 10% contingency is $55,365.40, and is within the
$65,617.10 project budget. If there are sufficient funds remaining when all work is completed
on Schedules A & B, a portion of Schedule C will be added back into the contract, up to the
budgeted amount.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Award Schedules A & B of the 1996 Sidewalk Replacement Project to Ram Inc. Contractors,
the apparent low bidder, in the amount of $48,514.00, and approve a $4,851.40 contingency.
As funding allows, approve adding a portion of Schedule C back into the contract, up to the
budgeted amount.
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.
K:\LUfC\96SW A WD.MEM
CITY OF ...
~- - E.[J~
~~~
DATE:
June 5, 1996
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Use/Transportation Committee
FROM:
Ken Miller, Street Systems Manager
SUBJECT:
Authorization to Bid The 1996 Sidewalk Replacement Project
BACKGROUND
Staff has developed a project for the 1996 Sidewalk Replacement Project based upon the sidewalk
inventory data, complaints and field reconnaissance. The project will consist of replacing
sidewalk, curb and gutter, upgrading existing wheelchair ramps to meet current ADA standards,
and tree removal, along South and Southwest 320th Street, from 1-5 to 47th Avenue Southwest,
and 21st Ave SW from Dash Pt. Rd. To SW 336th Street (see attached map). The budget for this
project is approximately $61,183.
The contract documents are 90 % complete and we anticipate awarding this contract in August,
1996. Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in September, 1996 and be completed by
December, 1996.
RECOMMENDATION
Forward the following recommendations to the July 2, 1996 Council meeting for approval.
1)
The 1996 Sidewalk Replacement Project as delineated on the attached map.
2)
Authorize staff to bid the project. Bids will be brought directly back to Council for
award of the contract if within project budget.
3)
Place the above recommendations on the consent agenda of the July 2, 1996 Council
Meeting.
cc:
Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director
Project FilefDay File
K:\LUTC\96SWBID.MEM
---- - - -~-- ---------------------------
I~' f r ~ r;! /W:4-JIjt I
(~/ i /
r;;r, / f --l {¡¿
Pro . ~,(../ . I I iJ J---;
~ 9 i II i Is 2'72NO srt1tl, i
~lp I ~)Jf' -
r- J/~r)& L
fJT ~ f.j,-f - ~ '-- .
~ !J) r ~ I (~~ ~ f-
"'7'~~ ~ ~\r\ ~~
} c::,u ~~fif:j:H eRn!: -J I ~ .) '-'-
r U I II f- ~ ~ I~ ) w" (11~)' ~: r'i t-- ~ r= L f- r n ~- .
lv-::~ ~~Lf ~ ¡I-ill ~. ~ ~ .304TH ~T
-'--<-;1. #? I B[)81 I T 1,'1 / I- '::f- r\.
~ I 1; 1 ~ l sw 3'm sF,; I 1---' EI r I "-
Tw'- ~- ~ Q ~r- .~,-.' I ~~lU¿ Y ~ J 2Z r-=T .
-~ . J ~ ~-f- r~ ?~Iì~",~ \ ~
u U) ~ c:.1Il ~')f st V> L4 I .t...... S J:Í ~ . Sf
~~~~,<1ìi?£'~ ~~-«< ?l~~ J # .
If-J I-~~II. rJ ~ Vv~:ì.X Llp';>-~ . u."
Tf ~ í ~ '"" , t<.:I '\...Lj!-tT{ ~ t7
\\1!W ~X 1r-.~ ,: sOX j I I~ I ;1"
} I ~ I J'-'-'. --¡...,- -::-<...1 (/) c. 1 1- ~ /.
tõ -==J T ~ -+w < /iT f I ) J¿/ 'Ç
VQ} I ! f IL ~ ~ (I Ii ~ ~
~ iT~t%:~ ~ ~"'\' ~ w S .j48T~ sri ~ ("fk :J ~
J~.L\ fN~ -{;F£-~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ f5 ~ Pv I.
I ~ 'lJl n L ~,..1 I- ~ I ~ 'r- I-
~3~mH I$T : r:::: r.J!! -< Z h
=r . f) ~ .J..¡ ~ r. ~ ~
/ ~ J.J ~~'r> /J '-.l
~ / íJir;1 ~ r .-I-':./'í (t' RJ =- ~
~ "~YJ ,ì -l S3~~,~ \J l~1
,j.r 1 996 Sidewolk R~pIoc~~nt
W~t
s
r-I.T.S
V ICI¡VITY AlA?
~=I~
P.\f'V30K5\5rRfEl$\9".S\\\ÇI"
þ-'-"
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
September 3, 1996
City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee
Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
Final Plat Application for Dash Pointe -- King County File No. 689-21/
Federal Way File No. ILA90-PPll
I.
}
u.
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
M & T Joint Venture is requesting final plat approval of Dash Pointe, a proposed 32-lot
single family subdivision on 30.7 acres, located generally between SW 328th and 333rd
Streets and between 43rd and 48th Avenue SW, southwest of Lake Lorene.
Dash Pointe is an "A" List Item being processed under the City of Federal WaylKing
County lnterlocal Agreement. The City of Federal Way granted preliminary plat
approval for Dash Pointe per Resolution 90-26 on May 15, 1990.
City staff has reviewed the final plat of Dash Pointe for compliance with preliminary plat
conditions and all applicable codes and policies and recommends approval of the plat to
the council subject to verification of setbacks from steep slopes on Lots 8-l3 as discussed
in the staff report.
The attached staff report addresses how the applicants have fulfilled conditions of
preliminary plat approval as listed in Resolution 90-26 and the February 12, 1990 King
County Zoning and Subdivision Examiner Report.
REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION
As required by RCW 58.l7.l70 and Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code, prior
to approving a final plat, the council is charged with determining whether the final plat
substantially conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and whether the
subdivision meets the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances which
were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval.
Bringing this matter before the City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee for
review and recommendation prior to a decision by the full council is consistent with how
land use matters are currently processed by the City of Federal Way.
City Council Land Use/Transportation
Committee
September 3, 1996
Page 2
ill. HEARING EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION
A recommendation as to disposition of final plats by the Hearing Examiner is not required.
IV.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Nov 17, 1988
May 2, 1989
Dec 12, 1989
~
Feb l2, 1990
Feb 28, 1990
Mar 13, 1990
May 15, 1990
July 7, 1992
Jul 6, 1993
Apr l8, 1994
Ju15, 1994
Aug 3, 1994
Application for preliminary plat approval filed with King County
Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance issued by King County
Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat by the King County Zoning and
Subdivision Examiner
Recommendation of preliminary plat approval issued by the King
County Zoning and Subdivision Examiner
City of Federal Way incorporated
Project placed on the Interlocal Agreement "A" List
Public hearing on the preliminary plat application in front of the
Federal Way City Council; Thirty-six lot preliminary plat approved by
the City of Federal Way per Resolution 90-26
Engineering plans approved; lots reduced to 35 as a result of steep
slopes
City Council granted a fourth-year extension of the preliminary plat
approval period to May l5, 1994.
Six-month administrative extension granted to November 15, 1994
Wetland information sent to City's Wetlands Consultant, Susan Meyer
for her to do an inspection of the site and to review all previous
correspondence to determine if all preliminary plat conditions had been
met
Ms. Meyer indicated in a memorandum that there appeared to be
additional wetlands not specifically identified before located to the west
City Council Land Use/Transportation
Committee
September 3, 1996
Page 3
Aug 4, 1994
Oct 26, 1994
~
Dee 20, 1994
Sept 15, 1995
Oct 17, 1995
Oct 23, 1995
Nov 20, 1995
Sept 9, 1996
v.
of 47th Ave, the plat interior road. In addition, there appeared to be
unstable soils in this area
Final plat application submitted. Application put on hold to resolve
wetlands issue ~
The City granted the applicant a one year extension to allow the
preparation of a wetland delineation for the newly discovered wetlands
and a geotechnical report identifying what must be done to stabilize the
slopes
Plat alteration approved by City Council to add one additional lot along
Hoyt Road to result in 36 lots
Final plat application submitted to City
The City received October 13, 1995 correspondence from Brett
Jacobsen outlining a construction schedule for completion of
improvements and requesting that if inclement weather prevented
substantial completion of improvements prior to the required recording
date of the final plat that they be allowed to record on the strength of
the bond
City responded in written correspondence that based on City policy,
substantial completion of improvements must occur prior to approval
and recording of the plat
The City granted the applicant an administrative extension of the final
plat approval period to allow substantial completion of improvements
City Council Land UselTransportation Committee discusses application
for final plat approval of Dash Pointe
DECISIONAL CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code, the City Council shall approve
the final plat based on written findings if the following criteria has been met.
l. The final plat is in substantial conformance to the preliminary plat.
City Council Land Use/Transportation
Committee
September 3, 1996
Page 4
2. The final plat is in conformity with applicable zoning ordinances or other land use
controls.
3. All conditions of the Hearing Examiner andlor City Council have been satisfied.
4. All required improvements have been made and maintenance bonds or other security
for such improvements have been submitted and accepted.
5. All taxes and assessments owing on the property have been paid.
j,
All of the above criteria have been met except for Preliminary Plat Condition No. 9(b)
relating to setbacks from steep slopes. This condition will be met prior to signatures and
recording by King County.
VI.
COUNCIL ACTION
A draft resolution recommending approval of the fmal plat for Dash Pointe is in the
process of being prepared by the Legal Department. After consideration of the staff
report and recommendation, if the Council fmds that all criteria outlined in RCW
58. l7. 17O, King County Title 19, and Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code have
been met, the City Council may approve the plat for recording by a majority vote of its
membership.
dashpnte.luc.fp
~
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
DASH POINTE
King County File No. 689-21
Federal "W.ay File No. ILA90-PPll
1.
INTRODUCTION
Date:
September 3, 1996
Request:
Request for final plat approval for Dash Pointe
Description:
Dash Pointe is a proposed subdivision of 32 single family lots on 30.7
acres. It was originally approved by the Federal Way City Council on May
l5, 1990 per Resolution 90-26 (Exhibit A) as a 36 lot subdivision
(Exhibit B -- Approved Preliminary Plat of Dash Pointe)
King County zoning for the site at the time of application was Suburban
Residential (S-R 9600). Lot sizes on the fmal plat (Exhibit C -- Final Plat
of Dash Pointe) range from 7,95l square feet (Lot l6) to 23,438 square
feet (Lot 29), with an average lot size of l1, 785 square feet.
From the north, access for the subdivision is proposed via 47th Avenue SW
through the Stonebrook development and from the south, access is proposed
via 40th Ave N.E. in Pierce County. (Exhibit C -- Final Plat of Dash
Pointe, Sheet 3 of 5).
All roads and sidewalks within the proposed subdivision have been
constructed, storm drainage facilities have been installed and water and
sewer lines are in.
Owner:
M & T Joint Venture
4224 Waller Road
Tacoma, Washington 89443
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 2
Engineer:
Location:
~
Sewage
Disposal:
. Water
Supply:
(206) 922-6676; (206) 720-4045
Jim Jaeger
Jaeger Engineering
94l9 S. 204th Place
Kent, W A 9803l
(206) 850-0934
Between SW 328th and 333rd Streets and between 43rd and 48th Avenue.
SW; southwest of lake Lorene in Section 14, Township 21 North, Range
3 East, WM, King County (Exhibit D -- Vicinity Map).
Lakehaven Utility District.
Tacoma Water
Fire District: No. 39 - King County
School
District:
No. 210 - Federal Way
Report
Prepared By: Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner
ll.
mSTORY AND BACKGROUND
A Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, approving the final plat of Dash
Pointe designated as King County Building and Land Development File No. 689-2l/Federal
Way File No. ILA90-PPll, is attached (Exhibit E).
The preliminary plat of Dash Pointe consisting of 36 single-family residential lots on 30.7
acres (Exhibit B), was granted approval by the City of Federal Way on May 15, 1990 per
Resolution 90-26 (Exhibit A, pages 1-3) based on the conditions in the December l2, 1989
King County BALD Preliminary Report to the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner (Exhibit
A, pages 4-19) as approved in the February 12, 1990 King County Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner Report (Exhibit A, pages 20-24). During engineering approval, the lots were
reduced from 36 to 35 due to finding of additional steep slope areas. Subsequent to
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 3
engineering approval, the applicant applied for modification to an approved preliminary plat
(UPR92-0022) to convert a portion of Tract A, an open space tract located along Hoyt to
a single family lot. City Council approved the plat alteration request on December 20,
1994 thereby increasing the lots from 35 to 36.
.}
The applicant applied for final plat approval in August 1994. During staff review,
additional wetlands were discovered on the west side of 47th Avenue SW, the interior plat
road. In order to provide for wetland studies and protection of the wetlands, an extension
of the preliminary plat approval period was granted to November 1995. As a result of
delineation of the wetlands and provision of required buffers, the lots were reduced to 32
lots. In September 1995, the applicant applied for final plat approval. Before improvements
could be substantially completed, the rainy season arrived. The City has a long standing
policy of requiring substantial completion of improvements prior to fmal plat approval and
recording. Therefore, staff was unable to recommend final plat approval to the Council.
Improvements are now substantially completed. However, when the City was preforming
a final site inspection related to final plat review, additional steep slopes (slopes 40 percent
or greater) were discovered on Lots 8-13. In the City of Federal Way, slopes 40 percent
or greater require a 25 foot setback. However, since this plat is vested to King County
Regulations, setbacks must comply to King County Hazardous Slope Guidelines which
applies a certain formula to determine setbacks from steep slopes. The City is currently
working with Geo Engineers, the applicant's engineers to determine the required setback on
Lots 8-13.
Dash Pointe is an "A" List item being processed under the City of Federal WaylKing
County Interlocal Agreement. As per RCW 58 .l7 .l70 and Section 20-l34 of the Federal
Way City Code, the council is charged with determining whether the proposed fmal plat
conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and whether the subdivision meets
the requirements of all applicable state laws and local ordinances which were in effect at the
time of preliminary plat approval.
City of Federal Way staff has reviewed the final plat of Dash Pointe for compliance with
preliminary plat conditions and all applicable codes and policies. Preliminary plat Condition
No.9(d) requires Building Setback Lines (BSBL's) to conform to the Administrative
Guidelines for Building Setbacks from Hazardous Slopes on Plats and Short Plats. All
applicable codes and policies and plat conditions with the exception of No. 9(b) has been
satisfactorily met. Staff recommends approval to the council on condition that said
condition is satisfactorily met.
The remainder of staff report addresses how the applicant has fulfilled the conditions of
preliminary plat approval.
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 4
ill. COMPLIANCE WITH PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS
1.
Compliance with all platting provisions of Title 19 of the King County Code.
Based on review of the file, an inspection of the site, and conditions as outlined in this
staff report, staff has made the determination that the applicants have complied with
the platting requirements of King County Title 19 (Subdivision Code).
2.
All persons having an ownership interest in the subject property shall sign on the
face of the fmal plat a dedication which includes the language set forth in King
County Council Motion No. 5952.
~
King County Council Motion No. 5952 (March 26, 1984) requires that certain
language be included as a standard condition of approval on all subdivisions and short
subdivisions which require dedication of public road right-of-ways, construction of
public roads, and lor installation of surface water retention/detention facilities. This
language has been included under DEDICATION on Sheet 1 of 5 of the Final Plat
(Exhibit C). The Title Report shows certain parties as having ownership interest in
the property. The required signature blocks are provided under the Dedication
language on Sheet of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C). Signatures of all parties having
ownership interest will be provided on the [mal plat mylar prior to signing by the
Mayor and other department heads, and recording with King County.
3.
The area and dimensions of all lots shall meet the minimum requirements of the
SR 9600 zone classification or shall be as shown on the face of the approved
preliminary plat; whichever is larger. (Minor revisions may be considered.)
Lot averaging has been used to compute the lot sizes. Lot sizes range from 7,951
square feet (Lot l6) to 23,438 square feet (Lot 29), with an average lot size of 11,785
square feet. All lot sizes meet the requirements of King County Section 21.08.080
"Lot Area. "
4.
The applicant must obtain fmal approval from the King County Health
Department.
All lots will receive water from the City of Tacoma and, with the exception of Lot 32,
all lots will receive sewer service from the Lakehaven Utility District. Lot 32 will be
served by an on-site septic system. Lot 32 has received approval from the King County
Health Department (Exhibit F).
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 5
..\
5.
All construction and upgrading of the public and private roads shall be done in
accordance with the King County Road Standards established and adopted by
Ordinance No. 8041.
Ordinance No. 804l adopted the 1987 King County Road Standards which specifies
standards for public and private road construction. Roads within the plat were
designed and constructed in accordance with these standards. The interior road (47th
Ave SW) has been constructed and that portion of Hoyt Road adjacent to the plat has
been widened per the conditions of final plat approval.
6.
H an area-wide fIre protection assessment is authorized by King County prior to
fmal recording of this plat, this plat shall be subject to any assessment provided
by that ordinance.
An area-wide fire protection assessment has not been authorized by King County,
therefore this condition does not apply.
7.
The applicant must obtain the approval of the King County Fire Protection
Engineer for the adequacy of the fIre hydrant, water main, and fIre flow
standards of Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code.
The proposed plat is located within the City of Federal Way, however, water is being
provided by the City of Tacoma, not the Lakehaven Utility District As per
correspondence dated January 27, 1994 from the City of Tacoma (Exhibit G), the
water mains have been constructed according to approved plans and said facilities are
in service. The Federal Way Fire District has reviewed and approved the hydrant
spacing. The City of Tacoma will forward as-built drawings to the Federal Way Fire
Department for their files as soon as they are available.
8.
Final plat approval shall require full compliance with drainage provisions set
forth in King County Code 9.04 and current storm drainage requirements and
guidelines as established by Surface Water Management. Compliance may result
in reducing the number andlor location of lots as shown on the preliminary
approved plat. The following conditions represent portions of the Code and
requirements and shall apply to all plats.
a.
BALD approval of the drainage and roadway plans is required prior to any
construction.
The engineering plans (Exhibit H), which included drainage and roadways,
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 6
~
were reviewed and approved by the City of Federal Way prior to construction.
b.
A separate Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) plan for this project shall
be submitted with the engineering plans. The plan shall show areas to be
cleared (limits of the clearing) and provide a schedule of construction
(construction sequence). ~
This condition has been met per Sheet 5 of 7 of the approved engineering plans
(Exhibit H).
c.
Retention/detention (RID) facilities shall be located in tracts, unless located
within improved King County rights-of-way. Maintenance access shall be
provided to all facilities. This will require a I5-foot access roadway to all
manholes (RID). Access must also be provided for maintenance of the entire
pond.
The retention/detention facilities are located within the roadway. All manholes
are located within the roadway with the exception of CB #7 and CB #8 which are
located within a lO foot easement located on Lots 14, l6, and l7. Access to this
area is by a l5 foot access easement located to the east of these lots. Therefore,
this condition has been met.
d.
Prior to recording of the fmal plat, those portions of the retentionl detention
facility necessary to control the flows discharging from the site shall be
constructed and operational.
This condition has been met. All storm drainage facilities have been constructed
and are functioning.
e.
Oil/water separation facilities shall be provided at each point of permanent
storm drainage release from the site so contaminants do not enter natural
drainage features. In addition to standard King County oil/water
separators, the applicant is required to provide biofùtration prior to
discharge of stormwater into any sensitive area (e.g. streams, wetlands,
lakes, etc.). Such biofùtration includes 200 feet of broad, flat-bottom, grass-
lined swales) or equivalent systems.
Oil/water separation facilities have been designed and approved as part of
engineering review (Sheet I of 7) of the approved engineering plans (Exhibit
H). Biofiltration has been provided per rip rap flow spreader as shown on
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 7
f.
.~
(Exhibit I).
Drainage outlets (stub-outs) shall be provided for each individual lot, except
for those lots approved for infiltration by King County. Stub-out shall be
shown on the engineered plans and shall conform to the following:
1)
Each outlet shall be suitably located at the lowest elevation on the lot,
so as to service all future roof downspouts and footing drains,
driveways, yard drains, and any other surface or subsurface drains
necessary to render the lots suitable for their intended use. Each outlet
shall have free-flowing, positive drainage to an approved stormwater
conveyance system or to an approved outfall location.
Drainage outlets have been installed for each lot in compliance with this
condition. However, connection to the storm drainage system will not be
authorized until it is determined that an infiltration system is not feasible as
verified by soil logs.
Infiltration feasibility will be determined on a lot by lot basis at the time of
building permit application.
2)
Outlets on each lot shall be located with a five-foot-high, 2" x 4" stake
marked "storm" or "drain". The stub-out shall extend above surface
level, be visible and be secured to the stake.
This condition has been met.
3)
Pipe material shall conform to underdrain specifications described in
KCRS 7.04 and, if non-metallic, the pipe shall contain wire or other
acceptable detection feature.
The pipe materials installed are to the satisfaction of the City.
4)
Drainage easements are required for drainage systems designed to
convey flows through more than one lot.
This condition has been met per drainage easements shown on Sheet 5 of
5 of the Final Plat (Exhibit C) and per Notes No.7, 12, and 13 on Sheet
2 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C).
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 8
~
5)
The developer and lor contractor is responsible for coordinating the
location of all stub-out conveyance lines with respect to the utilities
(e.g. power, gas, telephone, television).
This condition has been met.
6)
All individual stub-outs shall be privately owned and maintained by the
lot home owner.
Note No.2. "Downspout Note" on Sheet 2 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit
C) addresses this condition.
g.
In some cases, on-site infùtration systems may be accepted for detention for
the lots depending on soil conditions. To determine the suitability of the soil
for inïùtration systems, a soils report that includes percolation tests and a
soil log taken at 6-foot minimum depth shall be submitted by a professional
engineer, or soil specialist. This shall include, at a minimum, information
on soil texture, depth to seasonal high water and the occurrence of mottling
and impervious layers. The report shall also address potential down
gradient impacts due to increased hydraulic loading on slopes and
structures. Soil permeability data obtained form the design of the septic
system may be used for the drywell retention system, provided data is
submitted verifying that no impervious layer exists within 6 feet of the soil
surface. If the soils report is approved, the inïùtration system shall be
installed at the time of the building permit. A note to this effect shall be
placed on the map page of the recorded document. The drainage plan and
the recorded document shall indicate each lot approved for inïùtration.
At the time of building permit, infiltration feasibility will be determined.
Wherever possible, infiltration shall be utilized unless determined not to be
feasible as verified by soil logs. Notes No.2 "Downspout Note" and No. l5
addressing drainage for Lots 7, l7, and 18 both found on Sheet 2 of 5 of the
final plat (Exhibit C) address this condition.
h.
Include with the drainage plan a downstream analysis. This analysis must
extend for a minimum distance of 1/4 mile from the point of release of each
flow discharging from the site. The analysis must address any existing
problems with flooding, capacity, overtopping, scouring, sloughing, erosion
or sedimentation of any drainage facility, whether natural or man-made.
Probable impacts due to construction of the project must also be addressed
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 9
with respect to these same concerns. Where this analysis reveals more
restrictive conditions, more stringent drainage controls may be required
than would otherwise be necessary for a project of this type. These controls
may include additional on-site rate andlor volume controls, off-site
improvements, or a combination of both. Any off-site improvements will
require the approval of all affected property owners.
A downstream analysis was prepared. More stringent requirements were not
necessary.
i)
Current standard notes and ESC notes, as established by BALD engineering
review, shall be placed on the engineered plans.
..\>
This condition has been met as per language on Sheets 4 and 5 of 7 of the
approved engineering plans (Exhibit H).
j)
The following notes shall be provided on the map page of the recorded
document:
"all building downspouts, footing drains and drains from all impervious
surfaces such as patios and driveways shall be connected to the approved
pennanent stonn drain outlet as shown on the approved construction
drawings # on fIle with the Department of Public
Works. This plan shall be submitted with the application of any building
permit. All connections of the drains must be constructed and approved
prior to the fmal building inspection approval." Those lots that are
designated for "Individual lot infIltration systems, the systems shall be
constructed at the time of the building pennit and shall comply with plans
on fIle at the Public Works Record Center."
This language has been provided in Note No.2 on Sheet 2 of 5 of the final plat
map (Exhibit C).
9.
Isolated areas of steep slopes (40% or greater) exist on portions of the proposed
subdivision. These appear to be located in the vicinity of Lots Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 7,
and 30, as shown on the proposed preliminary plat received October 9, 1989. To
protect the steep slopes and the adjacent property, the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
a)
Prior to fmal engineering plan approval, a licensed land surveyor shall
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 10
.~
detennine the limits of all steep slopes which exist within the proposed
subdivision. .
Since preliminary plat approval, the lots have been renumbered. Lots 3, 4 and
7 are now included within Tract B which has been designated as a Native Growth
Protection Easement. Tract B includes wetlands and an adjacent 50 foot buffer.
Lots 1 and 2 have been renumbered as Lots 3l and 30 respectively; there are no
steep slopes in this area. Portions of Lots 8 and 9 are now located where Lot 30
previously was. Steep slopes have been delineated on Lots 8 and 9 as shown on
Sheet 5 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C).
b)
The top and toe of the slope shall be delineated on the fmal engineering plan
and recorded plat.
This condition has been met as shown on Sheet 5 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit
C).
c)
The areas of steep slopes (40% or greater) shall be designated with a Native
Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) on the fmal engineering plans and
recorded subdivision. Any steep slope area located adjacent to the wetland
shall be included within the designation of the wetland tract. Any steep
slope area not located adjacent to the wetland may be recorded as an
easement on the affected lot(s).
Areas with slopes 40 percent or greater are shown on Lots 8-13 of the final plat
map. There was one steep slope area adjacent to the wetland on Lot 8. This area
has been included within Tract A, the wetland tract. The remainder of the steep
slope area on Lot 8 and those on Lots 9-13 are shown as easements on these lots
[Sheet 5 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C)].
d)
An additional Building Setback Line (BSBL) from the top and toe of the
slope shall be designated on the final approved engineering plans and
recorded subdivision. The BSBL shall conform to the "Administrative
Guidelines for Building Setbacks from Hazardous Slopes on Plats and Short
Plats" (adopted February 1, 1987). A geotechnical report may be required
to justify the final BSBL.
The City is currenly working with Geo Engineers, the applicant's engineers to
determine the required setback on Lots 8-13. Once determined, the appropriate
setback will be placed on the mylar prior to signatures and recording with King
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 11
County.
10. A wetland (Type 2) traverses the center of the proposed subdivision. A wetland
boundary is described in the wetland study prepared by Del Moral and Associates .
dated October 9, 1989. The following conditions shall be satisfied with respect
to this wetland:
}
a.
The original wetland study (dated October 9, 1989) shall be revised to
include additional wetland areas in the vicinity of lot nos. 30 through 36 (as
per revised plan received October 9, 1989). The revised wetland study shall
be subject to the review and approval of the BALD wetland specialist.
This condition has been met.
b.
The fmal wetland area plus a SO-foot buffer shall be designated as a Native
Growth Protection Easement (NGPE).
This condition has been met.
c.
The NGPE shall be located within a separate tract and shown on the
approved engineering plans and recorded fmal plat.
The NGPE's have been located within separate tracts -- Tracts A and B.
d.
An additional IS-foot Building Setback Line (BSBL) shall be delineated
adjacent to the NGPE and shown on the approved engineering plans and
recorded final plat.
A l5-foot building setback line adjacent to Tract A and Tract B is shown on the
final plat [Sheets 4 and 5 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C)].
e.
All stormwater generated by roadways within the proposed subdivision shall
pass through an oillwater separator and at least 200 feet of biofIltration or
equivalent prior to discharge into the wetland.
Oil/water separation facilities have been designed and approved as part of
engineering review (Sheet 1 of 7) of the approved engineering plans (Exhibit
H). Biofiltration has been provided per rip rap flow spreader as shown on
(Exhibit I).
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 12
11. Through the installation of a sanitary sewer line and other past activities, a
significant portion of the vegetation within the wetland and the wetland buffer
has been eliminated. To mitigate for the loss in vegetation, the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
~
a.
The final engineering plans shall include a vegetative enhancement plan.
The plan shall be prepared by a biologist specializing in wetland
enhancement. The plan shall be subject to the review of the BALD wetland
specialist.
This condition is no longer applicable, as the wetland vegetation originally
disturbed by the installation of sewer line has significantly recovered with native
vegetation. Please refer to June ll, 1996 Correspondence from the City's
Wetlands Consultant, Adolfson Associates, Inc. (Exhibit J).
b.
The final plan shall note the name, address, and phone number of the
biologist retained to monitor the implementation of the enhancement plan.
This condition is no longer applicable.
c.
The biologist shall conduct a three-year monitoring program. The site will
be evaluated at least twice a year to evaluate the survival and growth of the
planted vegetation. An annual report will be prepared and submitted to
BALD for review and approval.
This condition is no longer applicable
d.
The applicant shall post a Wetland Enhancement Perfonnance Bond. Upon
approval of the Ïmal monitoring report or when the enhancement plan is
deemed successful, whichever is later, King County shall release the bond.
This condition is no longer applicable
12. The following statement shall be shown on the approved engineering plans and
recorded Ïmal plat:
Buildin~ setbacks and Native Growth Protection Easements
Structures, fill and obstructions (including, but not limited to decks, patios,
outbuildings, or overhangs beyond 18 inches) are prohibited within the building
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 13
setback line (BSBL) and restricted floodplains (if applicable), and within the
Native Growth Protection Easement(s) as shown.
Dedication of a Native Growth Protection Easement (NPGE) conveys to the public
a beneficial interest in the land within the easement. This interest includes the
preservation of native vegetation for all purposes that benefit the public health,
safety and welfare, including control of surface water and erosion, maintenance
of slope stability, visual and aural buffering, and protection of plant and animal
habitat. The NGPE imposes upon all present and future owners and occupiers
of the land, subject to the easement, the obligation, enforceable on behalf of the
public by King County, which permission must be obtained in writing from the
King County Building and Land Development Division or its successor agency.
~
Before and during the course of any grading, building construction, or other
development activity on a lot subject to the NGPE, the common boundary
between the easement and the area of development activity must be fenced or
otherwise marked to the satisfaction of King County or its successor agency.
This condition has been met per language on Sheet 2 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C)
-- "Building Setbacks & Native Growth Protection Easements."
13. Erosion occurs downstream of the proposed subdivision. Increased runoff could
potentially impact downstream property. Due to the potential downstream
impacts, a more restrictive drainage design shall be required for this subdivision.
The release rate shall not exceed a pre-development 2-year storm, and detention
shall provide storage for a post-development 50-year storm (i.e., 2-50 design).
Review of the downstream analysis may require even greater restrictions than
mentioned above.
This condition has been met and exceeded as the drainage is designed to accommodate
a lOG-year storm instead of a 50-year storm event.
14. No retention/detention facility shall be located within the wetland or the wetland
buffer.
The retention/detention facility is located within the road. Portions of the biofiltration
facilities are located within the wetland buffer, however, these are considered
conveyance facilities, not retentionldetention facilities.
15. The majority of the site appears to be seasonally saturated with groundwater.
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 14
Numerous seeps and springs are found throughout the site. Field investigations
by BALD identified seeps and springs in the vicinity of 47th Ave. S. W ., 331st Ct.,
S.W. 330th Ct., Lots Nos. 3, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17 through 28 (as per the revised
plan received October 9, 1989). A report detailing the groundwaterlsoil
conditions at these locations shall be prepared by a professional geotechnical
engineer. The report shall ~ake specific recommendations for the design of a
dewatering plan and a roadway subgrade plan which will ensure the integrity of
future roadways, buildings, and utilities. The recommendations shall be subject
for review and approval by King County BALD. The rmal engineering plans
shall include a dewatering plan and roadway subgrade plan which satisfies the
rmal geotechnical recommendations.
~
Through the investigation of groundwaterlsoil conditions, the geótechnical
consultant may identüy other issues relevant to the project. It is the consultant's
responsibility to include a discussion of these issues, their impact on the project,
and recommendation for mitigating any identified geotechnical hazards.
A June l5, 1990 geotechnical report was prepared. Interceptor drains were installed
to address this problem.
16. Off-site flows from the upstream property appear to enter the site of the proposed
subdivision in the vicinity of Lots Nos. 12 and 13 (as per the revised preliminary
plat received October 9, 1989). The rmal engineering plans shall include adequate
stormwater conveyance to collect all off-site flows.
This flow was handled and taken care of with the construction and development of the
plat to the north.
17. Ponding water occurs in the vicinity of Lot 28 (as per the revised plan received
October 9, 1989). The design of the retentionldetention facility shall fully
compensate for the ponding water which exists at this location.
This condition was met through engineering review and approval.
18. Hoyt Road S.W. shall be improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, and 22 feet
of paving from centerline.
The required improvements have been made to Hoyt Road.
19. Twelve feet of additional right-of-way for Hoyt Road S.W. shall be dedicated
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 15
along the eastern property boundary, allowing for 42 feet of right-of-way from
centerline.
Dedication has been addressed on Sheet 3 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C). In
addition, at the time of final plat recording, a statutory warranty deed dedicating the
l2 feet of additional right of wJiY to the City will be recorded with King County.
20. The planter island, if any, within the cull-de-sacs shall be maintained by the
abutting lot owners. This shall be stated on the face of the rmal plat.
~
Planter islands have been provided. The Stonebrook Homeowners Association has
requested that they maintain planter islands. Therefore, if the islands are planted, they
would be maintained by the Homeowners Association [Note No. 14 on Sheet 2 of 5
of the final plat (Exhibit C)].
21. All lots adjoining an area or having area with an NGPE restriction shall be
provided with an acceptable boundary delineation between the lot or portions of
the lot and the area restricted with the NGPE. Said boundary delineation shall
be in place prior to any grading or clearing of the subdivision and remain in place
until a dwelling is constructed on the lot and ownership transferred to the ÏIrst
owner-occupant.
This condition will be met per Note II on Sheet 2 of 5 of the fmal plat (Exhibit C).
22. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with King County Slope-Density
Guidelines as provided in Attachment 9 prior to approval of the plan and prorde.
This may result in the loss andlor reconÏIguration of lots.
This condition has been met. All lots meet the guidelines.
23. If lot make-up area is required, calculations demonstrating compliance must be
submitted prior to approval of the plan and prorùe.
Lot make-up was not required.
24. The applicant shall comply with K.C.C. 19.38 by paying a fee to the Parks
Division in- lieu of providing on-site open space. (K.C.C. 19.38 establishes the
formula for said fee amount.)
A fee-in-lieu of park dedication in the amount of $12,091. 77 was paid to the City on
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page l6
October 30, 1995.
25. A homeowners' association or other workable organization shall be established to
the satisfaction of BALD which provides for the ownership and continued
maintenance of the open space area(s).
This condition has been met per language in the Fifth Amendment to the Protective
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Stonebrook Divisions 1 and 2, which will
also apply to Dash Pointe.
26. The following have been established by SEP A as necessary requirements of this
development as mitigation. The applicants shall demonstrate compliance with
these items prior to fmal approval:
~
a.
The wetland and its buffers shall be delineated and shown in a separate tract
and designated as an NGPE, in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy
E-329. The tract and NGPE (as appropriate) shall be shown on the
engineering plans and the imal recorded plat.
This condition has been met. Tracts A and B are designated as separate tracts to
be owned and maintained by the Stonebrook Homeowners' Association of which
Dash Pointe will be a part [ Sheets 3 and 4 of 5 of the final plat (Exhibit C)].
b.
A feasibility study comparing alternative sanitary sewer alignments and
detention facility locations with respect to the wetland and buffer shall be
prepared prior to engineering plat approval.
This condition was met prior to engineering review and approval. The sanitary
sewer was relocated out of the wetlands further to the west and up the slope to
its existing location.
c.
To reduce the risk of increased erosion, construction related to clearing,
filling, and grading shall be limited to the months of April through
September.
This condition was met during installation of required plat improvements.
d.
To minimize potential downstream flooding, the stonnwater design shall
utilize a 2-year release rate and a 50-year storage based on the 24-hour
stonn.
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 17
This condition has been met and exceeded.
e.
Required floodplain information for the stream and wetland shall be
submitted with the engineering plans. The floodplain shall be delineated as
an NGPE.
Information addressing this condition was submitted in the Technical Information
Report submitted as part of engineering review and approval. The limits of the
25-year floodplain are shown on Sheet 5 of 7 of the approved engineering plans
(Exhibit H).
~
27. The applicant has stated his intent to construct the surface water drainage system
of sufficient capacity to provide detention for the volume of water involved in a
one hundred year event storm, with an outflow rate equal to the two year event
storm. Based upon the applicant's statement of willingness and intent, the City
Council fmds that the same should be imposed as an additional requirement and
condition of approval.
This condition has been met.
28. The surface water drainage shall be reviewed by King County Surface Water
Management for compliance with the King County and Federal Way Surface
Water Management Codes and shall be redesigned and! or modified to meet the
requirements of the King County Surface Water Management Department.
This condition has been met.
29. In acknowledgment that the City of Federal Way has no City-owned park and
recreation facilities at the time of this approval and that a determination had been
made by the applicant and King County prior to incorporation of the City, that
a fee in lieu of dedication should be paid, said condition of approval should be
modified to provide that any such fees should be paid to the City of Federal Way
and not King County.
This condition has been met with payment of fees to the City on October 30, 1995.
v.
DECISIONAL CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 20-134 of the Federal Way City Code, if the City Council finds that the
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 18
following criteria have been met, the City Council may approve the final plat for recording:
CRITERION #1 - The fmal plat is in substantial confonnance to the preliminary plat.
Response -- This criterion has been met.
CRITERION #2 -- The fmal plat is in confonnity with applicable zoning ordinances
or other land use controls.
Response -- This criterion has been met.
CRITERION #3 -- All conditions of the Hearing Examiner andlor City Council have
been satisfied.
~
Response -- This criterion has been met except for Preliminary Plat Condition No. 9(b)
relating to setbacks from steep slopes. This condition will be met prior to signatures and
recording by King County.
CRITERION #4 - All required improvements have been made and maintenance bonds
or other security for such improvements have been submitted and accepted.
Response - This criterion has been met. All road and storm drainage improvements have
been constructed. In addition, all water and sewer lines have been installed. Adequate
bonding is in place with the City, Lakehaven Utility District, and the City of Tacoma.
CRITERION #S -- All taxes and assessments owing on the property have been paid.
R~onse -- Prior to being recorded, the plat is reviewed by the King County Department
of Assessments to ensure that all taxes and assessments have been paid.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on a site visit, review of the final plat maps, construction drawings, and the project
file, staff has determined that the application for final plat approval for Dash Pointe meets
all platting requirements of RCW 58.l7.070, King County Title 19, and Section 20-134 of
the Federal Way City Code, except in regard to the setback from steep slopes which will be
resolved prior to signatures and recording with King County. A recommendation of final
plat approval is therefore being forwarded to the City Council for your approval.
Staff Report - Final Plat Report
Dash Pointe
Page 19
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
.). Exhibit G
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
Exhibit J
EXlllBITS
Resolution 90-26 -- May l5, 1990 City of Federal Way Preliminary Plat Approval
of Dash Pointe with accomp~nying Hearing Examiner and King County BALD
Report
81h x 11 Reduced Copy of Approved Preliminary Plat of Dash Pointe
81h x II Reduced Copy of Final Plat Map of Dash Pointe (five pages)
Vicinity Map for Dash Pointe
Final Plat Resolution of the City of Federal Way, Washington, approving the fmal
plat of Dash Pointe
Health Department Approval for Lot 32, Dash Pointe
January 27, 1994 Correspondence from City of Tacoma
81h x II Reduced Copy of Approved Engineering Plans for Dash Pointe (six pages)
Detail of Rip Rap Flow Spreader
June ll, 1996 Correspondence from Adolfson Associates, Inc.
dashpnte\fmalplt. rp 1
. .
0072.150.016
JDH/naa
04/25/90
R: 05/09/90
E:\/',r ~p ~:' ~;T
~ ¡.' ,:¡ I;, :'.cJ I' I:
'.A
rJìjÎ rr> b=' J ~
rJ ¡J-\ \, .:: &~ , .' ll.
H..A~~~_~~ ,_. .'7'
RESOLUTION NO.
90-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CÓUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPRO~ING THE
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF DASH POINTE, KING COUNTY
BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT FILE NO" 689-21.
WHEREAS,
the Hearing Examiner
for King County held a
public hearing concerning the preliminary plat of Dash pointe,
and
WHEREAS,
at the
conclusion of
said hearing
the King
County
Hearing
Examiner
issued
his
findings,
conclusions,
~ dOt" d .
con ~ ~ons, recomrnen at~ons and order; and
WHEREAS,
subsequent to said hearing and said decision,
the
City
of
Federal
Way
incorporated,
said
incorporation
occ~rring prior to the King County council making a decision on
the preliminary plat of Dash pointe, and
WHEREAS, the City Council for the city of Federal Way
is the body now having jurisdiction and authority to pass upon
the approval,
denial or modification of the conditions of said
preliminary plat, and
WHEREAS,
the
city
Council' determined the need
for
a
public hearing to be held within the
corporate limits
of
the
newly
incorporated city
of Federal Way,
and having called
for
said hearing and notice of. said hearing having been glven,
the
he~ring having been held and at the conclusion of said hearing
the
city
council
hav ing made
its decision and deteunined that
th~re
was
a
need
to
modify
the
conditions
of
approval,
NOh',
JDWO0827R
-1-
cop,
THEREFORE,
THE
CITY
COUNCIL
OF
THE
CITY
OF
FEDERAL
WAY,
"lASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
section
1.
The
findings,
conclusions
and
recommendations
of
the
King
County
Hearing
Examiner
issued
February
12,-
1990,
which
included a recommendation to
approve,
subject to conditions,
the preliminary plat of Dash pointe,
are
hereby
adopted
as
the
Findings
and
Conclusions
of
the
city
Council. .
section 2.
The preliminary plat of Dash pointe,
King
County Building and Land Development File No.
689-21,
is hereby
~
_~approved subj ect to the following conditions:
A.
The
conditions
and
recommendations
contained
in
the
King
County
Staff
Report,
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
and
hereby
incorporated
in
full
by
this
reference; and
B.
The
findings,
conclusions
and
recommendations of the Office of the Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner for King County contained in its report and
recommendation to the King County council, dated February 12,
1990,
a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby incorporated-
.-
in full by this reference; and
C.
The following additional conditions:
l.
The applicant has stated his
intent
to
construct
the
surface
water
drainage
system
of
sufficient
capacity to provide detention for the volume of water involved in
a one hundred year event storm, with an outflow rate equal to the
Jm"¡OO827R
-2-
E~}(~-~E3~T --'p.
Fl'~ ~. ~~ ~
--.,"=-~-~- ,"--
~t.f
two year event storm.
Based upon the applicant's statement of
willingness
and
intent,
the
city
council
finds
that
the
same
should be imposed as an additional requirement and condition of
approval;
ii.
The surface water ~rainage shall be
reviewed by King County Surface Water Management for compliance
with the King County and Federal Way Surface Water Management
Codes
and
shall
be
redesigned
and/or
modified
to
meet - the
requirements
of
the
King
County
Surface
Water
Management
Department; and
iii.
In acknowledgment that the City of
~ Federal Way has no city-owned park and recreation facilities at
the time of this approval and that a determination had been made
by the applicant and King County prior to incorporation of the
city,
that
a
fee
in
lieu
of dedication
should be paid,
said
condition of approval should be modified to provide that any such
fees
should be paid to
the
city of
Federal Way and
not King
County.
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way
this 15thday of May, 1990.
APPROVED:
(jJU2J4,;:1;/
MAYOR,- DEBRA ERTEL
SWANEY, CMC
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May-9, 1990
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: Hay 15. 1990
RESOLUTION NO. 90-26
~:\'~~ "r:-,"i"'"
L,/-..l ;I,~jl¡ i!
"
JDI.JOO827R
-]-
c: /;. f~';:a. *" I I
¡ fn ~:; ~"'c~~~~.~--,-, ~ ..,..
.~
\-
EXHIBIT" A"
"
r"-"",."r "C-:--',- '?
L' ..,')1
"
fh!"I'~"Þ,'=' ~
~'~' ~.. '- ,,'=-
. -t'\.); ,-,,-,-~,-.- ~
~-'f
P~~B" PLÀHNING AND RZBOU~CEB DtP~THæ~
BUILDING AND 4kND DE~LOPHæ~ DIVISION
PRELIMIN~Y RZPORT TO THE .ONINO ~ SUBDIVISION XXAXI~R
DtCtKBtR 12, 1989 - PUBLIC atkRINO
PROPOSED P~T Of DASH POINT
TILE NO:
PROPOSED
ORDIHAJICE HO.:
689-21
89-874
>..
S~~y Of PROPOSED ^CTION:
This is a request for a subdivision of 30.7 acres into
42 lots for detached single-family d~ellings. Lot sizes
range froR 8,500 to 27,500 square feet. The proposed
project design is illustrated on Attach=ent 1.
B.
GENERAL INfO~~TTON:
Ovoer:
Engineer:
Developer:
STR: '
Location:
Zoning:
,>.creag e:
Humber of Lots:
Typical Lot size:
Proposed Use:
Se"age Disposal:
Water supply:
fire District:,
school District:
C.
HISTO~Y¿B^CKGRO~Q:
Sea first National Bank
l(th Floor, Columbia Center
701 Fltth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Bob West
171( Palm Ave. S.W.
Seattle, WA 98116
John R. Ne...ell
P,O. Box 396
Renton, WA 98057
Phone: 255-2190
M , T Joint Venture
422( Waller Road
Tacoma, WA 98(43
Sri 14-21-3
Generally bet...een 47th Ave. S.w. (it
extended) and Hoyt Rd. S.W. and'gener-
~lly ~et...een S.w. 330t~ St. (it ex-
tendèd) and the King County/pierce
County Line.
S-R (9,600)
30.7
(2 (Revised - 1.37 du/acre)
Ranges from 8,500 to 27,500 øquare
Detached single-family residences
federal Way 5e"er District
City ot: Tacoma
fJ9 - federal Way
f210 - federal Way
feet
A similar project, kno\Jn as Dash Point Heights and located
on 18.4 acres of the subject site, received preli~inary
approval in Kar~h~ 1980. No action ...as taken and the pre-
li~inary plat approval expired.
The Subdivision T~chnical Co~ittee dt King County has
conducted an on-site examination ot: the subject property and
has discussed the proposed development vith the applicant to
clarity technical details oC the application and to deter-
mine the co~patibility oC this project vith applicable King
county pla~s and codes and other oCCicial documents regulat-
ing this develop~ent.
As a result oC preli~inary discussions, the applicant
presented ~he Technical co~it~ee ~ith a revised plat on
~
[""":'/'f ~p~J~'r ~
," ,). t, ,.. ,; ,(",\ I)
'""",,".,.' ",¡IUd --- ~~~
[t}" ¥ i,' t,' -,' ~
f !Jtu: ~..co~~ -
PROPOSED PLAT Of DhSH POIHT
fILE HO. 699-21
october 9, 1989. The primary modifications include redesign
of the internal road configuration, delineation of vetland
boundaries, relocation-of the sanitary sever easement, and
the deletion of 24 lots.
D.
¡HRESHOLD DETERHINhTION Of ENVIRONMENThL SICNIfIChNCE:
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPAl, .
RCW 4J.21C, the responsible official of the Building and
Land Development Division (BALDI issued a mitigated thres-
hold deterMination of non-significance (MONS) tor the pro-
posed development on May 2, 1989. This determination i&
based on the reviev of the environmental checklist and other
pertinent documents"resulting in the conclusion that the
proposal vould not cause probable significant adverse im-
pacts on the environment provided the folloving meaSUres are
complied with:
The vetland and its buffers shall be delineated and
shown in a separate tract and designated as an NGPE, in
accordance vith Comprehensive Plan Policy E-329. The
tract and NGPE (as appropriate) shall be shovn on the
engineering plans and the final recorded plat.
2. ^ feasibility study comparing alternative sanitary
sever alignments and detention facility locations vith
respect to the vetland and buffer shall be prepared
. prior to engineering plat approval.
1.
J.
To reduce the risk of increased erosion, construction
related to clearing, filling, and grading shall be
limited to the months of April through September.
To ~inimi%e potential downstream flooding, the
atorm~ater desiqn shall utilize a 2-year release rate.
and a 50-year storage based on the 24-hour storm.
4.
~
s.
Required floodplain information for the stream and
vetland shall be submitted vith the engineering plans.
The floodplain shall be delineated as a NGPE.
Agencies, affected tribes and the public vere offered the
opþortunity to comment on or appeal the determination for
fifteen days. After the close of the comeent/appeal period,
any comments as~ing for a reconsideration of the threshold
determination vere revie~ed and considered. .
~either the HDNS nor the specific mitigation :easures were
appealed ~ithin the allotted lS-day time period by any
party, including the applicant, and, therefore, are incor-
porated as part of the applicant's proposal.
E.
AGENCIES COHTACTEQ:
1.
King County Natural Resources' Parks Division:
The conunents .trot:! this division have been incorporated
into this report.
2.
King County Planning' Community Develop~ent Division:
See Attachment 2.
J .
King County fire Protection Engineer:
See Attachment J.
5 (: {~ U
,- ~r'~~~
.~
\
[~~.."r ~ n~...1¡"='
,,:'Jil¡:
q:jÎ (,~ .='
f> r1", c. r-=>
tU L""~. '.
G:,
_.1..-11
PROpOSED PLÀT Of D~SH pOINT
fILE NO. 689-21
L
Seattle-King County Health Depart~ent:
The comments from the Health Depart~ent have been
incorporated rnto this report.
5.
Federal Way School District 1210:
See ~ttachment (.
6.
Federal way Sewer District:
7.
The comments from this district have been incorporated
into this report.
city of Tacoma Water Division:
The co~entß from the city have been incorporated into
this report.
8.
Washington state Department of Ecology:
Ho response.'
9.
Washington state Depart~ent of Fisheries:
Ho response.
10.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources:
HO response.
11.
Washington State Department of wildlife:
See Attachment 5.
12.
Washington state Department of Transportation:
See Attachment 6.
D.
King county conservation District:
"The xing County conservation District recomroends the
following development actions:
1.
Minimi:e vegetative removal and disturbance.
2.
Install Temporary Erosion Sedimentation control
facilities per plan prior to co~encing mass
clearing and grading operations.
Where possible, avoid soil disturbance during
rainy season.
J.
4.
Ins~all streets, utilities, and storm drains prior
to construction of buildings.
.5.
Avoid dumping soil, vegetative vaste, or debris
over steep slopes.
6.
Denuded ground cover should be protected within
15 d~ys of final disturbance of a particular area.
Seeding, mulching, netting and mechanical forms of
protection can be ~sed to stabilize exPosed soils.
7.
8.
All stockpiles of excavated soil or fill material
should have erosion protection at ~ll times.
9.
Connect all roof drains to existing or future
eto"" system.
10.
Design and managecent ot sub-sur~ace drainage
systec should be planner prior ~Q construction and
i~ple~ented according to that pla~. ~ll ~ater
should be convey~d to a safe, nc~-ero.ivs outlet.
,--
-B..
--
~~
._"~.-
~
F.
[."'-"7f "r-.-~. -.--
,.-', '..' "~
°' . ',(,JI;
A
lõì it'.. ~= "2
fJf-1!¡ ';;~'~ .
'V1 ~U" '
~~\.--."
~--I.f
PROPOSED PLAT OF DASH POINT
FILE NO. 689-21
11.
All road designs should use available soils
information."
See Attachment 7 for additional comnents.
14 .
METRO:
No response.
15.
Washington Natural Gas:
See Attachment 8.
NATURAL ENVIRONHE~T:
1.
Topography: As shown on Attachment 1, the site slopes
generally to the east and is characterized by a low-
lying valley.in Tract B. Elevations range from approx-
imately 225 feet near Joe's Creek to ~50 feet along the
western boundary line. Steeper slopes occur in the
southwest porti9n of the property and within the vicin-
ity of lot 30. Refer to the Analysis section of this
report for further discussion of this issue.
2.
Soils: Four surface soils are found on this site per
King County soil Survey, 1973.
a.
The area in the vicinity of lots 1-12 is
classified AgO.
~ - Alderwood gravely, sandy loam 15-30\ slopes.
Runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is severe.
This soil has a severe limitation for foundations,
due to slope and a moderate slippage potential.
It has severe limitations for septic tank filter
fields due to very slo~ pe~eability in the
substratum.
b.
The central portion of the site is classified AgC.
àgÇ - Alderwood gravely, sandy loam, 6-15t slopes,
(AgC). Runoff is slo~ to medium and the hazard of
erosion is moderate. This Boil has a moderate
limitation for foundations, due to a seasonally
high water table and slope. It has a severe limi-
tation for septic tank filter fields due to very
slow permeability in the substratum.
c.
The northern part of Tract B is classified Bh. ,.
Bellinqhðm (Bhl silt loam is a poorly-drained
alluvial soil developed in nearly level depres-
sions on the upland glacial till plain. Permea-
bility is slow, vith vater table at or near the
surface during ~etter winter months. Runoff is
slov, and the erosion hazard is slight. The
degree of limitations for both lov building foun-
dations and shallo~ excavations is severe due to
seasonal high vater table and moderate shrink-
swell potential and is severe for septic tank
rilter tieldG due to seasonal high vater table and
slov psrQeability. corrosivity is high for un-
coated steel and lo~ to ~odsratB for concrete.
Shrink-s~ell potential is low to boderats and can
adversely affect dikes, levees, and enban~ents.
This soil is fair for topsoil and poor tor road-
till. It is best used tor p"sture and ro~ crops
and is designated a5 pribe ta~l"nd in the King
Countyarel!.
,}
(-,. ~'.'.'? r "r .-~. .' - "'1""'
"') ".
1'.0-.' , . 11'~j¡' .
~(:p' Ii ~-.-'
,J ~ \¡ -. ~,=>
l'-.i..",
~\-U
PROPOSED PLAT Of DASH POINT
fILE NO. 689-21
d.
The are~ adjacent to Hoyt Road is classified RaC.
Raonar (RaC} is a fine sandy 10alO that i. \/el1-
drained, gently sloping to strongly rolling on
dissected glacial outvash terraces. Slopes are 6
to 15 percent. PerlDeability i8 lOoderately rapid
in the upper part of this soil and rapid in the
substratum, though silty layers in the substratum
are slowly per=eable. Runof! is medium, and the
erosion hazard is moderate. The degree at limita-
tions is slight to moderate for 10v building
foundations, severe for shallow excavations due to
slope and coarse-textured subsoil, and slight to
moderate for septic tank filter fields due to
. slope and possible groundwater pollution/
contamination. corrosivity is low to moderate for
both uncoated steel and concrete.
) .
Hydrography: Joe's Creek flows across the site froc
south to north, and vetland flO of Lower Puget Sound
has been identified on the property. Water from both
of these features flows into Lorene Lake and then into
Puget Sound. The lover portion o! the creeK contains
spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and trout.
Refer to the Analysis section for more in!or:ation
regarding this subject.
4.
The site lies within the Lover Puget Sound sub-basin of
the Puget Sound drainage basin.
Vegetation: This site is moderately wooded vith a
second and third-growth mixture of coniferous and
broad-leafed trees native to the Pacific Northwest.
Second-story vegetation and groundcover consists of
Northvest native species including salal, .word fern,
berry vines and grasses.
wetland species also occur throughout the site. A list
of plant species observed on the property is included
in the October 9, 1989 wetland report prepared by Roger
del Moral..
5.
Wildlife: S~all birds and anilOals inhabit this sitel
however, their popUlation and species are limited due
to nearby development., No special or endangered
species are known to exist on or near the property.
6.
Happed Sensitive ^reas: The Sensitive ^reas Hap folio
indicates that the Eh soils support Class III Seismic
Hazards, and the ^gD soils contain severe erosion
hazards.
^s previously 1:>entioned, vetland' f10 oCthe Lover Puget
Sound Basin and Joe's CrseK, an unclassified streac,
are located on the site. '
G.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHhRACT~RI5TrC5:
The property lies within a rapidly urbani:ing neighborhood,
adjacent to pierce County. surrounding land use consists ot
StonebrOOK to the north, ~he preli~inary plat or s~onebrooK
Division 2 to the vest, and the 2(-acre, 57-lot preliminary
plat also Knovn as Dash Poin~e to ~he southvest vithin
Pierce County. Parcels ranging in 5i,8 (roc 1/2 acrs ~o
1.17 acres lie ~o ~~e south.
A
.2u
- .7:'_=--
~
\
,
"
H.
1.
J.
E~- ~~ n ry r ,::-""" ~ r
,'=-- ,', '-',::,(311 -- --A_,~--
~'¡ '- ~
.'-;;;_",;!'" ;,',- ~Ii
.. "". L ' ¡ ,
'~--=----. ,-,- û--
- --=--
PROPOSED PUT OF- D.1.SH POlin
rILE NO. 689-21
The site itself is undeveloped and uninhabited. The
property has no known cultural or historical significance.
GENERAL DESIGN:
1.
Internal Circulation: The internal roadway section
will be constructed to urban standards. AS depicted in
Attachment I, 47th Ave. S.W. will be extended to the
south.
2.
Lot Pattern: The applicant is conforming to the
standard requirements to establish minimum lot areas of
9,600 square feet and may use KCC 21.08.080, lot aVer-
aging, where applicable. Portions of the site viII be
subject to the slope-density guidelines included as
Attachment 9. -
TRANSPORTI'.TIOII P~S:
1.
Traffic Generation: It is expected that approximately
~20 vehicle trips per day will be generated vith full
development of the proposed division. This calculation
includes service vehicles (i.e. mail delivery, garbage
pick-up, school bus) which may currently serve this
neighborhood, vork trips, shopping, etc.
2.
Subdivision Access: Access will be gained via
~7th Avenue Southwest.
:I .
Adequacy of Arterial Roads: This proposal has been
reviewed under both SEPA and the criteria in King
County ordinances 7S~~ and 8052, Adequacy of Existing
Roadways and Intersections.
The peak-hour traffic generated by this subdivision
falls below the threshold requiring mitigation (ten
peak-hour, peak-direction trips). The existing arter-
ial system will acco~odate the increased traffic
volume generated by this'proposal.
~ ,
Transportation plans: The King County Interim
Transportation Plan indicates that Hoyt Road S.W. is
~esignated as a secondary arterial.
The King County Bicycle Plan indicatBs the need for a
Class 2 facility along Hoyt Road Southvest.
The subject subdivision is not in conflict with these
plans.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1.
Schools: .The subject subdivision viII be served by
Twin LaKes Elementary, LaKota Junior High, and Decatur
Senior High Schools. See Attachment ~ of this report
for comments received froe the school district.
2.
ParKs and Open Space: The nearest coCUllunity parle is--
Olympic Vie~ Parle, located approxi~ately 1 cile north-
east of the site. Dash Point State Park is situated
about 1 ~ile northwest of the subject property.
KCC 19.)8 requires subdivisions of 10 acres or larger
in this zone cla&sification to either provide on-&ite
co~on open &pace or to pay a fee to the Parks Division
~
DH IF, F='
r-¡-1u ~:__...~
A
--.---... .--
It;) c:~~ ~'I:-~
E~ -. r.. r . " ".. ~ . ìf'"
~~{i'_."./-'I/
-'" ',J I: :II'_J II Ii
PROPOSED PLÀT Of DASH POINT
rILE NO. 669-21
tor establishment and maintenance of neighborhood
.p1\rks.
The applicant'a design provides no suitable open space
area and, therefore, payment of a tee ~ill be required
as a condition of approv1\l.
:3 .
Fire Protection: The Certificate of Water Availability
from the city of Tacoma Water District indicates that
vater ~ill be available to the site in sufficient
quantity to satisfy King county Fire Flow standards.
K.
Prior to final recording of the plat, the vater service
facilities must be either in place or bonded to meet
King County Fire Flo~ standards.
UTILITIES:
1.
Sewage Disposal: The applicant proposes to serve the
subject subdivision by means of a public Gever system
managed by the Federal way Water and Sever District.
A Certificate of Sewer Availability, dated Novecber 4,
1988, indicates this sever district's capability to
serve the proposed development.
The Health Department has reco~ended prelimin1\ry
approval o( this proposed method of sevage dIsposal,
and the Building and Land Development Diviaion concurs
with this recommendatIon.
2.
water Supply: The applIcant proposes to serve the
subject subdivision vith a public vater supply and
distribution system managed by the city of TaComa, and
the Health Department has recomnended preliminary
appr~val ~f ~is method of water supply.
The Building and Land. Development concurs with the
Health Department's recomNendation.
L.
COMPREHENSIVE ~D COMMUNITY P!~:
J...
Comprehensive Plan:
This proposal i. governed by the 1985 King county
Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as Urban;
Policies of the King county Cocprehensive Plan which
are relevant to the proposed ~ubdivi8ion are listed i~
Attachment 10.
2.
community Plans:
The subject subdivision is located vithin the Federal
way community PlannIng Area. The proposed project .is
consistent yith the_~ingle-Family, three to (our homes
per acre d~signation. The Area Zoning is SR 9600. ?ee
Attathment 2 Cor additIonal co~~nts.
The subject subdivision is not in. conflict vith the
goals, guidelines, and policies of tha Federal way
Co::ununity Plan.
11.
ST.~TUTES/CODES :
I! approved vith the reco~enèed conditions in this report,
the proposed development vill co~ply vith th~ require~ents
~
, '
\
r
r.
í:
'.'.
, c -:-~, ~ 'F'
.~) I '
.._,~.-,-A,,-
~i~~ II "¡j' "':t'-
,"k"=_~_~ '-' fIIIC
--= .", ._~
ff'/.
PROPOSED PL>.T 01"' O.\SII PO,lHT
fILE NO. 689-21
of the County and State Platting Codes and statutes, and the
lots in the proposed subdivision vill comply vith the mini-
mUm dimensional requirements of the zone district.
N.
"H.\LXSIS:
The Subdivision Technical Committee has assessed the impact
of the proposal and has identified the folloving concerns:
steeD S100e5
Isolated areaS 0' steep slopes occur vithin the vicinity of
lots 1-(, 7, and 30. A geotechnical evaluation vas prepared
by Terra Associates (May 1989) to address exioting condi-
tions and slope stability. Additional info~ation vill be
required to dete~ine the exact limits of steep slopes, and
if areas oC (0\ of greater are identified these areas shall
be designated vith "ative Grovth Protection Easements and
Building Setback Lines.
Wetlands
A site evaluation oC the subject property vas conducted by
Roger del Moral (October 9, 1989) to identify the vetland
boundaries and propose mitigation and enhancement plans.
The Type 2 palustrine forested vetland associated vith Joe's
Creek on the site occupies the lov-lying land betveen the
. toe oC slopes on the vest and east sides ot the creek.
'Along the vestern edge is a lOO-foot, recently cleared svath
\/hlch runs the entire length ot the property through the'
\/etland. This area has been cleared for a sanitary sever
intended to provide connections to 25 existing residences
developed south 0' the subject project. A vetland enhance-
ment plan vill be required along this sever alignment.
The ~ing County \/etland biologist has indicated additional
\/etland areas in the vicinity ot lots 30 and 36. Based on a
revised study, the tinal vetland area plus a 50-toot buffer
vill be designated as a Native Grovth Protection Easement
along vith an additional lS-foot Building setback Line.
o.
ÇO~CLUSTO~S :
The subject subdivision vill comply vith the goals and
objectives of the ~ing county Comprehensive Plan and vill
comply vlth the requirements of the Subdivision and zoning
Codes and other official land use controls of King County,
based on the conditions for final plat approval.
P.
RECOKHEHD~TTO~S:
It is reco~ended that ths subject subdivision, revised and
.received October 9" 1989, be granted preliÞinary approval
subject to the rolloving conditions or final approval:
1.
Compliance ~ith all platting provisions or Title 19 of
the King County Code.
2.
"11 persons having an ownership interest in the subject
property shall sign on the face or the final plat a
,).
\
r
,.
"
r,' .. - I' r n r -,-- -, ...,.."
r-- '. """.. "
t'.~--' ;:!;I~¡I:i
Oj11"J,~ I ~
rJ' l. ""'.."" "..
~~=- .
PROPQSED PLÀT Of D~SH PQIHT
FILE Hð. 689-21
dedication ~hich includes the language set forth in
King County council Hotion Ho. 5952.
3.
The area and di=ensions of all lots
=ini~uM requirements oc the SR 9600
or shall b.. as ~Gho~n on th.. face ot
liminary plat; whichever i& larger.
may be considered.)
The applicant mUGt obtain final approval from the King
County Health Department.
shall ..eet the
zone claGsification
the approved pre-
(Hinor revisions
4.
5.
All construction and upgrading ot public and private
roads shall be done in accordance with the King County
Road Standards established and adopted by Ordinance Ho.
BO41.
6.
It an area-wid.. fire protection assessnent is
authorized by King County prior to final recording of
this plat, this plat shall b.. subject to any assessMent
provided by that ordinance.
7.
The applicant must obtain the approval of the King
County Fire Protection Engineer for the adequacy of the
fire hydrant, water main, and fire tlo~ standards of
Chapter 17.08 of the King County Code.
Final plat approval Ghall require full co~pliance vith
drainage provisions set forth in King County Code 9.04
and current storm drainage requirements and guidelines
as established by Surface Hater Manage=ent. Compliance
may result in reducing the number and/or location ot
lots as shown on the preliminary approved plat. The
tollo~ing conditions represent portions ot the Code and
require~ents and shall apply to All plats.
a.
a.
BALD approval of the drainage and road~ay plans is
required prior to any construction.
b.
A separate Erosion and Sediment Control (ESe) plan
for this project shall be submitted with the'
engineering plans. The plan shall sho~ areas to
be cleared (limits of the clearing) and provide a
schedule of construction (construction sequence).
c.
Retention/detention (R/D) facilities shall be
located in tracts, unless located within improved
King County rights-of-~ay. Maintenance access
shall be provided to all facilities. This ~ill
requirs a l5-(oot access road~ay to all manholes
(R/D). Access must also be provided (or mainten-
anCe of the entire pond.
d.
Prior to recording ot the Cinal plat those
portions of the retention/detention Cacility
necessary to control the Clowo discharging (roc
the site shall be constructed and operational.
e.
oil/~ater separation Cacilities shall be providad
at each point oC pe~anent atOrQ drainage relea8e
Croc the site 50 contaminants do not enter natural
drainage Ceaturos. fn addition to standard King
County oil/vater separators, the applicant is
required to provide biotiltration prior to dis-
charge at stoO\~ater into any sensitive area (o.g.
streaC3, vetland3, laKes, etc.). Such biotiltra-
L~
A
~-'t-.-
.-
~
\
r
!.
g.
t. -~ ~....f" r. "P"""'" T ^-
~~."Y .:,';:::.':~)I .I -- -_._~_._-
r
/ò
PROpOSED PLAT Of D^SH PoIHT
FILE HO. 689-21
tion includes 200 (eet oC broad, flat-bottom,
grass-lined oualeo) or equivalent systema.
Drainðge outlets (stub-outs) shall be provided (or
each individual lot, except for those lots
approved for inCiltration by King County. Stub-
out ohall be shoun on the engineered plans and
shall conform to the following:
1)
Each outlet shall be suitably located at the
lowest elevation on the lot, so as to service
all future roof downspouts and footing
drains, driveways, yard drains, and any other
surface or subsurface drains necessary to'
render the lots suitable for their intended
use. Each outlet shall have free-tloving,
positive drainage to an approved stormvater
conveyance system or to an approved outtall
location. .
2)
outlets on each lot shall be located with a
Cive-foot-high, 2" x 4" staKe marKed "stan>."
or "drain". The stub-out shall extend above
surface level, be visible and be secured to
the stake.
3)
Pipe material shall conform to underdrain
specifications described in KCRS 7.04 and, if
non-metallic, the pipe ahall contain vire or
other acceptable detection feature.
4 )
Drainage easements are required for drainage
oystems designed to convey Claws through more
than one lot.
5)
The develòper and/or contractor is
responsible for coordinating the location of
all stub-out conveyance lines with respect to
the utilities (e.g. power, gas, telephone,
television).
~ll individual stub-outs shall be privately
owned and maintained by the lot home ovner.
In some case~, on-site infiltration systems may be
accepted for detention for the ~ depending on
soil conditions. To determine the suitability of
the soil for infiltration systems, a soils report
that includes percolation tests and a soil log
taKen at 6-foot minimum depth shall be submitted
by a professional engineer, or soil specialist.
This'shall include, at a minimum, information on
soil texture, depth to seasonal high vater and the
occurrence of mottling and impervious layers. The
report ohall also addreos potential down gradient
impact~ due' to increased hydraulic loading on
slopes and structures. soil permeability data
obtained [rom the design of the septic system may
be used ror the dryv~l retention system, provided
data is submitted verifying that no impervious'
layer exists ~ithin 6 reet o[ the Boil surface.
IC the soils report is approved, the inCiltration
systems shall 'be installed at the time oC the
building pe~it. ^ note to this errect shall be
placed on the map page oC the recorded document.
6)
10 .
.....-.
.~
-.R 4~,-~
~
.r-
\
.r--
r-
"
¡:-.-- 'r no ,y"
r:. ':, ~~j ~ i:
r /, ..: =
, :. , '~.
,~
.~ .
PROPOSED PL>.T or 0...511 POIHT
rILE HO. 689-21
The drainage plan and the recorded document shall
indicate each lot approved !o~ infiltration.
h.
Include vi~h the drainage plan a dovnatream
analysis. This analysis must extend tor a minimum
distance of 1/4 mile from the point ot release oC
each !lo~ discharging from the aite. The analysis
must address any existing problems with flooding,
capacity, overtopping, scouring, sloughing,
erosion or sedimentation oC any drainage Cacility,
whether natural or man-made. Probable impacts due
to con~truction oC the project must also be ad-
dressed ~ith respect to these same concerns.
Where this analysis reveals more restrictive
conditions, more stringent drainage controls may
be required than vould othervise be necessary for
a project of this type. These controls may
include additional on-site rate and/or volume,
controls, oCf-site improvements, or a co~ination
of both. Any off- site improvements will require
the approval of all afCected property ovners.
1.
,Current standard notes and ESC notes, as
established by BALD engineering reviev, shall be
placed on the engineered plans.
The following notes shall be provided on the map
page of the recorded document:
j.
"All building downspouts, tooting drains and
drains from all impervious surfaces such as patios
and driveways shall be connected to the approved
permanent stora drain outlet as shown on the
approved construction drawings f on
file with the Department ot Public Works. This
plan shall be submitted with the appl1cation of
any building permit. All connections of the
,drains ~ust be constructed and approved prior to
the final building inspection approval." Those
lots that are designated for "Individual lot
infiltration systems, the systems shall be con-
structed at the time of the building pa~it and
shall comply vith plans on file at the Public
Works Record Center.~
9.
Isolated areas of steep slopes (40\ or greater) exist
on portions of the proposed subdivision. These appear
to be located in the vicinity of lot nos. 1, 2, J, 4,
7, and JO, as shown on the proposed preliminary plat
received. October 9, 1989. To protect the steep elopes
and the adjacent property, the tollo~ing conditions
shall be satisfied:
a.
Prior to final engineering plan approval, a
licensed land surveyor shall deter=ine the limits
of all steep slopes vhich exist within the
proposed subdivision.
The top and to~ of the slope shall be delineated
on the final engineering plan and recorded plat.
b.
c.
The are"" ot steep slopes «(0\ or greater) ehall
be designated vith a ~ative Gro~h Protection
Eaee~ent (NGPE) on the (inal engineering plane and
recorded subdivision, ...ny steep slope area
located adjacent to the vetland shall be included
11
,_,~__A
~,'f
~
.-.
~
f~'
\
r
C"}'~ r ~ ~ ~~~ I~ r
k,,' " I: i¡ ~ I,.. ----,
Q) t\ f~~ r:. I 6 \ '
S'~ rt. L.,~ ~,.' -~~~~ ---' ¡J
PROPOSED PUT Of Ql\SII POINT
fILE NO. 689-'21
d.
~ithin the designation of the vetland tract. ~ny
steep slope area not located adjacent to the
~etland ~ay be recorded as an easement on the
affected ~ot(s).
An additional Building SstbacK Line (BSBL) from
the top and toe o( the slope shall be designated
on the final approved engineering plans and re-
corded subdivision. The BS8L shall conform to the
"Administrative Guidelines for Building SetbacKs
from Hazardous Slopes on Plats and Short Plats"
(&dOpted February 1, 1987). A geotechnical report
may be required to-just iCy the final BSBL.
10.
A wetland (Type 2) traverses the center o( the proposed
subdivision. A vetland boundary is described in the
~etland study prepared by Del Horal and Associates
dated October 9, 19~9. Th~ folloving conditions shall
be satisfied with r~spect to this wetland:
a.
The original wetland study (dated October 9, 1989)
shall be revised to include additiónal wetland
areas in the vicinity of lot nos. 30 through 36
(as per revised plan received October 9,1989).
The revised vetland study shall be subject to the
review and approval 0' the BALD wetland
specialist.
The final wetland area plus a 50-foot buffer shall
be designated as a Native Growth Protection Ease-
ment (HGPE).
b.
c.
The HGPE shall be located within a separate tract
and shown on the approved engineering plans and
recorded final plat.
An additional lS-foot Building Setback Line (BSBL)
shall be delineated adjacent to the HGPE and shown
on tn~approved'engineering plans and recorded
!lnal plat.
d.
e.
All atormwater generated by roadways within the
proposed subdivision shall pass through an oil/
vater separator and at least 200 teet ot biofil-
tration or equivalent prior to discharge into the
'ltetland.
11.
Through the installation of a sanitary sewer line and
ather past activities, a significant portion of the
vegetation within the ~etland and the wetland buffer
hAs been eliminated. To mitigate for the loss in vege-
tation, the following conditions shall be satisfied:
a.
The final engineering plans shall include a
vegetative enhance~ent plan. The plan shall be
prepared by a_biologist specializing- in wetland
enhancement. The plan shall be Bubject to the
revle~ of the B~LD vetland specialist.
The (lnal plan shall note the name, address, and
phone number of the biologist retained to monitor
the ipplementation of the enhancement plan.
b.
c.
The biologist shall conduct a three-year
~onitorinq program. The site ~ill be evaluated at
least t~ice a year to evaluate the survival and
12
.....___.A__-
;),.~
,~
,
r--
I
r'" " "f, ", ,r,' ,-~ - ...".,..
,,y i ,p,' ,'..,)' Ii
=-~.' ',,' ¡:;IIQ/I¡,
¡r.\ " F ':=, / ~
~.~ih~,' ~~ ~""
. r_~.~.-=,~~._"._,-, '",
"-
PROPOSED PUT Of D^SH POlllT
flLE NO. 689-21 -
gro~th of the planted vegetation. An annual re-
port vill be prepared and submitted to BhLD for
revie~ and þpproval.
d.
The applicant shall post a Wetland Enhancement
Performance Bond. Upon approval of the 'inal
~onitoring report or ~hen the enhancecent plan is
deemed successful, vhichever is later, King County
shall release the bond.
12.
The folloving statement shall be sho~n on the approved
engineering plans and recorded final plat:
Builðing setbacks and Native Orovtb Protection
l:asements
structures, tl11 and obstructions (incLuding, but not
li~ited to decKs, patios, outbuildings, or overhangs
beyond 18 inches) are prohibited ~ithin the building
setback line (BSBL) and restricted floodplains (if
applicable), and within the Native Grovth Protection
EaseÞent(s) as shovn.
Dedication of a Native Gro~th Protection Easement
(NGP£) conveys to the public a beneficial interest in
'the land vithin the easement. This interest includes
the preservation of native vegetation for all purposes
that benefit the public health, safety and vel fare,
including control of surface vater and erosion, main-
tenance of slope stability, visual and aural buffering,
and protection of plant and animal habitat. The NGPE
imposes upon all present and future owners and occu-
piers of the land, subject to the easement, the obli-
g~tion, enforceable on behalf o! the public by King
County, ~hich permission ~ust be ob~ained in,writing
from the King County Building and Land Develop~ent
Division or its successor agency.
13.
Before and during the course of any grading, building
construction, or other develop~ent activity on a lot
subject to the NCPE, the co~on boundary bet~een the
easement and the area of development activity must be
. !anced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of King
County or its successor agency.
Erosion occurs downstream of the proposed subdivision.
Increased runoff could potentially impact downstream
property. Due to the potential do~nstream impacts a
more restrictive drainage design shall be required (or
this subdivision. The ~elease rate shall not exceed a
pre-development 2-year sto~ and detention shall
provide storage for a post-development 50-year sto~
(1.e. 2-50' design). Revie.., of the downstream analysis
may require even'greater restrictions than mentioned
above.
H.
N; retention/detention (acility shall be located vithin
the vetland or ~he vetland butfer.
The majority or the site appears to be seasonally
saturated vith groundvater. Numerous seeps and springs
are found ~~roughout the site. Field investigations by
BALD identified seeps and springs in t~e vicinity of
~7th Ave. S.'w. , ))lst ct., S.W. ))Oth Ct., Lot Nos.
), ~, 9, 10, 1). 14, 17 through 28 (as ¡>er tho revised
plan received October 9, 1989). ^ report detailing the
IS.
1)
A
~I.f
.~.
PRONS¡;O I
Of DASI! NIIIT
fILE NO. 6B9-21
ground~ater/soil conditions at these locations shall be
prepared by a professional geotechnical engineer. . The
report shall maKe specitic recoQmendations tor the
design oc a de~atering plan and a road~ay subgrade plan
~hich ~ill ensure the integrity of future roadvays,
buildings, and utilities. The reco~endations shall be
. subject to revie~ and approval by King County B~LD.
The final engineering plans. shall include a devatering
plan and road~ay subgrade plan ~hich satisfies the
final geotechnical recommendations.
Through the investigation of ground~ater/soil
conditions the geotechnical consultant may iden~ify
other issues relevant to the project. It is the con-
sultant's responsibility to include a discussion of
these issues, their impact on the project, and racom-
~endation for mitigating any identified geotechnical
hazards.
16.
off-site flo~s trom the upstream property appear to
enter the site of the proposed subdivision in the
vicinity of Lot Nos. 12 and 13 (as per the revised
preli~inary plat received October 9, 1989). The final
engineering plans shall include adequate sto~~ater
conveyance to collect all off-site flo~s.
17.
Ponding ~ater occurs in the vicinity of Lot 28 (as per
the revised plan received October 9, 1989). The design
of the retention/detention facility shall fully compen-
sate for the ponding vater ~hich exists at this
location.
lB..
Hoyt Road south~est shall be iwproved ~ith curb,
gutter, and side~alk, and 22 feet of paving from
centerline.. "
19.
Twelve feet of additional right-oC-vay(or Hoyt Road
S.W. shall be dedicated along the eastern property
boundary, alloving for 42 feet of right-of-~ay from
centerline.
20.
The planter islands, if any, vithin the cul-de-sacs
shall be ~aintained by the abutting lot ovners. This
shall be stated on the face of the final plat.
All lots adjoining an area or having area vith a NGPE
restriction shall be provided ~ith an acceptable bound-
ary delineation bet~een the lot or portions of the lot
and the area restricted vith the NGPE. Said boundary
delineation shall be in place prior to any grading or
clearing of the subdivision and remain in place until a
dvelling is constructed on the lot and ovnership trans-
ferred to' the first ovner-occupant.
21.
22.
The applicant shall de~onstrate compliance vith ~ing
County Slope-Density Guidelines as provided in Attach-
ment 9 prior to approval of the plan and profile. This
may result in the loss and/or reconfiquration of lots.
23.
If lot make-up area is required, calculations
demonstrating compliance must be submitted prior to
approval of the plan and profile.
The applicant shall comply vith X.C.C. 19.38 by paying
a fee to the Parks Division in-lieu-o! providing on-
24.
t~
r. ...~ "r "C -~.'""1'" A
t:-.~~,. .. . :~;; :!
¡::::/_~; :l., t~ I.., ,-..:
" if '\"-,.,_,.o--~~_.~L ~,
-~ q.,
PROPOSED PLA. vr DASH POINT
fILE HO. 689-21
site open space. (K.C.C. 19.36 establishes the fo~u1a
tor said fee aoount.)
25.
^ homeovners association Or other ~orKable organization
shall be established to the satisfaction oC B~LO ~hlch
provides tor the o~nership and continued oaintenance oC
the open space area(s).
26.
The Collo~ing have been established by SEP^ as
necessary requirements of this development as mitiga-
tion. The applicants shall demonstrate compliance ~ith
these items prior to final approval:
a.
The ~etland and its butters shall be delineated
and sho~n in a separate tract and designated as an
NGPE, in accordance ~ith Comprehensive Plan Policy
E-J29. The tract and HGPE (as appropriate) shall
be sho~n on the engineering plans and the final
recorded. plat.~
^ feasibility study comparing alternative sanitary
se~er align~ents and detention facility locations
~ith respect to the ~etland and buffer shall be.
prepared prior to engineering plat approval.
b.
c.
To reduce the risk of increased erosion,
construction related to clearing, filling, and
grading shall be limited to the ~onths of April
through September.
.~
d.
To oinirnize potential do~nstrearn flooding, the
storrn~ater design shall utilize a 2-year release
rate and a 50-year storage based on the 24-hour
stoz:o:t.
e.
Required floodplain information for the streao and
vetland shall be submitted vith the engineering
plans. The floodplain shall be delineated as a
HGPE.
OTHER CONSIDE?~TIONS:
1.
The subdivision shall conform to KCC 16.38 relating to
grading on private property.
Development of the subject property may require
registration vith the Washington State Department of
Licensing, Real Estata Division.
2.
3.
PrelilOinar-{ approval of this application does not lilOit
the applicant's responsibility to obtain any required
pe~it or license from the state or other regulatory
body.
HK:lg
11/21/ a 9
TRANSMITTED TO PARTIES LISTED HEREAfTER:
Sea first National Bank
14th floor, Columbia Center, 701 Fifth Avenue,
Seattle, HA 98104
Bob \,'est
1714 Pal~ Ave. S.W., Seattle, WA 98116
John R. He~ell
?O. Box 396, Renton, Wh 98057
!5. .
-- --. -.
C' ~,'7 f ç .'..' :: n' T.
[ ~' . , , . .' ., . ' ,.. ¥.. II'
,. ~ I ',-
Q.I; 1""-')' 18
t., /. t. ~""'." ..
; if--" U ".o,~~~_._~~,- ',~
"
.A
~'f
~
, .
PROPOSED r
Of DASH POIHT
:L£ 1-10, 689-21
Hr. , Mrs. Robert E. stiers
))225 - 4)rd l\ve. S.W., Federal Way, WA
King County Conservation District
~ .
-16
9802)
"-
----'-'"
( "'r ,r'-,"jf"
. .~~_\. " 'I:' i_I
~~7.'.' !:~cJ,I:,
A
h],t,
rJ'~.
L"'_.~"= ('~~-',-, ~-4
r-'
,~
,
. '
EXHIBIT "B"
E.
February 12,
19 ~ 0
OFFICE OF TNE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
SUBJECT:
Building and Land Develop~ent File No. 6a~-21
Proposed Ordinance NO. a9-874
proposed Plot of DASH POINTE
30.7 acre lyinq generally between 47th Avenue
Southvest (If extended! and Hoyt Rood Southwest
and generally between Southwest 330th Street (if
extended) and the ~ing County/Pierce County LIne
SUMHARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Di';'lon's PrelimInary:
Di' :~on" rinal:
txa..iner:
PRELIHINARY REPORT:
Approve, subject
Approve, subject
(modifIed!
Approve, subject
(modified!
to conditions
to conditions
to conditions
The Building and Lind Development Division's preliminary
Report on Ite.. No. 689-21 vas received by the Exa.iner on
November 1, 19a,.
PUBLIC REARING:
After reviewing the Building and Land Development
Division's Report. exI.inlng Ivllilble infor.~tion on file
with the application and visIting the property and
surrounding area, the Exlmlner conducted a public hearing
on the s~bject IS follows:
The hearing on Item No. 6a'-21 VI. opened by the Ex~..lner at
9:25 a.m. on Dece..ber 12, l~a~, In BuIlding and Land
Develop..ent Division Hearing Room No.2, 3600 - 136th Place
S.E., suite A, Bellevue, washington, .nd closed at 11:35 p....
PartIcipants at the public hearIng and the exhibits offered and
ent.red are listed In the attached minutes. A verbatIm
recording of the hearIng Is avaIlable In the offIce of the
ZonIng Ind Subdivision txamlner.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS' RECOHHENDATION: Hoving revleved the
record In this ~atter, the Examiner now makes and enters the
(0110'dng:
r", ~ ~r ~ r,,- '"""'"'", r
r-'-" ¡ " ,; '..y" :¡
&.~l." ':iJ¡~-c¿¡I!"
'- - '- -----
fl"\) J¡'
\0"1,.'1
, !f r,
i:~ ~O.
0 . . . tJ1f. \
-'~oC_~-'~",- '-
...
A
J~1f
.~,
}
~--, , ~ - '~,' r,
\ ,
,~/'~:,.,
" r ,- -, ~ "F'
",e?j ¡',i, Ii
':', ,-""" I'
¡¡"','I/"'F' .."
fY{) , ':i :'=-. .... ,
, !f (.. '-=-" bO_~_,,=--~-- '-\,>
689-21
paqe < '
fINDINCS:
1 .
Central Intor.atlon:
STR:
Lo'catlon:
SW 1(-21-3
Centrally between (7th Avenue
Southwest (It extended) and
Hoyt Road Southvest and
generally betv~en Southwest
330th Street (It extended) and
lhe llnq County/Pierce County
Line
S-R (9,600)
30.7
(2 (Revised - 1.37 du/acre)
Ranqes from 8,500 to 27,500
square feet
Detached slnql~-family
residences
fedetal Way Sever District
City of Taco..a
139 - rederal Way
1210 - federal Way
~
:onlnq:
Acreaqe:
Nullb~r ot Lots:
Typical Lot Size:
Proposed Use:
Sewaqe Disposal:
Water Supply:
r1re District:
School DistrIct:
2.
ThIs Is a request for prell~lnary approval of I
subdivision at 30.7 acres Into ~2 lots foe detached
sInqle-famIly dwelllnqs at a site adjacent to Pierce
County In the rederal Way Community. It is ?roposed to
c~eate lots ranqlnq In sIze from 8,500 to 27,500 square
feet vhlch the Plannlnq Division repocts Is consistent
with the rederal Way Com.unlty Plan Vhich deslqnat~s the
property slnqle-fa.l1y three to four holies per acre and
the area zoninq of S-R (9,6001. The property would be
peovlded aever seevlce by the fedecal Way Sevec Dlatrlct
and vatee by the City of Tacoma. portions ot the cite are
occupIed by wetlands, a stream and steep slopes. Aa a
r.~ult, the Buildinq a~d Land Develop..ent Dlvl.lon has
reco..ended extensive conditions to deal with the phycical
li.itat~o~~ ~f the site which are cdopted below. The
41'prtcã'nt' s representatIves have Infor..ed the Exa.,lner '
that it is in concurrence with the r.port and recommended
conditions of th, Buildinq Division in this matter.
3.
One neiqhbor has called the County's attention to
l~creaaed tloodinq on her propecty upstream froa this
~1,te. The County's .nqlneera have stated that the
rIoodinq Is most probably caused by qradInq In ?ierce
County upatrea. trom her property. With an Incr.ase In
t~e size of culverts on the .ubject property IS
r~o.~ended below, backup troll Da.h Pointe will be
..!ltely. Therefore, the floodlnq .hould be a~equat.ly
addressed accocdlnq to the Sub¿ivlslon ,echnlcal
Co".lttee.
~ .
Except as noted above, the facts, analysis and
recom..endatlon pre.ented in the Dlvl.lon of eulld1nq and
Land Development Pcell..Lnary Repoct' dat'ed December 12,
198' arc unconi;.ted an~ they aCe incorporated hece by
reference. A copy of the Division of Buildlnq and Lind
Develop~~nt report will be attached to the cople. of the
e.a.,lnec's repoct which are sub~ltted to the clnq County
c-ouncll.
CONCLUSIONS:
I.
[t approved subject to the condItions reco~~.nd.d ~.lo~,
the proposed .ubdlvlslon ~III conply ~Ith '0< ,001. and
A
~''
,
,
--
,
),
t".~ "f "r:-~'~";~\I
c' >: :,,":\ '~-j¡ 1\ \
~; . \ I', d t.=< '.
if" I' ,c" ~I= .., ~
1,"'1'.'\', : ," ,. '" '.>'
t j \:"'-""-"'_.~'~-~
689-21
page)
objective. of the CO~prehen.i~e Plan, rederal Way
Com~unity Plan, subdivision and Zoninq Code~, and other
official land use controls and policies of Kinq County.
2.
If approved ~ubject to the conditions reco~~ended belo~,
this propo~ed subdivision ~Ill ~ake aepropriate provision
for the public health, saCety and general velfare and Cor
drainage ~ays, streets, other public vay~, vater supply,
and sanitary ~a~tesl and it ~ill sorVe the public use and
interest.
3.
The condition~ reco~~ended in the Division oC Building and
Land D~v~lopm~nt'. Preliminary Report as a~ended belo~ are
in the public interest and are reasonable requirements.
RECOI1I1ENDATION:
Grant preli~inary approval to the plat oC Dash Pointe, subject
to th~ conditions s~t forth at pages 8 through 15 of th~ report
of th~ auildinq and Land Development Division for the December ~
12, 1989 public hearinq, vith the follo~lnq a~end~ent.:
1mended Condition No.
12 :
Buildinq Setbacks aud Native Grovth Protection Easements
Structur~s, Cill and obstructions (includinq, but not
limited to decks, patios, outbuildinq~, or overhangs
beyond 18 inches) are prohibited ~ithin the building
setback lin~ (BSBL) and restricted floodplains lif
applicablel, and ~ithin the Nativ~ Grovth protection
Easem~ntsl.) as shovn.
Dedication of a ~ative Gro~th Protection tasement
INCPt) conv~ys to the public a b~neficial interest In
th~ land vlthin the ea.ement. Thi. intere.t include.
th~ pres~rvation of native vegetation for all purposes
that b~nefit the public health, safety and ~~lfare,
lncludinq control of surCace ~ater and erosion,
.aintenanc~ of slope stability, visual and aural
buff~rinq, and protection of plant and ani.al
habitat. Th~ ~CP~ imposes upon all present and Cuture
ovner. and occupiers of th~ land subject to the
ea.em~nt, the obligation, enforceabl~ on behalf of the
public by Kinq County, to leav~ undisturbed all trees
and oth~r vegetation ~ithin th~ ea~e~ent. ,he
veqetation ~lthin the easement ~ay not be cut, pruned,
cov~r~d by Cill, removed or da~aged ~ithout expre..
permi~sion from ~ing County, ~hich per~isslon must be
obtained in vriting from the ~Inq County Building and
Land Development Division or Its succesaor agency.
aefor~ and during the course of any gradlnq, building
conatruction, or other development activity,on a lot
, .ubject to the NGPE, the cammon boundary ~et~een the
ea'e~ent and the area oC deyelopment activity muat be
eenced or othec~ise marked to the'satisfactlon oC Kinq
County.
Amended Condition No.
18 :
Hoyt Road Southve.t ,hall be I~proved vith curb, guttor,
and ,idevalk, and 22 ro.t or ?aYlnq (rom c.nt.,line un!e..
a ya,iance can be obtaIned from ~he ~epart~.nt of ?ubllc
'010 r ~..
A
:¿tf
.~
),
.~.
E)I"f1 ~~~~If
"-=--. i Î. ...' ,; "',t~ I
-~.'...' ,;:,f=", 1-
fJÌ\ k' ,'. ¡;- 2 .3
d?\".. .. '" \.
. ff"',,':.d: L..::.~ ~~- ,-. L
68~-21
p'-ge 5
Action of the Council rlnal. The action of the Council
approving or adopting a recommendation of the Examiner Ihall be
final and concluliv. unless vlthln thirty 130) day. fro. the
date of the action an aggrieved party or person applies for a
writ of certiorari (rom rbe Superior Court in and for the
County of ~ing, State of Washington, for the purpo.e of review
of the action taken.
MINUTES or THE DECEHBER 12,
NO. 689-21:
1989 PUBLIC HEARING ON BALD FILE
The Rearing Examiner In this matter VIS Robert E. Beaty.
Participating In the hearing Vere Laura ~aye, Connie Iten, Joe
Hiles and Reldl ~och of Building and Land Development Division.
David Horrison, Dr. Roqer Del Koral, Kr.. Robert E. Stiers, R.
RUsh Spedden, Bob West, John R. Newell and David Horrison.
The follovnq exhibits vere presen~ed and entered into tho
record:
EXhi bit No. I,
Exhibit No. 2:
Exhibit No. ):
Exhibit No. ~,
Exhibit 110. 5:
Exhibit 110. 6:
Exhibit No. 7,
Exh Lbit No. 8,
Exhibit 110. 9:
Exhibit No. 10,
Exhibit No. 11:
Exhibit No. 12:
Exhibit No. 13:
Exhibit No. 14:
Exhibit No. 15:
Exhibit No. 16:
Exhibit No. 17:
Exhibit No. 18,
Exhibit N.o. 19,
Exhibit No. 20:
~535DIREBlja
~
Bulldinq and Land Development Division
Preliminary Report, dated December 12, 1989
Application, dated November 17, 1988
EnvironMental Checklist. dated November 17,
19 8 8
~Itigated DeterminatIon of Nonsignificance,
dated May 2, 1989
Affidavit of Polting. dated November 3, 1989
Reviled Plat, dated October 9. 1'8'
Land Ole Hap
Ceotechncal Evaluation by Terra Alsocociatea,
dated Hay 2. 1'8'
Wetland Delineation and Kitigation Plan by
Horal. dated October '. 1'8'
Plat Kap vith Wetland highlighted
Wetland Delineation Addendum
Hap of early plat south of subject property
Initial November l,is application proposing
66 lots
Hap shoving dIfferent lot configuration with
cul-de-sac (63 lots! .
cul-de-sac eliminated-early assumption of
wetland area (51 lotI'
Initial approved lewer plan
Revised sewer pian - outlide vetland
Hop identifying all vetland. (~2 lotI)
Propoled Native Growth Protection ea.ement
Wording for lIotive c:ovth protection Eolement
condition
A
;1'+
.-.
~
r""" "r r r ~ ' -f h.
t)!j'~;¡¡t~~~il - -- "
-----_.-----~
1(, I
t :í'
'2u -- ;J.LJ
c,--~-~ -,- - ----~
689-21
,
_Pa~e 4
Amended Condition No.
25:
A homeovnera a"oclation and other uor~able orqanitation
shall be establi,hed to the satisfaction of the Bulldln~
and Land Development Divi,ion which provide a for the
ovner,hlp and continued maintenance of the vetland tracta.
ORDERED this
1990.
12th day of rebruary,
~~~~
Robert E. 0 aty
Deputy %onin9 and Subdivision
E.amlner
TRANSXITTE~ thls 12th ~ay of february, 1990 by certified mail
to the follovln9 parties of record:
I.
x , T Joint Ven/D. Morrison
xr/Xrs Robert £. Stiers
Darrell/Rose Herman
John R. Nevell
Dr. R0ger Dexoral
H. Rush Spedden
Bob West
Seafirst Ban~
TRANSXITTED this
partl~s:
12th day of rebruary, 1990 to the follovin~
Laura ~aye, Joe Miles, Heidi ~och, Connle Iten, Tammy Johnaon
of Bulldin~ and Land Development Division
Crai~ Laroen, Kln9 County Community Plannln9
~athle Hurata-Smith, ~in9 County Public Works
Kin9 County Conservation District, Attn: Jill Reymore
Walhln~ton State Department of Wildlife, Attn: Tony Oppermann
ted. wlY ?S./J. French Tech.Serv.Unl./D. Offin
Terra Alloc/A. Butail ?eter C. Hayes
NOTICE: or RIGHT TO APPEAL
In order to appell the recommendltlon of the !xaminer, vritten
notice of appeal must be filed vith the Clerk of the ~in9
County Council vith a fee of ~70.00 (chec~ payable to ~ln9
County Office of Finance) on or before rebruary 26, 1990.
notice of appeal ia filed, the ori~inal and 6 copiea of a
written appeal statement specifyin9 the blsis for the appeal
and ar9ument in support of the appeal mult be filed with the
Clerk of the ~ln9 County Council on or before xarch 5, 1990.
If a vritten notice of appeal and fllio9 fee are not filed
vlthln 14 calendar days of the date of this report, or If a
vritten appeal statement and Irçu~ent arc no~ filed vi thin 21
calendar days of the ~Ite of this report, the Clerk of the
Council shall place I proposed ordInance vhlch Implements the
Examiner's recommended action on the agenda of the next
Ivllilble Council meet¡n~.
If I
ril!n9 requires actual delivery to the Office of the clerk of
the Council, Room \03, ~!n9 County Courthouse, prior to the
cloae of bua!ness (\:3D p.m.) on the date due. Prior ma!lin9
is not sufflclen~ If ,ctual receipt by the Clerk does not occur
wlto!n the applicable time period. The Examiner does not hive
authority to extend the tl~e ?erlod unless tOe Office of the
Chr\; Is not open on the specIfIed clos!n~ ~ate, !n which event
ce1lvery ?r!or to t~e dose of ~uslne.. on the next bu.lne.a
day I. .u~~!c!ent ~o ~..t the filing requirement.
DASH POINTE
A PORTION OF THE S.W. 1;" OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M.
KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON
DEDICATION
KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF
INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED, HEREBY DECLARE THIS PlAT TO BE THE
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MADE HEREBY. AND DO HEREBY
DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER ALL STREETS AND AVENUES NOT
SHOWN AS PRIVATE HEREON AND DEDICATE THE USE THEREOF FOR ALL PUBLIC
PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE USE THEREOF FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY
PURPOSES, AND ALSO THE RIGHT TO IMKE ALL NECESSARY,SLOPES FOR CUTS
AND FILLS UPON THE LOTS SHOWN THEREON IN THE ORIGINAL REASONABLE
GRADING OF SAID STREETS AND AVENUES, AND FURTHER DEDICATE TO TtE USE OF
THE PUBLIC ALL THE EASEMENTS AND TRACTS SHOWN ON THIS PlAT FOR ALL
PUBLIC PURPOSES AS INDICATED THEREON, INCLUOING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
PARKS OPEN SPACE, UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE UNLESS SUCH EASEMENTS OR
TRACTS ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ON THIS PlAT AS BEING DEDICATED OR
CONVEYED TO A PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE PUBLIC, IN WHICH CASE WE
DO HEREBY DEDICATE SUCH STREETS, EASEMENTS, OR TRACTS TO TtE PERSON 01\.
ENTITY IDENTIFIED AND FOR THE PURPOSE STATED.
FURTHER, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SU6DIVIDED. WAIVE
FOR THEMSELVES, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY
DERIVING TITLE FROI.4 THE UNDERSIGNED, ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS WHICH IMY BE
OCCASIONED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION. OR MAINTENANCE OF
ROADS, AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN
CLAIMS RESULTING FROM INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE BY THE CITY OF ÆDERAl
WAY.
FURTHER. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE LAND HEREBY SU6D1V1DED. AGREE
FOR THEI.ISELVES, THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNs TO INDEI.4NIFY ANO HOLD THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. HARMLESS FROt.A IoHY DAMAGE.
INCLUOING ANY COSTS OF DEFENSE, CLAIMED BY PERSONS WITHIN OR WITHOUT
THIS SUSDIVISION TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY ALTERATIONS OF THE GROUND
SURFAdE. VEGETATION, DRAINAGE. OR SURFACE OR SU6-SURFACE WATER R.OWS
WITHINITHIS SUBDIVISION OR BY ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION OR
IAAINTENANCE OF THE ROADS WITHIN THIS SU6D1V1S1ON. PROVIDED, THIS WAIVER
AND INDEMNIFICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS RELEASING THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS. FROt.A LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING THE COST OF DEFENCE, RESULTING IN WHOlE OR IN PART FROt.A THE
.NEGLIGENCE OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS. OR ASSIGNS.
THIS SUBDIVISION, DEDICATION. WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND AGREEMENT TO HOLD
HARMLESS IS MADE WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
DESIRES OF SAID OWNERS.
;¡]~~~.
."Y":-"" %):;~ u "'- ,......,~ .,,-,oo. ....
~....... --,~
rw-r.lI.tr..,--,
'TATE OF WASHINGTON
Counly 01 " Ú"fJ
I u<1i1y lhall know or hay. uti,liICtOry evide""" 1M! ¡:I...~l..., ~"
"'U~c... UI.I.. Wy..... 6. X.+c.o oigMd lhi, ..,!rumenl and ~ 1110 be
~Ir.. and YOlunlary &CIlor lhe US" and purpo'.. manlion8d in the
InSlrum,nl.
.
\, ~
"'"""""
~t:u~u~,c ~ a.,'ftt~
Trtlt N'~ f..J,(,'c.
My A¡>poml....n! f.",r" I ~ I {, 7
Daled
,/~1IH;
STATe OF WASHINGTON
County 01 " 't.K ~
I co".fy thai I know or haYO ...lislactory OyKla""" thai M; cJ,u,1 A.í ,,-c d IigMd thi,
~~::'o':;~: '::I::;~ed IhatÞ~~t authorized 10 ..~tr ~"':¡:..~...." 10
be tho trot and yolunt.ary act of ouch patty lor the tlUS and purpowl tMnIioned in the
,n""um.n!.
...
.--'-...
,':$'
~(
~'"
~i.'I.,
0:-,.."
Oat."
"1-1(16
~~I~~U~U~'C ~a ,Ytt~
ToI" No~ I¡.J,.(I <-
My Appoinlmonl e.piro, I L./ 1(11
~~~ c: W1.~~:iTON
I certify ""'II know )( ","VI ..ti,tactory evòOonce "",I lávin A, k.LvtJ ,.on," Ih..
::::'..~: ":t:,"';'~1( that (~¿ ~horUlO 10 ..8CUt~II~;::d,"":';,~'¿'6'
be .". Ire, and voIunI.ory act 01 wcI1 patty 10< 1108. tIU, and purpo.., menhoned in Ih,
inctrumenl,
......"..
~.
~
1/J.l(1r
OatlO
Slgnalure of. 8" .. a. Uu -, .. .. ,- \
Notary Public \A,AAoAo" ...,..~
nil . "o~ flAl"l,,-
"'r /.ppointm8nt e..pir.. 1s.l1 /11
RECORDING CEftTlflCATE
Filed lot _0 at Ih8 requa,t 01 ,he Kong CounIy Councillhi& _day 01 .
18~ at minuI8, put __,.'n. and ,~ in VokI.... _01 Pia". page
~ raoord& 01 King County, Washington,
DIVISION Of ftECOIIDS AND ELECnONS
&.A.1Inag,r
Superinllnó8nl 01 Record,
LAND SURV£VOR'S CERTIFICATE
I HEJlEBY ŒR'I'EY tHAT 'tHIS PlAT Of' DASH ÞöIK1E IS BASED ~ N
~ SUIt'ÆY AN> SUBDMSION'Of' SEC11ON 14. ~ 21 HQRlH. ..
. ItAHQE " EAST Of' WJL, tHAT '11£ coœse:s AHI)-DlSTANŒS /oÆ.' ~
CXWEC1lY'!HEREON; tHAT tHE 1oI0tUÐ0'S HA'Æ BEÐ SET AND 1Œ
lDT AND ILOCI( OORI£RS HA'Æ BEÐ srAlŒÌ> CORREcn.y ON '11£ OROUND
AS COHSlRUCTION IS CQtM>\.E'ŒD AND tHAT I HA 'Æ FUll. Y COUPUED wrn
'11£ Pfro'ytS ONS Of' '11£ PlA~G REQlU,l1ONS.
(
P
C
sæV£YWS SEAL
BUSIIoESS NAME:,_~çg.,j~,..
AOOR£SS: ...!'..,<?:..!!2~.:z.!~.
<
p
..._. .................' ..
CITY. SUTE: .!òJ!i~w...,,~3.~m.
PHOO£ foP. :_..~.I. .~..1.~~.3...
~
sa:ET ..
Of'..~.. .
~Er'
,._, ",.."
,'",
~
'~~ë
II
i
o¡
ti
E ,
!
~ ,
.
1
t
~ '
~
~.~
"'~
8
.u-
~.~-
~~
",- .".- ""'~~,ì
<Þ~'; ;1'
".'" ¡;¡
<>,-1
'~
- -
\,'C'
~;
Ÿ
,:(-
\~
\
')
.I
.z
\.
-,~
....-..--
~~
,¡¡
......
~.-
~;
~i
¡~
.~\~.
".
't
..1
t.~
;'"
.....
~.,-
~a
.
E
,~-
.""';;.--
8
~~ .
,"'"
.....,-
~¡ '.
a
.~~
~;
~.
....
:<to
-.,,'.
.~
..,
......
~-
~;
,K..,
~..........
~i
...~,
...........
~~
~m
~;
",-
~,-
~~
/'
~.:?)
ß'
<' ".
~ .oj'
't ,,'
~-:",:::-
:
~~
's,
",
..""
....."~-
.,
/
(,.,-~
~
':'
í-'L-;
. 1
I~.;'
~£<>"~~
\:j' ~" ,
. L}~:
~ «'.. ;:-
(
EX~~ ¡ 8rr
p~' iF' '
~ (, '-'~ , '"
UL.-o
"i
~
'<>
~
Q
Q
'"
"-
i
~:' Ii;
fl, =
...' -
1 ~
"-
~
..:
C>
~, \: ;.:
c
"
~
'<
'"
...
ìl
~
~
13
"
",'
,
'"
-0
!, '"
',,~ ~
" ,
~'~~l?'
Iii ~,::;,: ~
~~
~'"
....¡:;
is''-
"':t
....'"
~~
%
""....
.....
"'~
~
13
...
~
<
-;{,
~/:
~> .
""
'è
C!)
.....
13 ~
.... ;
'"2~
~I
1/1.
C¡) :
0:
'E ~
C!) !
(/)~
c;:
oü
.... =
¡:::
.t:s
0"
C!)
~
i "
! ,¡ ¡
I
J
1
-=~
DASH PO I NTE
A PORTION OF THE S.W. 'l'4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, WoMo
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
DEDICATION
KNOW All PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS THAT WE. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF
INTEREST IN THE lAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED. HEREBY DEClARE THIS PlAT TO BE THE
GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MADE HEREBY. AND DO HEREBY
DEDICATE TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOREVER ALL STREETS AND AVENUES NOT
SHOWN AS PRIVATE HEREON AND DEDICATE THE USE THEREOF FOR ALl PUBLIC
PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE USE THEREOF FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY
PURPOSES. AND ALSO THE RIGHT TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY.$LOPES FOR CUTS
AND FilLS UPON THE LOTS SHOWN THEREON IN THE ORIGINAL REASONABLE
GRADING OF SAID STREETS ANO AVENUES. AND FURTHER DEDICATE TO Tt-E USE OF
THE PUBLIC ALL THE EASEMENTS AND TRACTS SHOWN ON THIS PlAT FOR ALL
PUBLIC PURPOSES AS INDICATED THEREON. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
PARKS. OPEN SPACE. UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE UNLESS SUCH EASEMENTS OR
TRACTS ARE SPECIFICALlY IDENTIFIED ON THIS PlAT AS BEING DEDICATED OR
CONVEYED TO A PERSON OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE PUBLIC. IN WHICH CASE WE
00 HEREBY DEDICATE SUCH STREETS. EASEMENTS. OR TRACTS TO THE PERSON OR
ENTITY IDENTIFIED AND FOR THE PURPOSE STATED. ~
FURTHER. THE UNOERSIGNED OWNERS Of THE lAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED. WAIVE
FOR THEMSELVES. THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNS AND ANY PERSON OR ENTITY
DERIVING TITLE FROM THE UNDERSIGNED. ANY AND ALl CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES
AGAINST CITY OF FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS WHICH MAY BE
OCCASIONED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTRUCTION. OR MAINTENANCE OF
ROADS. AND/OR DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN
ClAIMS RESULTING FROM INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE BY THE CITY Of FEDERAL
WAY.
FURTHER. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF THE lAND HEREBY SUBDIVIDED. ~REE
FOR THEMSELVES. THEIR HEIRS AND ASSIGNs TO INDEMNIFY ANO HOlD THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY. ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. HARMlESS FROM ANY DAMAGE.
INCLUOING ANY COSTS Of DEFENSE, ClAIMED BY PERSONS WITHIN OA WITHOUT
THIS SUBDIVISION TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY ALTERATIONS Of THE GROUND
SURFAQE, VEGETATION, DRAINAGE, OA SURFACE OA SUB-suRFACE WATER FLOWS
WITHI~THIS SUBDIVISION OR BY ESTABLISHMENT. CONSTRUCTION OR
MAINTENANCE OF THE ROADS WITHIN THIS SUBDtVlSION. PROVIDED, THIS WAIveR
AND INDEMNIFICATION SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS RELEASING THE CITY OF
FEDERAL WAY, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, FROM LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES.
INCLUDING THE COST OF DEFENCE. RESULTING IN WHOLE OA IN PART FROM THE
NEGLIGENCE Of THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, ITS SUCŒSSORS. OA ASSIGNS.
THIS SUBDIVISION. DEDICATION, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND ~REEMENT TO HOLD
HARMLESS IS MADE WITH THE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
DESIRES OF SAID OWNERS.
~Ä;;:::~~'
.,-:¡¡;.:..-. %);Z. ~ ~- ,_'" ,_"" '"'
~."..- --"
n- s-.Ii."'u.I>k_.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County 01 "...<~
I ~1\Ì1y Itw I know or !\av. u.tislilCtory evo.nca ll\al ~'I",WI"1 ~"
Muw..(t... Ull. W""", 6. X'+£.O oigMd lhis ."Iru....nl and -~ ~ 10 IN
~ I,.. and voluntary aclior I"" u.., and purpo..s menuoned in \he
InSlrum.n!.
8\
\'...,Qt
"""",
~I~U~U~IC ~ a...~~
Trtle N'~ I,.J,/,c..
My Ap¡>oontmenl Eapor.. 1>-1 , (, 1
Dated
,1 ~7/1f.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Counlyol 11°f.,r~
I co.,.ty thai I know or havo ..¡;slactory ov<Jonco ttw M; cJ1..t.! "'.1"'" c ,c) o'gMd INs
~~::'o':~~ '::I=:\~ed lhal Þ~t authorized 10 ""CUI~:'1- ~ru.:s~~...... 10
~Itr~~:~~. and VO~~4.~ of ~ ~ ::1: ~s : ::' ~ ~ II\a
~(
~.... , ~~I':~u~U~:'c WLLLa. .Yrt~
~i-' to' ~
0;"" T.I~ 1Jø~ f¡.U...( I <-
MyAppoiolm<l"'E.poru ¡LI,{11
8
~",:~ ':r W^,,~~:iTON
I OI.,ity that I know Of haYI ..tislac1ory evo.nco that llLvin A 0 /u.. u' .'goOd tn..
~::'o':.~:' O:~.":':'ed lhal (~¿~horized 10 "1CUI~~:::ili':';;~¿'f'"
IN IN Ire- and voIunt.ory ad of IUCI\ paI1y lor IN ..... and purpo... monhoned in 11>0
inctrumanl. '
(I
Dated
1/J.1{1S'
6igI\alU18 of, 8"'" tl U\of -. , , - , . , \
NOIary Public .............. ., " ~
nit . J)o~ '1.Ú-I,°c..
My Appointmant E.<pi"s I o.f I (11
IIECOIIDING CEIITlflCATE
Filed lor Aecotd al "" r8qU8,t of lhe King Counlr CouIlCiIIM -/Jar 01 .
18~ at minIM. pMt _If!. and r8CDtdad in V........ _01 PIaIS, 1'&11"
---' -.u ot KIng County. Washington. '
DIVISION Of IIECOIIDS AND ELECTIONS
Superintendent 01 R6COrd.
t.lanao_r
E'\"I"-PB~T C
.,'\,~~ -IL___....
PAC=~ or'~.,__w
LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I HE1IÐY ŒRl1fY '!HAT 'tHIS PlAT Of' DASH POOm: IS BASED ~ON ~
AC'I\MI.. ~ NÐ ~.Of' SEC11ON 14. TtMISI-IP 21 HQR11-I. "
, JtAN(¡E :5 £AST Of' WJL, '!HAT 1Œ COURSES Alo \)°DCSTANCES AAE.' ~
OQMEC11.Y 1HERE0H; '!HAT 1HE WOHlJI.EHTS HA'Æ: BEEN SET AND 1Œ
LOT NÐ Il.OCI( CORNERS HA'Æ: BEEN STAIŒD CORRECTtY ON 'IŒ QRWND
AS CONS11tUC'I1ON IS COW'IEIED NÐ '!HAT I HA'Æ: FUU.Y ca.tPl.Ð) WTH
1ΠI"ROWiIONS Of' 1ΠPU.111HG REGU.A'TIOHS..
P~~
C TIF ATE No. 090'
sœVEYOO-S SEAL
BUSINESS NAME: ....~çg,mLI!Ç,:....
ADOO£SS:..!'.:.CJ'm~J:< ~I~, ,
<
12
..........
CITY. ST"T[;!õJ.~..~"!If,~,,,~3~'m
PHONE #I. :m~I,~I~,~~,
,()f',.., 5
~ET'
51£( T"
,'.,'
----
DASH
POI N TE
A PORTION OF mE Sow. 1/4 OF SECTION 14. TOWNSHIP 21
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M,
FR'JfŒ DMSI C»4 ŒR11f'1CA TE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT AU. PROPERlY TAXES ARE 1""0, 1><AT 1><ERE ARE
HO OillHOUENT SPECIAl. ASSESSIoIENTS CERTiflED TO 1><IS oma: fOR
COlLECnoH AND THAT AU. SPECIAl. ASSESSUEHTS a:RTlnED TO 1><IS
oma: fOR COlLECTION ON ANY OF THE PROPERlY HEROH CONT"'HED AS
STREETS, "'-l..E'r> OR fOR ANY 01><ER pUBUC USE. ARE 1""0 IH FULL
1><IS_DAY OF ,1996.
~
1. Pd", \0 oblo",lng buUd"'g ~ermlh<s) Ihe 0..,... "'011 obloln
0 copy of Iho drolnog' plan "'om the Public Wori<s Deportmenl
Subdh,;,ion F1Ie Humb... 1l.A90.ppl1.
Eoe/) 101 own.r end Iho' wcc...",', "'011 b. .uponsibl. ""
controllln9 Ih. .Iarm '01... ",noff cnolod by thl, de",",opm..,I, end
...011 .quolly ,¡,"'. "' tho rooponsbOily of mo;"lo;";,,g Ih.
pro oct'. .Iarm droln0ge .yol"".
2. Do...spoul nolo: "'I buldlng do.."",outa, loollng draIn. and
draIn, from 011 Imp""'ous wrfocu we/) os potlo, end ddw.o)'5
""011 be connoclod 10 Ihe oppro>ed permon..,1 .Iarm draIn outlets 0'
""own on tho opproW<! con.INclion dro.lng. Ho. 1lA90.pPl1 on !ie
.Ith tho City 01 fod...01 Way Public Wori<o Deportm...t. Thlo pion
""011 bo oubmlttod .llh the -'Icollon 01 any buldlng pormlt.
"'I cannocllono 01 tho clralno muol bo conotruc\od and """,oW<!
prior 10 tho tlnol buldlng Inopecllon oppro...c. <"'I Indl..tduol
otub-oub ""oil bo poi..,lely o...od ond molnlolnod by the 101 home
0""". Indi'<iduol 101 In!itrol;.., .yol"". ""oil be con.truc\od ql
tho 11m. 01 Ih. buldlng permll end moll comply .Ith tho CUrT...1
ourl... '01.. d..lgn m...uol.)
3. Add...... "'0.., h...... -. pro..tded by tho CIty 01 Federal Way
prior 10 Ihl. plol record"g ...d or. oub ocl to "'...g., Eoch lot'o
addr.., .11 b. conformod by tho Clly prior to tho occupancy of tho
dwelling on that lot. In .om. caM" 1'0 p<operty addr...
notatIon, how been ",,0.., for on. lol Th. address that .11 be
u.ed .11 bo dep..,dent on tho location 01 tho dd"...oy.
4. Dumg tho couro. 01 con8\nlc\1on 01 any lot within thl,
oubcII,(olon, .tub-out In... eI....Uon. to< storm drain.... ond/or
sanitary ...... "'ould be ~ by tho IncfMdual lot bulder or
0.."" to pro<id. tho noceacory oIope from tho propooed hou....
5. Thlo plol Is oub ocl 10 .........ta, condition. and ...u1ct1on.
contalnod In 1n,l",menl recorded under Roc:anIIng Numb.. 11803181106,
...d o. amended 89O4O5O15ð. 89oa.11132o. 8910230911, 1203172026 ...d
6. A. "'own on this plat tract, "C ...d O' or. dedlcatod to the
CIty 01 Fod"")WOY 101" det...tlon ...d drain.... purp--.
7. Th. 10 fool poi""l. drainage 00.......1 on tho _1.-1y sIde 01
Lol 17 10 "" tho u.. and ben.nl 01 tho own.... 01 lots 17 ...d 18
lor loollng draIn,. buldlng down"",,"b and drain. "'om lmporAou'
surf..... Lol 17 "'011 b. r_on.bI. 101" tho cool 01 molnl...ance.
repan 01" roc....I",ctlon 01 thai portion 01 the drolnoge
loditios uood In common.
8. Lot 18 ""all molnloln Ih. clroln°9' owal. oIong tho .oulh
property line unl... ...;,ion. or. opproW<! by th. Clly 01 fod...ol
Wo'
JNAG( EASEIIENT RESlRIC'I1ONS: Structures. III, 01"
ex. .Ion, (lnducf"'g bul nul limited 10 dodts. palla..
oulb"'d;"g.. '" o-<....g.) ""all nol be pormltt... be_d tho
buld;"g ..Ibadt lIne ... .ithln dralnO\lO 00.......1.. Addltlonolly,
grading and con.tructlon al lenclng "'all nul b. allo.od within th.
dra;.,ag. 00.""...18 "'a... on thl. plot map unl... alh"",i.. opprowd
by th. Clly of fod...01 Woy.
10. AJ1 101 com.... ond boundaries how been ..1 with 14 rebor and
ourw)G<" cop mori<od ""C.E. Inc. 6907.
11. "" lob adjo<nlng an oreo ... ho..w.g 01"00 with a NGPE
reotrlcllon ""oil b. pro..tded with ... occeptabl. boundary
deI;.,oollon bel..... tho 101 01" portion. 01 tho lot and th. 01"00
rostriclod with th. HGPE. Th. location 01 th. dellnoollon shall be
..tabllshod by a prol....,.,01 I...d ourwyor. Sold boundary
delnoollon ""oil b. In plac. prior 10 ony grod;"g 01" d..".;"g 01
tho oubdi..t,ion and remain In pi... unll a d.ell"g I, con,trucled
on Ihe lot ond o.......hlp Iron,f...,.ed 10 the finl own...-occupanl
F1NANa: D<""ON
12. Th. 10 1001 ""...1. chino.. ......,~t aI~g th. north....y IIn.
of Lot 6 I. 10<" Ih. us. and benefit of the own.... of Lob 5 ...d 6
"" loollng draIns. buld;"g do...""""ts and droln. from Imp""';"",
,urfoc... Lot. 5 and 6 "'oil be rupon,ble f", tho cool of
molnl~onc.. "p°" '" rocon.l",cHon of thot portion of drolnoge
locI II'" u,... In common.
U. Th. 10 fool poi""l. drolno.,. oooem~1 on th. oool""y old. of
Lot 17 I, "" th. u.. and ben.fil of Ihe 0""" or Lol 17 end 16
10<" loollng "'oln" buldlng do....""outs and draIn, "'om Imp""""'"
.urfoc... Lob 17 and 16 sholl b. "'ponot>le 10<" the ca,l of
molnlenonce. r""oln 01" recon.wcHon of thot portion of dro;"oge
foclll... u.ed In common.
14. Plonl... loIand,. K any, In the cul-d-.ocs sholl b.
molnlolnod by the Homoo........ .......Iollon.
15. Lab 7, 17 and 18 "'ould 1n_llgol. for InfillratJon ""
handlIng .Iorm .at... ","off dumg the bulcfng pormll process.
16. Lots 15 end 20 shol1 ",I tholr oce... from s.W. 3JO\h Court.
No ace... to 471h ..._u. S.W. .m b. granted.
17. """.... el Lob 28 en. 2' "'011 -.. . _0 JoInI -. All
.......enl on. ....... for .... OCOooO "'011 .. -- by .... CIty prior 10
-...co of eny ""'din' ponnIt ... Lol 20 or 29. ",......... of Løto 20
..d 29 ..... .. ....011, - for ... """"'- end ...... of ....
,....... of ... .......... .eo --.
EASÐotEN1S PR<MSIONS NÐ IIIESERV A 1Q4S
M .............1 10 hereby .--..d fOl" ...d ....,ted to 1M CIty 01
fodera! Way and 101. 4k T. JoInI Venture for otorm drain..... ...d ...
oo..........t 10 h...eby r-..-...d for and ".....1'" to Lak""'- Ullity
DI.tr1cl ""VOl Sound 1'0- and Ughl Company, pac:tnc Norih..t
Boll Telophon. Company, Wa",,1n9l'" Natural Coo Company, and CabI.
ToI...t.1on Company, and IMIr --ect.... 8UCCOOO«S' ...d -Ign..
under ...d ""on 1M fnlnl tan (10) 1..1 (lwei.. ,... on Lat 4)
parallel .Ith ...d ad,blnlng tho ......t fnlntage of 011 lob and
Irocb In onlch to Instol1, lay, con8\nlc:t. ""OW, .......,.. and
mantoln underc¡round pipe. conduil _I... .--- wat... mst.... and
fIre h)'dr...ts with -cory focl~'" and oth... _\>mant "" the
purpo.. 01 -g thl. ou\><fi'rlslon ...d oth... property with
electrIc:. Ielephon.. to. and utlily """"" log.th... with th.
righl 10 ...1... upon tho lob ond 1rac1. 01 "'I tlm.. I... th.
purpo.., h...... stated. Th- oo'""enlo ...I...od upon "" th...
purpo... sholl be ...10Ad 0' nee< a, po..lbl. 10 th.1r origlnol
condilion. Ho utlily Iin.. ""oil b. plocod 01" pormlliod to b.
ploc.d upon any 101 '" trocl unl... tho earn. ""all be underground
0<" In conduit ottoched to a buldln9- Eo.......ts sholl b. r..IOI"od
10 1',101" condlHon by the Utllly, In 0 Ilmoly f_lon.
A poi..,l. .Iarm droln..... ..........t 10 hereby .--d upon th.
.xtortOl" Ion (10) fooL pOI"oIld with ...d ad,blnlng th. str..1
fronl.... 01 011 lots end \racb "" tho purp- 01 do"""","1 and
fool"g droln connection 10 tho otorm droln..... .)0\"". CIty of
federal Way does nol anum. ownership 01" malnlO(\onco 01 th. prt.ate
drainage .yol"".
Eoo"",...ts r-..-...d 101" and gr...lod to Lak""'- Utllty Dbtr1ct
und... and upon th. oo.......ts ""own on th. pial ...d - h......
o. 'Wol... Eo.emont' 01" 'so.... E...........t" to Inotall, molnlaln,
reploc., repaIr and operal. .at... ...d ..- main. ...d appurt.........
I... thl. oubdl..t.1on and oth... property logoIMr with 1M rlghl 10
...1... upon .old -"",...ts 01 011 11m.. 101" tho purpooe stated. Ho
buldlng, woll, rock..." tr.es, 01" .INcture of any kind snaIl be
...ecled '" ptonlod, n", "'all ",y III material be placed within
the boundor1.. of .old ..........1 "'... Ho..cawtIon""oI1 be mode
.Ithln three 1..1 01 eold .ator 01" ...... - facllt... ...d the
ourfac. Iowl 01 tho ground within tho .............t or.. snaIl be
malnlolnod 01 th. eI...,tlon a, curnnliy _lot.,.. Q-antOl"
oddillonolly <¡r"'ts 10 the granl... th. use 01 ouch additional .......
Immodialoly adjac...1 to eold oo.em...1 01"00 os onol1 be required for
tho con,tructlon, .....,.INc\Ion, main I........ and op.-aIlon 01 said
.at... 01" ...... facllll... Th. u.. 01 such additional ....... "'011
be held 10 0 ..osonable minimum end b. retumod to th. condition
OKlsllng Immodlalely bel",e Ihe property .as ...I...ed upon by
<¡ranl.e '" Its agents.
/oPPROV ~
CllY OF fEDERAl. WAY
oc:s:œIPllC»4
Th- portl~. of .... North_' ~~quortw of .... South-I ~~
qu<rl... ond ;;""""monl LDI 2. "" " ..ctlan 14. Town"'lp 21 North.
ROn" J [o'~ W.U.. In Kin. <Aunt, Wo"'ln.t~ """ m....
.ortl~l.ny "..~bod ... f~low"
CAmmoncln. et lhe -. ~quor1... comw of ~Id SocIIon 14
"onco eI~i th. North I". of ""-nmonl l.oI 1 of ooId Socl"';
Sð6' 24' ,. E lJ06.77 1001 10 th, H"""wooi comor of ~Id
North~,1 On~"""... of th.. """thwooi on_""""" thonc. "On,
tn. _I I". """~f soo- 50 01 . 0....0 1001 10 On on'" .-t In
th, Southw1, ",. of Stan. - occonIIn. 10 tho Plot th.....,f
rocordod " Yolum. 140 of Plof.. Pogoo 57-.0. RooonI. of ~Jd
Counl, Ond tn. '"'" ..."1 of """"'" "onco -tlnuln. along
oatd Southw1y Iin. SM' 2" '.'E 880.12 1001 10 e p"",. on "'"
_I"'y morgln of f.B. He,. Rood s.W. .. ..Id morgln .......
eft... "oy 10, 1962. oatd poInl "'" on . """" ......... 10 tho [..1
h"""'. 0 ""'Iu, of "'.65 1001 (e ...... line -9h ..Id polnl
..-. S7,. SJ' 50....,: thenco 01"". cold ""'"9" ond cold .......
Sauth....y ond _"'-'w1y 2.35.'" loot ........... . control on9l' e'
U' <OJ' 14'; then.. $OT ca' 24;: 409.74 loot 10 tho """"" .f
0 ....... ........."10 .... Sauih- -. . ....... 011402.50 loot
:-;':'o~'!'WI~r :.?'~I~ ':""':, ~ = ='" ,,::"tTaI
HOO' 2T OZ"E; - -. cold _w11......p. oI""g . non
1""_1 I'" S4r 08' 38"W 1185.6. loot to .... King Counly-"""'"
Counly I'" .. ootobllohod by cold ...".Uoo ...d .......1.. on Ihof
corteln rocord of """'y mop ........ In Volume 18 of Surw)o, 1'...
210. Roconlo of "'" Counly. -noton; then.. oIan. cold Counly
Iin. H4r ,,' J2""W .27.85 loot 10 .... - IIno of ..Id Co_I
LaI 2; - oIen. ..Id - lIne HDO' 50' O1'E 1115.50 1001 10 th,
tN. p""'l 01 boo""'"
Conlolno 30.= ....... moro ... .....
Sltual. In Kn. Counly. W_"glen
IIUI.DIHO SE11JAO(S NÐ
NA 1M: OROWTH PftOTEC11OH EASÐrIÐ(1S
Structuroo. III ",d obolrvc:tlon. (inducing, but not Ilmlled to
=It~u:~::u"~~~;:n: :':~~L~8...~ch~:.,
ftoodpla;" (If applI......), ...d .Ith;" th. Holiw Q-ow\h proloction
Eo.em...Io(.) 0' ""own.
Dedication of 0 Hol"'" Q-owlh Prolectlon Eo.emonl (HGPE) ccn~yo Ie
the public 0 b....ficial Inl.....t In tho I...d .ithln th. oo.omonL
This 1n1.....1 ;.,dud.. the pr.......11on 01 noli"" --Iollon for
all purp.... thol bon.nl th. public health, .olely end .00fore.
Indudlng conlrol Of eurf... wat... ...d ...o.Ion, molntononce of
oIop. oIabllly, """" ...d ourol b<lffer1ng, and p<olectlon 01
planl and onlmol habllot. "1M HGPE Imp.... upon 011 pr..onl and
"'lure 0"""" and ~.... 01 I...d oub oct 10 th. ooeomcnL the
obligation, enlorcwabl. on _011 01 th. public by tho CIty of
Fod...", Way, 10 I...w undl.lUTt>ed all '"- end oth... "..g.lo'"",
within th. oo8«n~L Th. _Iallon within th. _I ....oy nol ..
cul "",nod, ca-.d by fi11, ,,",oW<! ... domagod wlthoul ........
pormloslon "'om tho Clly al federal Woy, onlch perml..ion musl b.
abtaln.d In ""Iin. from the CIty 01 federal Woy 01" Its oucC"OSS'"
o.,..,cy.
e.IOI", ...d '*'ring th. couno 01 any c¡rad1ng, buldlng canotrvctlon.
or oth... dewlopm...1 ..tlvlly on 0 101 oub ocl to th. HCP£. th.
common boundary b.tween th. .......,enl end tho oroo 01 6owlOpm..
aclMty mu.t be lencod 01" oth"",l.. mori<.d 10 Ih. .all.lcet"'" of
CIty 01 fod...ol Way or ~, cuc..,.'" ag...cy.
RESTRJ CTI ON S:
Ho lot or portion 01 0 101 In thlo pial "'011 b. dl..tdod ond fOOd
or reoold 01" o...erohlp chan9'd '" tran.lor...d ......eby the .......mlp
of any portion 01 thi, plot "'011 b. I... than tho ""0 r_red
I... th. usod dl,trlcl In which I..oled.
EX""'HED AND APPROVED 1><IS_DAY or
OlY ENOHEER
. '996
EXAMIHED AND APPROVED T><I5_DAY or
DIRECTOR or CQI.("UHllY DE'<£1.OP"ENT
"ANGER. flHANCE DI"SlON
KIHG COUHTY DEPAAT\.tEHT OF ASS£5S"'EH1S
EXA"'IHED AHO AppRD'ÆD 1><IS
DAY or
KING COUHTY ASSESSOR
'CCOUNT NU"'8ER
b.. .~.D. File No. 689-21
CIty of Federal Way FT1e No. ILA90-PP11
DEPUTY
. 1996
",'rOR. OTY or F"EDERAI. w,r
EXA"'IHED AND APPROVED 1><IS DAY or
. 1996
E'<H~B1T --ç,.
n \.:.n :...... ---
of 5
FeDERAl WAY OlY CQUHOL
. 1996
DEPuTY KING COUNTY ASSESSOR
!
~
~
"
..
\:"
~':'
..::
~~
~.
~,
l~
c.¡
\"
õ
ò
on
0
0
0
'I ~ z
~,
q
~t
~~
~~
~
'"
"-
"-
INDEX
NT!>
DASH POINTE
A PORTION OF THE S.W. Y" OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST WN..
KING COUNTY, WASHlNGTON
~rO,vé
'"'~
0 "-
'0 .;.
0.,""
'"
o.
. io.
E)(1-H8;T _C__... ,
PAGS -¡ or5
ðROo.~_.YO£ /~ AÎ', J)'"-~
!!Q!I;.
I ... I
I I
I I
44.20'
zz
I'='!
Z.J
DOO3
SCALE r 0 100'
Z4
DOli
ða"'.
100 10 .
~C SCALE
WllTiCloi. "'1\Mo oc.c-u.
..... I'" ... IT""'" IEWEI
.......ou: ON 'n" WA' AT
47"'- AVE. I.W. D..£V~ .......
100
I~'I
N
1=1
ò
on
~
Z7
~~
...... DESC.
RoI402.50' R-1402.50'
LoIO:!.'S' L-104.92'
åooO4Ol"4r .P-04°16'26"
DESC.
R-1432.50'
L-104,62'
0-04016'26"
Zt1
1131011
n
@@J
-........
.........
coooc. """-
.,"'........ C4
"
-,U'
Co
.....
-.:.~
f"
p-
H
sœvEY lUTES . """"-""Ð<TATION
II CAD..TIu.I.. "-""£Y '"""-"'EHTS ""CO~
IUCJ oça.P'ED """"" roELD "-,,V('rs
.vo1"""'" """ "" 0 >- ~,
lJ, [,""....ofT USE!> OIK"". 10f' """
-.-.. .. .."
Z>~ ....,.s,- - L
n ..
F"'" >. IJ'.' "
>-10-" c-: """-
. .,'" ".-uTA
... ,""CIS"'" UI,$ðO
tECTIOH$ 14 . D, TWf'..1 .. 'O,.;!,.£......
SæolVISION BREAKDOWN
IlASIS Of' II£JJ\IHGS: ÆCON) Of' IU<V£Y ÆCMOCD IN
VOL 10. ..AG£ fiO. ÆCOf'DS Of' K,ING couo<TY. WA,
,¡'/,-..;~~-.
StNtsS NAME: -_'::--~-!,.,_~~ç:_m..-_m.......m..
..~..9...Bg~._2.1_~~_...._....---_._..__.._..
CITY OF F"EDERAL 'oN""'" FILE 101., IL"'9D-PPII
.-"W,"
BALD. F lie toP. 689-21
>HEET --..----~--...._.. OF m.. _~..m SI-€ET.S
~
--
~
0
0
æ
IX1
W
Z
0
I- M 2
V) tj
u..Z ~
0 B s{
I-~ - ç
5~ ~
Q..O .~
"'-
:1
"'"
"'"
/
/
..0
"1;-'("';-
J' /. <>~
<>-
~(' J'G-,
.&>.~~
'j)<>- :->;-
~+
...........
DASH
POI N TE
...~
6
~
SEE SHEET 5 OF 5
LS.8.L - IlUU)lNC SET.""" LM:
~
~
on:N .... ACZ
IIE1UH) - SO" -=nNCJ IUTERS
OCICHA 1m AS NJ.1M: ClROWTH
~1tCTICH £A.\ÐoIDIT.
1RACT -A' -.". - D'OHED "'" WUITM«
BY 11£ HOWE 0'IIHÐtS ASSCC:1A11OH AS SET
rcR1H .. ~1tC1M: CO'oÐW<TS.
CXIØl1ONS AM> OES1IIIC11OHS
fOR 11£ ....... T Of' STONE 8IOOQ( DIY. 1 "'" 1
.¡,
11. 43
--
/
.¡,
/~
W, LOT ...
GRAPHIC SCALE
~ ':' ':' i ï
( D< n:n )
1...." - "" It-
/
TAX LOT"
BAL.D File No. 689-21
CIty of Federal Way FIle No. ILA90-PP11
Sheet <4- of 5
--- "'" p
- ~
'_7IL,I
~
:n
0.....
, "!¡...
, '" 0",
.. ... o.
... .. -..
¡...~~? ~ vSO.Se'
;¡~ ~,1 ~.~Z.ZG'.50'
:,.. -
~
a"
a",
Q:":
q¡'"
~~
a"
1-..,:;
\I)~
~~
I-..~
"
õ:
48
47
----
46
------
36
t\¡
~
¡;;
s:
-..
C:I..
~~
a..
at!
g¡~
~~.
~~
\1)5
t...'"
a
I-..
"
õ:
,
,
,
,
,
,
~
35
,
,
,
, ..
, 0
,....
~
34
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
10
....
~
¡;;
s: -----
<:3;::
~~
C:I..
at!
~~
~g 9
~!
\1)5
t...:-
a
I-..
"
-.J
Q..
ò
.,
.... '"
.... .,
" ...
,
"
B.A.L.D. File
N'J. 689-21
54
1)).8"
'Z" z.' I
4.IG' 4.1"
55
sO.~Z'
'-H~I
60
194.4S'
;"
z
0
:u
~
;r:
:u
:Þ
Z
G)
T
úJ
m
:Þ
(I)
~
..~~-
~
rR. B
3]O.~)'
"'N. FINISH
CAAOC Z".O
~
g z,. I Z"
\~
I
\
2/
20
/9
~
'."OO"~"'W
liO.'O'
"on.
0
0
a
~
g
22
"
0
g
""'.O~'~"'W
li8.00'
/".",.91
;.,
'"
ó
...
I
10
""'.O"""W
I~S.lO'
SCALE I" . SO'
r'õ-
so os .
GRAPHIC SCAl..E
\'£llTleAL 00"""" K.c.A.S.
'J<.. "I" Of IT.... ""WEll
~""""'WOYAT »
'7" 0VE. S.W. £l£V.o n..s,'
"U
0
:u
~
0
Z
0
."
~
J:
T
(I)
~
23
0
0
ó
1r./~P
24
;.,
'"
ó
...
""'.O,'S"'W
16Z.Z0'
0
0
ó
/,/. .#,u~
25
õø
'"
ó
...
c
~
. ~
. II
t; & 4~
~ '" o.'
.. ~II
.. .. ~.c
... ..,
U .."'.
....c-o
"'U".~
ï:~..6"
~~.': ~~
0:"""
..... C 4-
0: < 0" 0: .
"""EO ...
'" 0 C. .
'" 0: ~ .co.
"0., -., .
... <"- 0- "
~ ::ë~~Õ~
'" ""'.c C
r ::J-=~-¡¡~~
: a ~~õ~5~
¡ ~ ~Ë~~;a
~
~
7'\0
z'" 0
G)(I)
om Þ
00 en
c::!
zo T
~z
.-<
~!'- U
:Þ~ 0
(1)0
~~
Zz :z
(;)(1)
~J: -1
0-
z"u rrl
N
""'.O"S"'W
16,.z,'
11',#$'"
26
""'.O"~"'W
171.74'
II,¿(/¡I
27
...9.O9'S9"W
ISO.>"
!"
158
0';
""0
. -
0
0
z
rtJ,Zl7-t
.;.,
..7
00
,.;~
0",
-;0
-'4
28
""9.0S'4S-W
ZOO.O2'
TRACT-A
U¡¿.10¡
29
.
...
..;
..
r
f
~~..j3.S"
-a- '
,poJ'
. .. oJ'
&. ' ..
\ .....-- ~o
....- --'
--- ~
<'--
'-
>Π1>a:T ",.. ,
(
~b( "'B"
QPC< .,. ~
r
../
- -- -:\ '0
ì-~<;'
\-...-, ~.
\ ~
- - _\ Ò
-ç-
'-
->-
(
\
L
r
1
I 0..- SP.IOt
"""-'>D - >a' """-""" -...u<>
OùOa-<ATED AS NAn-..: CJ<OWTH
""OID:'OO!< £ASÐ-<Ð<T.
~~r ,;,~- :tZ: ~~ ~~a< ~;:r~
"""" IN PftOTtCll" CXJ""~-=-
CXJNOI"ONS "'10 RE5IRIW:>"
'OR ",r Pu.¡ OC m>ir eROO< CN. , "'" 2.
un. . OUltDlNG 5f:Y 840< lII<
. SET .,NG CQ<MYY SU""';"
~"f~ :. J ;
1r~~ .
~. io ':'.
~ , . ,:.
J '
:\\~Q ~
~..........~
, ..,
City of Federal Way nle No, ILA90-PPll
N
E~" ~~I'r ~ ~ >;' ~T' :D
""" .' ';¡ !~II I,. -" .
PÐijJ , IF'
d "~I . ."'"
t. U L..,
DUMAS PAY
..
PKWY
YijiffJ)ß"
::::.:.:~.....:::::~:;.
" so so ~'. '\:, ~.~: "'~~. .-
~ t~\,~j ...'
N6mifs;AoR£
. :GbLE.CLUB
~èHo
STNt
(ISTSTNE
a
n
n
w
Z
- L.-
Exhibit E
Final Plat Resolution
(Being Prepared by Legal)
~
}.
'.
\.
.~.
"
I\PPLICATI~-W-()ý~
SUBDIVISION R ...:.W
SEt 'TLE-KING COUNTY DEPARTMErr OF
PUBLIC HEAlTY-'
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ..-"RVICES
ACTIVITY NUMBER
-H::-¡i( S ð 3 t¡
HEALTH OEPT USE 0 L Y
Check Appropiale Box: SUBDIVISION 0
SHORT SUBDiVisION Já COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING AND SUDMIT WITH APPROPRIA TE FEE
APPROXIMATE STREET ADDRESS L_~3-.lLQ< I-IOil RD. S .W.. FEDERAl (JJf't'(~
NAME AND/OR NUMBER OF B.A.L.D. APPLICATION I fI' LLh ~ <=to - fOIl - ~B (FED. wPr'Ò :
LEGAL DESCRIPTION I (J:::ING Co. IT' 'SOlPacrZì) .
PARCEl# 11,4,2.; \,OI31-19101~i4ItqO3,Ç;:::?').
NUMBER OF ACRES drÇLj ~g~~E~E~fE'æ~~ ~ SMALLEST LOT SIZE LlJ..5j.°' 0, q I sq. ft.
Preliminary Health Department Subdivision Report Approved? LjJ (Y/N) Activity Number 1lL.9.-t-4- ,<5, 0,2., q ,0 I
HAVE LOT LINES BEEN ADJUSTED SINCE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL WAS GRANTED? l1.IJ (Y/N) 1/ yes, attach
. revised plat malð. showing new lot lines
OWNER 1[0 tL.J~\ÑÍ ~RfilibRESS I 4- 2.2..q. WPILWR. Rp T~"'Þ~ð~~3 I <¡ 2.2 ~ Ob'l(P I
AGENT l3ÃmßS ~Pr€-6E¡R ADDRESS ,Q4ICf ~. ?J)4 PL'I f:::&t---Cr! PHONE I 6so~ 0'1341
'1<2>051
ATTACH A ROUTE/DIRECTION MAP
FOR LOCATING THE PROPERTY
T A: C-O 1)') f'r
(Name)
!!!!§ FOLL~'w'!l!'!° INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED:
WATER SUPP,=y;'(ÇQ.lJl.pl~w..fu!ction 1 <ll:../Umlow)
Section 1. þ( Public Water Supply I C- I r/
nF
D.O.H. Public Water Supply 1.0, Number ¡ , , I I I I
Dale Wafer Supply RecefÌled Final Approval L..J.-1-L~_-L...:J Agency I I
Status: Is the water system In compliance with all applicable laws, sampling requirements, etc. ? Cú Y/N
II yes, attach a copy 01 letter Irom Water Utility which states that system has been installed and approved
or that a contract or bond assures completion of system. f.1TfTc.-t-I ¡sp
Section 2. 0 Individual Wells (Minimum lot size required lor Individual well Is 5 acres)
0 Demonstration 01 adequate water availability attached 0 Well(s) installed (documentation attached)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: (Complete Section 1 or 2 below)
section@ Public Sewer System I L-~Hp'Ne-N U ìlLl trl
Dt::5TRlcT
(Name)
Attach a copy 01 letter lrom Sewer Utility which states that system has been Installed and approved or
that a contract or bond assures completion 01 system, h-t1õ..c..hd
section@ Individual On-Site Systems
Attach Soli Log Descriptions Including soil type designation; three (3)Soil Logs Per Latin Drain/ielcVReserve Areas
Attach a Plot Plan-Show drainlield area. 100% reserve area, fotlines. easement lines, road locations,
wells, surface waters, drainage leatures. and sensitive areas (if applicable)
Attach a Site Design to Demonstrate Sufficient Room lor Dralnfield and Reserve Area (Upon request 01
Health OHicer)
For Existing Home(s) with Individual On-Site System(s): Address(es)
(Attach plot plan to show location 01 system(s»)
Is the Existing Sewage System Functioning Property? U Y/N
Is an Adequate Reserve Aree Available? U Y/N Are Setback RequIrements Met? U YIN
I, hereby, cer1ily thaI the Information
Signature or Owner/Agent
Name of Certified Designer (pl.... prln
Signature or Certified Designer
ion is true and accurate representation 01 the existing conditions on this pial.
Date who! q q.....
KG.LD.N 2-0'-,3 4-
Date 10/(0/ 'it-
r:j-APPROVED
0 D'SAPPROVED -,-<U.?c~!" .3,.~,S2 . Út1'
(d.lò) .Jnllarlan) (01 ,leI SupelVioorl
COND.ITIONS T9ìBE P\LACED ON FINAL PLAT RR SHORT PLAT ~INEN: ~-"J... ~~WL.:\-=--~~; ~\Ç" \~ Vv-\v..L-^< '\
,~."\"w.& »...u 'OI!.P.I\ \N..:ct-~\)'.¡,\,~o~. ~,,~oU,+ _\ ~-\&.L\I c\,,"~ :'- '\- ~.~-
OTHER COMMENTS: _\.tlCL~~ J~ 6~~\¡) III ~\......... \... - DATE RECE,vED
OC TIll ::"'1
Any person aoorleved by any decision or linal order 01 (he fleallh Officer may make wrltlen application for appeal to Ihe
Kino County Goard D( Sewaoe Review. Appeals must be filed wilhln sixty (601 days of receipt of the decision or order
!\LtFF: ::';O ,J¡\\~;~
ALDER SQUARE
1404 Contral Avo. S. 510.101
KENT WA 96032
296.4666,296.4706
DISTRICT HEALTH CE~~~H 1 B iT
EAST CENTRAL
2424 1 56th Avo. N. E. DJ1í~~e
OElLEVUE WA 90000 S~.~ 9'8122 ,
298.4932 . rn~~
~O¡;¡T.H.==--
O¡c¿°l Me'l' .an Avo. N.
EATTLE 'A 90133
~8..._-~
'-'S " IS In.t nI"v t 10?
OCT-~3-8q 08,58 FROM, TUCCI AND SONS INC".
(
10, 2068222676
(
~ Tacoma
Public
Utilities
January 27, 1994
.\!.lIk C(Î~~on
Dir,'d.'r
JI>.~S :=., 'ulil 3~th '~tr...!~
I'.t). [h" 11\)11;'
T."'!'III.I. \\'..\ <)~:!i.I~I();-
David W. Monison
.M&T Joint Venture
2611 Eastlake A venúe East, #404
Seattle, Washington 98102
Divi5illn)
l.il\"1
\'J~tcr
(kIt Un~
Dear Mr. Morrison:
Water l\-lains Installed Under Private Contract No. 1992-3, Dash Pointe
,),.
Please be advised that the water mains and appurtenances installed under the subject
project have been constructed, hydrostatically tested, flushed, and sampled in act;ordance
with our approved plans and specifications and are now in service. The ftre flow available
in this area is approximately 2,500 GPM for a duration of 60 minutes.
THESE NEW MAINS WILL NOT BE OFFiCIALLY ACCEPTED for operation and
maintel1anc~ by the City until after City forces perform a final inspection of the completed
site and all required corrections to water main facilitie5 are made.
THE DEVELOPER MUST NOTIFY US AS SOON AS THE SITE IS COMPLETED
AND READY FOR FINAL INSPECTION.
AIler the final acceptance, the Contractor/Developcr's Perfonnance Bond shall remain in
full force and effect for a one-Year period.
Fees for the installation of your water services should now be paid, if you have not already
done so. After we have installed the servic('-~ please notify your surveyor that he/she needs
to prepare the water easements, if required. The easements must be :submitted to us for
recording before the services are available for your use.
We will provide the King County Fire Marshal with thc as-built <.1mwillgs as SOOI1 as they
arc available.
If you have any questions please call me at 502-8744.
Very truly yours, .
k;¡dEÆ\~
Cl1~lnmer Service Engineer
Water Division
EXHI81T G
PAC=~ OF ,- ..
IDE:jb
(;c: King County Fire M:m;hal
Tucci & Sons, Inc. v.
PAGE
2
LIST OF DRA WINGS:
9002/6 Sh..1 I 01 7 ROADS and DRAINAGE. PLAN and PROFILE
900216 Sh..1 2 of 7 ROADS and DRAINAGE. PLAN and PROFILE
900216 Sh..1 3 01 7 CU?8 RETURNs. TYPICAL SECTION, MISe. DETAILS
900216 Sh..1 4 of 7 GO;ERAL NOTES, RESTRICTOR DETAILS
900216 Sh..1 j 01 7 EROSION and SEOIMENTA TlON CONTROL PLAN
900216 Sh..1 6 01 7 SANI TARY SEWERS. PLAN and PROFILE
9002/6 SM,I 701 7 HORIZONTAL CONTROL. PLAN
DE VEL OPER:
M I T JOINT VENTURES
4224 WALLER ROAD
TACOMA Wa. 98433
/2061 838.3j6j
BENCHMARK:
BENCHMARK USED: RIM OF STORM SEWER
MANHOLE ON 329" WA Y A T 47" A VENUE:
S. w ELEVA TlON, 2B3.!54' KC.A.S. OA TUM
LEGAL DESCR/PTlON:
'""" """""'" "" """"""" "",.auAA"'" 'H' ,,""....... 0"'.
auAA'" "'" ûO"'H"'~ '°' " '" ~ ..cm" ", """'H~ " HO"H,
"""'" "",. '.",,' ,,'" """,n, ""H""',," "'NO"'" 'AA'~,^^,,"
""",..."',"',""'.
C"""'H"""" n<:"'" """""""""",",'" "'C"""" ."n<:""
",,"0 "" ....'" "'" " .....'-,~ '°' , '" "'c ,te",," ....,.,.,
,un ,"',. "" Ho,,-m CO'H,,""""""""'A" ""'<>0""""
M """....... ,,",<>0""" n<:"" "ONO 'H' ",Sf L~' 'H,,""
.,.~,~ ..!.U.." '°- """'" ""'" ."', "'""',.... """,..."'"
"""'"""""""""o""~""'.."'.",.."'."""...,.....~".
..,., ,,«"""""'".. ...c.............n<: """ O'OOO""_NO,
""""~""""""""""""H"""""rt-.",,,,,o,
.,",... n<: """"" ~OM" ,., HOYT"". '.". '" ,.c "....
...". "'" -, " '-""C ""'" ..""... . ""'.. CONC'" '° '"'
...,_...................""",.........,Nt""""""',,",""'"
~ ~;"'~ ~~ ~.MC~~~ =.:' ~~;
M"'U'""""" ".""" ""'" ..0-""'" ,"""""""""'On<:
"""""",,-_.""""'" ,....,..m,n<:""""""""""""""
"""""'""""""""""""""""",,,,,"""""O""""
,., '" ...a""", -CH"'" ---......"""",m""" ...c"""...,
-... ,,""'...... """'H' ,Nt ......,,~ . ",... "" '° 'H' 'NO
COHHn ' ,,"" cauom ,M' '" """.H'. .. "c COU~'" 'H.
"',....",...-"""..."""'"""..,......."""".."""",,,
'" 'v""'. >AD< "'. ""O,., '" "HO COU"",. .",,""',,", 'H"'"
".... """""",,.,-ro"""""'.u"" 'O'H""Sf'."""C
C<M'H"'~'O"""'" "OHG...c.m"...-""~ ""..'m'o
"" """ """" ..""""'-
""".."'z."'AC"'.""'" ",S.
""'", . '"'" C"",,"..oSH""',,"
,_.. "--'~"~'-'
~.
r-- -" , 1-1
p 1-\ ~ S---'-=-J
.Ct..
Vi
,.."'..... . ,,""""--. ""'.. . ""'.0 em . W.O(
DASH
PO / NTE
/
I N
, r I I
I ~ I " J ~ ",
-t--"
I /
"TIft
"
I I
~ I" I.. \. I "
_J-~-) ~ \j
","'-'W' /'
,---'--ì ~ r"'.,
\ N \" \ \
"
/(
I
CITY OF FEOERAL wAY
-~~" ....:J¡7/.H..........
._.~. ..~~....
8.A.L.O. FII, ^" 689-21
...', h,........ h .~
/of I r JOINT VENTIRES
Pf..A T OF DASH PGINTE - KING CQ
Technical Services Unlimited
900216
..... u. om "'n, "--. WN""'- - ..... ..,.""
COVER SHE:E:T
-. C M 7
'N"" 0,
....
v-
r" ,"è I: f- ,...,...
P' ,-,,:- ~
hL::: ,
t-I
v¡
"
.'--1=-1 :::~;;;;::;;:.;~~~;;,?:::, ~'::,,'::"':._---, ~-I ,--E~:"':~ -I:.~~, ;~::~:
fI' '\ ,
",' ',¡;f$,',"',",' ;;;:,.,.,.~,'
'i/.lJi; :.:~~";:"---
, t;: ,;, :-,;::r.... /'
-
...', .. 'h"r"'" ~.~.
, Technical Serviëes' Unlimited
..... I.E, 87" ""', ..n~.:.........- - ".,.,.,...'....
n,. "- - .~,,-,-,
, .
,-~..-< ,'",:~,:_,:,: '0
,!JOO216~
, "
_,I >7:_,
"
, ...
,-
"
"
','
.~
,ccu"", . ,.-.." ~'H . H"""" "" . .~
~.~
.....J.i-- 'I':':'~-;.
"..,,~
,i;~¥f~'~
""""
THRU INLEURA..' CAn
I
~-- -T
(~ ¡ I
. ,._---¡---,_J
, ' ,
r".'.- I
, ~:r~"~
I I -------1 I
, I' : ,--'---+---'--
-~--;;:.;.-~' I I -1-1'
, .:..';;;- - I
: _: " "" ,---¡ _h'
. IA~' I .", ,-
: ,"-~ "..; - -J----,.-tJ,:,.' 1 I
, :~ - T : ,I '- I .1,-;---;-t----+
---;--------- I " " ' ,r. -- ~' I
--'_..:.n.. s,_'.IW...-.~,:C;OW.T' ~.~Ii..'="".r~~--' ..."
-~-~-- <--Q. I
: I ,--T- )
: ----r----+- -
¡ L J I I -----J- - _I".
, _--,n I _n 1 ' I
I' - ----
I I : r-T---------'----
i'
n.-
-
..." "'h"_"" -~.
-,-~ ,-....."......".,.,
~.
1-1
E~/~-n c.:-r-
P. ,"'\-
hL::::
3~ or- C.
i
P{RMIT H'< ILA 00-"""
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
REVIS'DN
on...-...,~~-
k"_n' _h?I'iU~-
.. "f--,b-L..,---
..__"R~~_-
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
8.ALO- Fl!. "" 689-21
2/
'-n ,
.~
- - -------, - '"
---~-
'lJ
:-1-
. ...
~~.::k=. :
:~~'~~;"'71'
:~::;~';-:;,::-;
:X;;~;:~'-"
--"---.,,---
4',:"~~.
: f;-)L;")) ,
..~~/$'"
h- "
"""""
.... :::'~;~~
'....U.87Uo......_".......- - "081""""
Technical Services Unlimited
--,.':::"-'--L::.;;...,"':;'~.ü.";;-";":>';';':':;':'!L_-----------I-I..._... --
.... '--..-
On' "-,, """'-"
"
"
. .
"
"
_!lOO2!§_-
_,2.. 7
.;
.;
~~
~~.
" _.-._w_--~--
~_._--
. -~._,~----
. ~.~--,~--,---
---w_-,~
. --,-~._.~-
. ~--,.._~~-
. ---~..~.-~.-.
..~,_..-
8&CH/Ne D<T~"S ,OR FIL~ Pt.~CEH':NT cw ex/sTINe Sl.Of'(Æ
';';-":.;":.~~~ -) ,,'.':".:::i!F:..:::Æ=-:::;'7F;;:-E~;, , ...
c.~.~-,::';;': =-~-~.-.._.......----.-
TYPICAL SECTION - 40' R/W
~_'h..'~._'
~~~î~~,
."""".-..."".n".~,
-,---- ,---------------
...'. .. 'h__.', ~,.
....... --
,... '--
....,::::' ~_:-
... '" -. ."._,
.;
I ,--..- ».. , I
r '~'=:.JC, ' -mo:::::-:::. (~', 0""" ..;".,.,
, I--'~
fi""l*DOI'_r....-:,:::;~"",,-~
./ -"'.......
, r_-",...OÐO -
r__"""_""""",,,, :.--=::::~-:;._.
TYPICAL SECTION HoYT ROAD =-:.:.:-~;:.n
t£NTIR€ ~r:! FRONTAGEI ~.u
......
""'~,. , ,..-..,,-.. , ~.'u,." ' 0,.
--ÏfIl
£XTRUD£D CONCRFTU1.B6
Technical Services Unlimited
,.... .... no> """ "--. w.......- - ..............
r '\,," ~ ~,' ,-" «~-- tJ
Il . r', è, , "
F -, ~ ~ . #
h.L::.~~ O¡" '8
~- ----- -
,~~
I
--~~---~_J
, 47"- .AVENUE S.W.
..:" ,.", "
,0
'~
"
I
I
--'-
.._~
....-.-
-
JII, ':~~:',,'. <:~
. ,-' l' ,"
,. ::.: .' '-. - '.:.' .
- ~-.. ,I¡ 7 ..
, --." iJ (,.::,:i'-
. i1 \
~-'-...,,--'='
, 'r~'..' ,':
-{c",,:.,' .,...-., ,"
~~ "'--";
f!I2f..1.E1l...~.~
PUU<'T IA 'LA >O-PP"
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
REVISION
on ...;...,~~,
..-....INn..
CITY Of FEOERAL WAY
-.-.....-7bhk...........
._-..--.~~..
8.A.~.D. m. ¡,o. G8!1.P¡'
M I T JOINT V£NTI.R£S
PLA T Of' DASH POINT£: - KING co.
ClRB R€TLRN DE'TAILS, TYPICAL
SECTION, MISe. ,D<TAILS
.- ~
9002'-&
-, 3 . 7.
, '.
-\
¡' ì
:1 ,
-,
ol¡ T~'#:~.~
~
\' " -
" § ~,,-,:' -
~ I ," i
¡I,;' ~'J3'"
.....'::::-:;"~,~;,,~;':.,;,:,,,." t, --E':::: , ~~.,~",~;~'.~'~",'
,-,""'".,-,..,...., :¡~ . . '.. ~:,:':'~~~"'nn...
,,~-.:;: ,f ~ :-, --~ - ~;':::..::.:f:~;!i;';i~,~':C
, , , " ,
--,~-_..- -
lliI!S'!'
C.B, 126 rYPE.11 72"1
RES rRIC rOR
-I-~-
"" " '.."...... ,..~"
""'" .".-.
.....-
""'~.. . '"~"""""'" . """"O" . W,M
..,..çnnu """"',
r'\"~-~:¡-\~ I-f
FhC~_~~- Vi .~,-
, :::: r:- -=-- ':. ~ -::...- '::::'~':::'::".
~--_.-..-,--. -.--
.,----..-------
- -~-'----'_.' ~
--~._---~~----",
/
ð.B!
~
--x,,~---....'" -.
M'__""___M~"
~;r.§1;þ~::¡Zf'::"
d.-'
<-
~~~
,,"~.,n_~,..
.-,-.....-.
'I' I ~',~:~';":;::"-':".
',- ~ -- æZ~~¡~;J.~7;j~:':'.."-
~~~
H-~"n_~,.'
.-...-.--.
,~.. -"....--
.......0 enL\CU AJ<1) 1<AT1V&
OKO,"" ...=00 .............'
-........---...,...,...
-,~ ..,«.., ",-,"""""",""""""
...-. .. "",.. uo ..""",. -0". ...
""""""""~, ,",'-I.C'", ...~,..
.-,,- " .",_.". ~ -~~ ... N.~.
C..... """0_- ....-" '0' .. .._,
---- .. . ~~ c~ -- ,"-,
M,',"_""'_"_""'-~-
::..::.'- >:::: .:=..::: :::"',.::-'~':.::::-:':
~:r::-~~.:..'::...":"o:';:' :¡;;;, ::::
--.-..-.-.,.,.........
:.--.::.:""~c~,=,,~":.'=--=
......-...-.,-............,...-
~~ '1:!'~~~~'::" E
"_L""_",_""",,-
-- --""'----"""-
.-"'--"'-"--
.. co, .. ....... w.,. ..... - - ..
----........,......w.,.
g-....."
e..... .., '~I ... -- .. .., '~""
"""'-"""'."""-.'-.
~ . ... .,,~'" .. .. N,C,',L. ,..-
- ..~_. "0 -...., .... ... ~ ..
,......-.. """" -. .. .~.. M --
""~""M~.""""OC""""""w.,
s:=
lGINt!
c.B. Ie TYPE-II :;""1
{ŒSrRICrOR
- -"'~M.'~""n-N~'-
. ~~-r:.::.i!-~~~~7'-:'~
"-, ..~,...
C.B. III TYPE-II 54"1
REsrRlcrOR ,--
.... .-....'
Technical Services Unlimited
..". "'" ,-.r.'
,u" u, ".. "'", .."o~o. w.....~.. e.... ".., ..'-n"
~~.. M'.'_"_-." ~M_W
'-'_M""-.-~,...._...~
z:-:::-:. <=":";;:,"i;:":..":':'~':"":".~.,
?f:f:flJb"+ JE.~ ~-1:! ~,?:~:;::..
0= ...~ n=--,
, --~'----<-o~.=-
=- ~':':':::::- - '='.:..=::..-;;: c:::""- -==
=='_-:-"":;"'~7.F..":;-:::";':-=~"':
. ~----------~
_<-o~..........-- ----
:: ~ - ..:..--=--:-.....::'.-;:;".:::....-:::
, --------------
-----..-._~,-
----,-
. ------'--~
-"'--'"-'-'..----
----.--..,.
. '----'-'--"-'."'-"'--'
-..--
0 ;:::-::'=E-"::'-'-'";'".::'~."':.:::::-..':'::-:-.:~::.
. "- - .- .--'..-'-' ---. . -.- ..
-_.~._-------
----
. ------------
----.--------
----"-~-'-----""
'--..--._--
. ~--'--_._-~...._-.
".---- -.. -- ,--,--,-
~.?-. ~ --=-=--=. = ~
...---.------,
.. ~l.:-- - - ~- - - -.--.
,. ;::::E~ -=-:.o:F. :r:"""- :::.-...
"=~~~~~~~
........... ,.. ~ .......
'-'--------'-'- ---
'=--_-=o..~';...-.::=.::;-..=..:
:=---::.".: :.-:.=.::.-. -::;;::.:-:; :-..:::::;' r:.. =
. --_._------,,----
.-------------.
--------- -----
-...--.,-,.--.-----
'~:-:-.£:~-i::=-~=::";'~
0______-'---.-"-
-.-.-..----..---.-
.-... ..--.-----.-...--
,----------..--
:!':--==.::;:~:-:~-=
'-----'----~--
-------..".,-- _.,---
---
. ---"--'-----~--
._----------~-
-----------~--..
::'::SZ::~:='-~=-;':::-:-"
- ::::=--:-S:;::":.:: '="':::':':::
" --------.-
.,-- ._---,-.. -- - .----
" ----------~
----
.. ---..-.-----..
-..----.-.----...-..
-',--,'-
. --.---.--.-.--....
. .------.------.
-.------"'------
---'-'--'-""-'.
.. ---.....--.--- ---....,..
C'TY OF rEOCRAl WAY
_""7/.:t/H_",,,
._._"'~,~."
BALD ,II, M' &89-21
\ !2LI....P .
Q ,i¡f'~..J
""""'7-
'-"
-.. ".. ?
......
"",.." . "",-".,,""",. . .."",em , ..
-z..--
~--..
~-.,.
~-, ~.>-,;,«
.'-'1'.- .
--.t;7.{, .
8J
.. . ..-
~'"'- ~ ,
,. .
, ---~ ,
"'"
- <. -.... ,,- .-no .~ ~',:~:'/":l1J",~/J.:"".:. ::";'¡.!': ~.6:-:;::;;<'."",,
- .~.... ""'" n.._" '1. '~~:'o/,¡Jf g~f- ':lc.t;:¡'~w,«,",P "'-"'P
m.PORARr ""PE FENCE OE:TAILS
~"""" ~~.
;!.
CONSTRllCrtON ENll1ANCE I'M)
-w...w_.-.
.__._-~ ,'p'-.
--,'-
E~1~-n c r:-
H
PACS~ or ,-
:IZ:=>'
(/1/1~
~
~":::=
".
c-..-
...-- .. -- ...,'"
----
--
~
TE"*'ORARr SEDIMENT TRAP
FOR CA TCH BASINS
.-.-, ...,,--- r""'l" ¡
1_- --...".., -~~ ---
~ r.~
l'L_~;.;::-_. -.
~lrŒ()£TAILS
HUll!!!
.. -
~ "-,..
- -f-,-"",---I/
~ ....,
w.- :::.-:. '=-~¿;'i:"T
,." -- ;/!..,,-.-
= ---;;- =
(lg1í.Þ£CK DAM DErAILS
~,,:::::::-. =1"',---1
- . :;.-.-
-;:~.::¡:._. -, N...." '
~~t2~l',::~ _:
_:~"'::::"'-;:'~~'~"'-'.'
.-..
~
""". --
,.. --.....
Technical Services Unlimited
10... o.K. 07.. ...... "'~" .........- - '200\ ........
,~.... "
-.., ..-"..
,...
............-....".. ...,...
, ~~-= :=::=-~:::~= ::::.;=-:-.
, ~=:. ~ -=:=- ~::.
, :::::-?-::"E:;;;:~;;'::'::.-
. :'::E-~~;z.~::.:~:=~:::
, :::..:::;.. "=" -=..-::.:-- -.:.::::..-..=-...::~ ~
===--::.~::::: :"'= =~:::X'..-:'".::'"~-
. :""":""':'::"-=-:~'::::"'~;:-'"
, ...---...-.--,-- -...
==~'¥"":"::,::.:::::.=.-:::,-
, :::.=..=:::;:;;;-:,:-~_.'--'
':::'::;":'::::-=:::;..",:~=:.::..-:-::-...:...
...~-----_._~_._..
=.: =::::: =- .::=..-.:=-..::. -==:::..
" ==.: :-:r ~'i ..§:I; ::??- :. ~~
,,-..._~-,._--~.~.~_.
§. -:-: ~ -:;::= -=:-:~~ _-: -
=:=-----._-,._~._~
,,---,,~~.__.._..-.-.
==--,,:,::=,',-.=-,."::-," ---.--
.. =:":':::::'::"::::::"-:"':-"-::-" -.--
.. ,,-,~ ,,". - .-.. " .. . .-- "... '." -- ~,--
CONSTRUCTION SECUENCE.
, ,~.._.."....-
L ;::- :'":".:7':::.7.-:;¡-~ ..-. ---,
, .---..,,--,.--.
,. ~_.._,~.-.-..._.~-..,,--
-..- .-. ,-..
,-~,.,"'--~_..._,...- -
. -~, -.. _ow,
,. -'-'"-,-,,.uu
L -.,.-..--.....uu
, -' ... ~.- -~." uu
.,-.-, ~'.'_.' "'"
",'-,-----u.u
"-"",-,,-.,,,,-.-,'.
..--.,..-.- -...-.-. ..'..,
., -"'-..--,-,_.- ...-,.
tlTT Of FEDfRAl WAY
--.... ""7¡V.H",, -
.~,~.&.w.~ .
BALD FiI. "" 689-21
",'~ ..~ M I T JOINT V£NTI.R£S
-,' .~. ~ \ PLA T OF DASH POINT£ - KING co
¿Q~.! £ROSION and S£DIMENTA TlON
CONTROL PLAN
9002/6
-,:i.. 1
~b!Lb/l~~b l~:L~
213585130934
JAEGER ENGINEERING
PAGE 02
/
, ,C," '----'----,
,..,'~_....."~~'
'. - '-
.,'
",-"- '-',.._..--'---'-'-...,...
....-
"..
"-,
:1/
" '
.,'
, ..
. -
'" "
32"""--
, ,-- ..,- ..,--
//'
"'"
.14
..1:;'"
,.", ...,-'
I
/
,
,
.
\
\.
;1-11 SH\ ,
2,4.~, \
\
'"
"
""
,~
---- ..
".-' ~--
\
.",
, . I
.. ",' I
CUT - ~ PIPE:
€ ZS' I p~
ToE ~þ BAfJl<.
p~ R{P RP,P
PÞñ) '\ ,,/
,', /
~MP~
,SPR~ u> t
....'~ ~r p~ Þ
, (:e;I~~Ì\)
.' ' ,
/ "
/ ,...-0'
J I'.=: .9J' /'/ .. .....' - -' - .-- -:~,., "
.-~/' ,,-
.-- -- -
...- '
,,- _......-~
-,~-' (:'-, -
'.
R6Mo",=-
éX. ~Æ:
11~/
! \-'~'"
\
\
\
I
'\' "
f
/
I
I
I
\
'\
......
'---.-",--..-.' .'
.' '. , z.OQ'or "
'. '... \, BfO-"'!' flM nON
" ,\~'AL~~~~4X $/,01
_.' ~ - ,.
" --
-' ,
"
"
-'...-.. -,- ._-_.....~--"",
.' /
E)(f-![ BJT_._.._~,
P,.C' ~ J ':I
l~ - ~ ---L. 0,' --.,~-
06/26/96 WED 16:29
[TX/RX NO 5245]
tJb/Lb/l':1':1b
1~::¿3
2135851313934
JAEGER ENGINEERING
PAGE
03
.,'
'/101('.
',':;/'1(:,...(".
,.~
--_. '. ~
, '-:.. - -/¿j. '-'-----..- "'-
,~~W/~~~,':, -, ,~~,~_."
-~ ' ~~
" ~ð;:bï¡;:; --"-'-'_:'~':-- ',..-, - -,,~ ..
M,^ ~~~1~;~iii ~ 1- .... .. -., ~ .. - ~1~ti~~~<>~'
So' ~~:þ OF' ,f"I~ "~.
,"', "C
, '"
23
"~
"24 "'--, ' ,
,-----',.,
P:J'
êE
2/
,'g
Qj!
:;};
"- '
'... ,/k
'.
¡}O, ,
P.1'$
""v. iG7;O}
I II ,
, =SD
~.
fe)
,
, i
". I
. '
~r(l
,~/4
,
:lJ. .¡ "
'NO:
-,,"':',
.. /9
'h.~
N'n
MIN. FINIsH
GRADE. 264.0'
('\
\(;
"', '. ,
','.1
'-..
'-
.,
-'"
r./'lÄOE .'jwJI..l: SErui'E'N
tors /7 AM? 18 DlJrUNG
HOt/Sf: ctJÑ,Si11tJcfloN
1 A.4Þ r.~'C r 1"0 ,
" ftJJtJA7L ." tltJN ,tWÂI.É
, ""'/l!"
I'.fd
CEl J f!~
(¡¡
L.,
" "".
,ø('l
, ",~
E'/L'~:?j:, I
2 .. J¡,'~-a
PhC:,-:
06/26/96
WED 16:29
(TX/RX NO 5245]
OS/25/1335 15:23
2058500934
J~EGER ENGINEERING
PAGE 04
L9'
"" "
"'-..'- :\,
....
c'-
-:: .::...
Q?
SJJ ÞJE.
c.RO'S:5 - :$E.C-not-J
USE ~\t ~"E.. ' srz...E &u f\-RR"{ Sf>ALLS
FOR RocK., Rcx:k- SHAru- BE.. Hf\ND
pL-~ CE-D V'J \i'-{ M \ "-.J \'<Y'\A-L þ\ STU ~CE-
ìD ~\sn~Gr ~E;.GE.mTlON
~
R\F>
F<.~p
FLO \J..J
sPR E.- ~ ÞER
D E:-:r1t. \ L
Wellands Seed MIxtures"
Proport Ion8 Percent Percent
bvW8W1f Purity GermlnatlQn
- 40% 98 90
30% 92 80
30% 90 80
CreepIng rad fescue
(Pennlawn)
Red top (Aarosrls ðlQa)
Blrdsfoot trefoil
(1..QtU§ CornlcuJalus)
'"Apply this miXture at a rate of 60 Ibs/äcre and/or add/Ilona! tubers for cattail, yellow 1111, bufl rush
slough (carex) sedge. as required by BALD. '
E.~.. \./~J 1 Q ~I :r
'-,:"": ~.u~ ~ ----'.-'---
'~or- .~
W~D
SE.-EO
fl\IX
PtICr=
j-\ . -
.sp~~
PROJECT NAME:
-JAEGER ENGINEERING
DATE:
-~ ~.-~ ,.~ -
<1 . . "", ,-
06/26/96 WED 16:29
-- - - -
[TXlRX NO 5245]
"
F~rct:¡\)t:o tJV
COMtvll INITV OFVi=IOPMFNT DEPMmAM
J U N 1 4 1996
L
June II, 1996
ADOLf-SON
ASSOCIATES, INc.
Margaret Clark, Senior Planner
City of Federal Way
Department of Community Development Services
33530 First Way South
Federal Way, Washington 98003-6210
9625-27
RE: Dash Pointe Preliminary Plat Review -
File No. ILA-90-PPllIKing Co. File No. S06892l
Dear Ms. Clark:
At your request, Adolfson Associates, Inc. (AAI) has reviewed the sewer easement portion of the
Wetland Restoration Plan: Dash Pointe, Federal Way, Washington prepared by del Moral &
Associates forM & T Joint Ventures, April 26, 1994 (hereafter referred to as the "Wetland
) Mitigation Plan"). . The goal of this review is to determine whether the proposed vegetation
enhancement for the sewer easement is necessary at this time based on a field review of existing
conditions of the vegetation within eleven proposed vegetation enhancement plots. The field
investigation was completed on June 6, 1996. The proposed vegetation enhancement plots along
the sewer easement are depicted as Enhancement Areas A through K in Figures 1 and 2 of the
Wetland Mitigation Plan.
It was determined during the field investigation that the eleven proposed vegetation enhancement
plots within the sewer easement have significantly recovered with native vegetation. The areas
are dominated by red alder saplings, and salmonberry scrub-shrub communities are also
becoming established. The herbaceous communities are dominated by horsetail, stinging nettle
and native grasses. Soft rush and curley dock dominate the wetter areas.
The native vegetation communities which has become established in the vegetation plots would
be subject to significant disturbance by installation of the proposed plant materials as described
in the Wetland Mitigation Plan. We recommend that these eleven enhancement areas be left
undisturbed to allow for the existing native vegetation communities to continue to mature.
Adolfson Associates, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to provide continued service for the
Department of Community Development Services. If you have any questions or if I can be of
further assistance on the Dash Pointe project, please call me at 789-9658. .
Sincerely,
-----;(. 2/./('~. .~/ ---------
.~~?
./ Keith F. FabÌl~J
Project Biologist
EXHIBIT ;1
PAC=- t ~ OF..I-
Environmental Allalysis
5309 S/I/Is//II/e Aue Nfl!. Scutt/c, WA 98107 P/umc(206) 789-9658 Fa,\;(206) 789-9684
0
DATE:
August 30, 1996
TO:
Federal Way City Councilmembers
Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager
Federal Way Management Team
FROM:
Dena Laurent, Senior Management Assistant
SUBJECT:
DRAFT 2 1997 Legislative Agenda for Review at the September 9
Land IT se and Transportation Committee Meeting
Please find attached DRAFT 2 of the 1997 Legislative Agenda and Position Paper. The second
~ draft reflects changes made by Councilmembers during the month of August. The new changes
are outlined below and will be reviewed at the September 9 Land Use and Transportation
Committee meeting, in advance of potentially final consideration at the September 17 City Council
Meeting.
Changes:
1. Position Paper, page 2: Cable Television and Telecommunications
Under the fifth bullet, the language "cellular towers" was stuck and "wireless stations" was
added, updating the document to reflect current technology.
2.
Position Paper, page 4: Water Resources Management
The Puget Sound Coordinating Council was deleted from the list of water regulating
agencies to reflect current responsibilities. New language was added in the fIrst paragraph
supporting the authority of local water districts to plan for their own needs, participating
in regional planning as appropriate to meet the needs of their customers. Detailed language
below the first paragraph was struck entirely. This detailed language was a listing of water
management planning issues from several years ago and is outdated. The more general
language drafted above the list addresses current issues.
3.
Position Paper, page 5: Community Development: Regional Planning, Annexation Law
and Land Use Regulation/Regulatory Reform
The fIrst paragraph in this section was deleted entirely. The City does consider the
potential annexation area in planning issues, but does not necessarily provide a wide range
of planning services as previously stated. Significant services begin when annexation
petitions are submitted. The City's position on State annexation law is clarified in new
language in the second paragraph of that section. This new language supports current State
law and supports local authority to make the final determination on acceptance of
annexation petitions, following analysis of the annexation's impact on the City's operation.
4.
Position Paper, page 10: Air Transportation
The word "even" was deleted from the last sentence of the second paragraph.
5.
Position Paper, page 10: Diversity
The language in this paragraph was modified to reflect protection of the individual rights
and civil liberties of all Washington citizens.
6.
Position Paper, page 11: Health and Human Services: School District Partnerships
New language in this section was added to support legislation which minimizes barriers
to partnerships for joint development of land owned by school districts.
I look forward to receiving your comments at the September 9 meeting.
),.
2
~
City of Federal Way
1997 Legislative Agenda
DRAFT -- 8/30/96
Transportation
1.
The City supports reform of state funding for transportation to include a broad
range of funding solutions able to address traffic congestion, growth and High
Capacity Transit alternatives. Such reform should seek funding sources which
will be dedicated to major local transportation projects, keep up with
inflation, and will provide the citý with local option revenue authority for the
expansion, maintenance and operation of local transportation systems.
2.
The City encourages efforts to secure State support for City priority transportation projects
as outlined in the City's Transportation Improvement Plan (to be attached).
J.
The City supports le~isiatioll to dari1J responsibility for sidewalk repair between property
owners à11d cities collsistent with rcderal 'Nay City Code. TIle City Code spCG~fics that,
"(1)n the e'Vent an abutting property ow her or oecupà11t causc.s any dalnage to a sidewalk
by his or her act, eIIoJ., or omission, induding without limitation the plà11ting of any tree
or other vegetation on his or her abutting property, then the duty, burdeIl à11d expense of
all neccssary maintenà11ce, repair, reconstruction and/or construction of a sidewalk
necessary in the city's detcrLl'lti1ãtion as a result of such damage, shall be the rc..!Iponsibility
of such abutting property o~ner or occupant"
Human Services & Public Health
1.
The City supports legislative action that will maintain support for human service programs
including those which may be delegated to the State from the Federal Government.
2.
The City opposes efforts to reestablish contractual funding arrangements for public health
servIces.
3.
The City supports efforts to identify a dedicated funding source for affordable housing
which is acceptable to developers, realtors, the state and local government.
4.
The City encourages efforts to secure State support for City priority parks and open space
projects as outlined in the City's Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan.
This support could include legislation which would exempt public park and public
cultural arts facility construction from state and local option sales taxes.
5.
The City supports local government representation on County Boards of public health.
~
3.
4.
Finance
1.
The City opposes the imposition of requirements or additional obligation that are not
accompanied by requisite funding.
2.
The City opposes any erosion in its financing sources and strongly encourages the
Legislature to maintain Criminal Justice Funding and other grant programs which
support local program operation.
3.
The City supports legislation to allow cities to recover the costs of records retrieval
from electronic information syStems. efforts to establish pLOccdules for a reasonable
fee structures for informa:ti:on requested fIom the City's geographic infOInlation system.
The procedures should allow reasonable time to prepa:re information requests and fees
should provide reasonable cost recovery for GIS maintenance and operation.
4.
The City supports government partnerships with the private sector for the purposes of
promoting quality governmental services and economic vitality.
Regulatory Reform/Growth Management
1.
The City supports practical solutions to private property disputes that address specific
concerns of property owners, including continued regulatory reform. These
solutions should not change the constitutional definition of takings, place an undue
financial burden on tax. payers, or diminish local governments' ability to protect
public health, safety and welfare.
2.
The City supports legislation to fadlit1te annexations where ultimate jurisdictional
boundarlcs have been agreed upon in order to implement Growth Management Act
provIsions.
213.
The City supports legislation to allow local comprehensive plans to be amended more than
once each year.
The City supports legislation which further coordinates and streamlines land use
decisions and permitting under the GMA as well as under the State Environmental
Policy Act and the Shorelines Management Act. Such legislation should balance the
benefits of statewide uniformity with the need for local communities to govern
themselves.
The City supports legislation recognizing the need for local flexibility in effectively
implementing the GMA and requiring Growth Planning Hearing Boards to defer to
local decisions, policies and processes implementing the goals of the GMA when these
2
~
actions are consistent with the GMA.
Communications
1.
The City opposes legislation which would preempt local authority over pole attachments,
cellular tower siting, cable refranchising, and telecommunications charges.
La wand Public Safety
1.
The City supports civil service reform for police officers that allows cities to streamline
hiring processes, diversify workforces, and recruit, retain, terminate and reward
employees.
2.
Th~ City sapports legislAtion moclifying RC\V pJ.ovisions whkh requ~ newly incorporAted
cities to assume police offiœrs who lose their positions AS A direct result of the
incorporAtion.
J.
Tho City opposc;s l~gislAtion whkh wo111d shift responsibility betwccl1 clties a.nd counti~s
regàIding liability for costs of prosecution, jelil Md filing foes for 111lsdemeanol offenses
ChàIgod undeI State lAw.
2.
The City supports model ordinance legislation for adult entertainment consistent with
the provisions of the City's adult entertainment ordinance which have been sustained
through numerous court appeals.
3
Position Paper --'Draft 8/30/96
General Policy
The City of Federal Way supports state legislative efforts to encourage cost-effective regional
policy planning and delivery of government services, balanced by local program implementation.
These efforts must be focused on eliminating duplicative services and preserving local control over
service delivery. The City also supports legislation which enhances local flexibility to address
issues of local concern. The City opposes legislation which mandates increased local costs or
which results in an inappropriate diminution of local authority over local affairs.
General Local Government
.~
Home Rule
The City of Federal Way strongly supports the adoption of a constitutional home rule
amendment which would guarantee decision-making authority for local matters at the local
level. The City also urges the Legislature to refrain from enacting legislation that adversely
impacts the concept of local self-government or restricts the ability of cities and towns to
exercise existing power.
Mandates
All local governments have been impacted by the elimination and reduction of various
federal domestic aid programs. Changes at the state level have also affected local
government revenue options. Equally important are the growing number of mandates
passed from the federal and state governments to local governments; mandates which are
not accompanied by additional resources. Delivering public services requires a strong state-
local partnership, and local revenue needs must be recognized when new programs are
enacted or if the state revenue system is restructured. The citizens of Washington
recognized this necessity in approving section 6 of Initiative 62, codified as RCW
43.135.060, which directs the Legislature to refrain from imposing unfunded mandate
requirements on local governments. As well, elected city officials are most qualified to
determine which services to provide, and the manner in which they should be provided.
The City strongly urges the Legislature to cease imposition of additional financial or
operating burdens on cities unless such mandates are compelled by an overriding state
interest and are accompanied by financial resources to accommodate the costs of
compliance.
Voter Registration Maintenance Costs
State law presently allows counties to charge cities to maintain voter registration records.
This law, passed in 1987, when the counties took over voter registration from the cities,
did not include a sunset provision to eliminate the charge when the transition was
complete. Furthennore, these charges are not uniform, ranging from $.22 to $2.00
1
~
per voter. State law does set a $.30 maximum charge for smaller cities, but does
not specify a charge for larger cities. King County collects over $1 million in voter
maintenance fees each year, which should more than cover the cost of minor data
entry changes. The City supports legislative changes which would standardize this
charge in a manner which accurately reflects the cost of maintaining voter records.
Bidding Procedures and Limits
The City supports efforts to streamline state laws and regulations governing the bidding
process, giving cities greater flexibility in bidding procedures and limits.
Public Records
The City firmly supports the right of the public to have access to the records and
operations of local government. The City supports legislative efforts to clarify the issues
suIIoúhdlng public access to e}cc,tronic iüfolmation, including claÚfication of the ability
of loGal gove:rnh1ents to GalGulatc and assess Gharges for data. and other information,
including clarification of the ability of local governments to Galculate and assess charges
for data àlld other mimmation produced fIOm clccuonie information systems. allow cities
to recover the costs of records retrieval from electronic information systems.
.
Cable Television and Telecommunications
TIle City will continue to monitOl legislation go~eming the operation of cable
conduuhications, telephol1e and other telecommunications ser vices. Passage of the
Federal Telecommunications Act will affect the ability of cities to:
receive compensation for the use of public right of way,
negotiate local cable television rates and services,
authorize taxes on telecommunications services,
legislate and implement community zoning, and
approve siting of wireless stations cellulaI tOn'eIS.
.
.
.
.
The City supports legislation that protects the right of local government to assess. franchise
and other fees, to negotiate franchise agreements, and exercise other controls on the
operation of telecommunication business in the public rights of way.
Finance and Economic Development
Tax Increment Financing
Tax increment financing allows cities to pay for the infrastructure costs related to
development or redevelopment projects by earmarking the property tax revenues
attributable to the increase in assessed valuation of improved property. The property
(district) could be initiated by either of two methods: l) the City, with approval of a
majority of property owners, or property owners constituting a majority of assessed
valuation within the district; or, 2) a majority of the property owners or property owners
2
constituting a majority of the assessed valuation within the proposed district could petition
the City Council to form such a district. The tax increment refers to increased property tax
revenues resulting from the increased assessed value of the property within the district.
The tax increment would be dedicated to paying the debt service on the bonds issued. After
the bonds have been retired, the tax increment would be distributed in the same manner
as other non-increment property taxes. The overriding benefit of tax increment financing
districts would be to facilitate quality and comprehensive development, and redevelopment
of our community.
Voted Excess Levy for Capital Improvement Bonds
Municipalities should be authorize(rto seek voter approval for an excess property tax levy
to fund capital facilities projects. The levy could be used for projects on a pay as you go
basis or for debt service on bonds. The levy would not be tied to one project, but could
be used to realize any of the projects in the adopted facilities plan. The bonds would be
unlimited general obligations of the City. Voter approval would be by simple majority.
Benefits of this option include the development of a comprehensive community tax policy
to deal with its infrastructure needs using a multi-year business plan approach.
~
State Tax Roll Back/Expenditure Limitation Efforts
The City expects their governments to be wise stewards of public funds, and concurrently
be responsive to increasing service demands. As well, the City receives significant support
from state collected-locally shared revenues. The City opposes efforts to alter state fiscal
operations which would have a negative impact on the City of Federal Way.
Pass Through of Collection Costs
The City of Federal Way currently uses collection agencies and other resources to assist
with the collection of delinquent debts. Unlike District and Municipal Courts, cities do not
have the authority to pass these expensive collection costs onto the debtor for the
outstanding debt. The City supports legislation which would allow cities to pass onto the
debtor all costs associated with the collection of any delinquent debts.
Public Works Trust Fund
The Public Works Trust Fund, established by the Legislature in 1985, has benefitted many
local governments with dependable, long term funding for repair and reconstruction of
local public works systems. Much of this construction is completed during the summer
months to avoid inclement weather. However, project funding must be secured prior to
advertising and awarding a project, a process that takes several months. The Legislature
is now required to approve the annual list of projects, but has never deleted a project
from the Public Works Board I s approved list. Expediting the approval process would
facilitate the construction of these projects by the following summer construction season.
The City therefore supports removal of the approval by the full Legislature from the
annual Public Works Trust Fund approval process.
3
Sales Tax Exemption for Public Park and Public Cultural Arts Facility Construction
Construction of public works projects is presently exempt from local and state sales
taxes. The same rationale for exempting public works projects from sales taxes also
applies to the construction of public parks and cultural facilities. Taxing citizens to
build a public facility and then taxing them again for construction seems ~ poor use
of time and resources. Further, exemption of public park and cultural facility
construction would be a very minor exemption in the overall state and local sales tax
revenue picture. The City supports legislation which would exempt public park and
public cultural arts facility construction from state and local option sales taxes.
Water Resource Management
Addressing water resource management issues will require increased intergovernmental
coordination among local and regional governments and the state. The City supports continued
state financial assistance for water supply, wastewater management, groundwater protection, and
storm and surface water facilities and programs. These programs are especially important in
complying with state and federal water quality standards (NPDES, National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System) and the priorities of the Puget Sound CoOtdina.ting Council. The City also
supports retention of the authority of local water districts to manage their assets,
participating in regional phmning as appropriate to provide and protect for the current and
future water needs of their customers.
~
Specifically, the City supports action in the following areas.
.
Leglsla.tioll that would pc.Ul~t regional wa:t:cr supply management throûgh InteIlocal
agreenlents much like power utilities ope!ate with joint ope!ating a.greements
(JOAs) fOI the loüg ra.nge plaüning, implementation and management of water
resources.
Col1tinued funding for sewage treatment and disposal project5,
runding for wate! quality inspection/enforcement plograrns,
Regulation/a.batemcnt of septic sJsten. use in urban areas when sanitary sewers Me
not available,
Lilactmeht of a staÍì~-wide wetlands management program designed to
protectJehlúìIlce wetla.nds with flexible standards that could be exceeded by loca.l
goveIl1ment (hO changes to thc OMA wetlands protection provisions),
Lhactluent of a coluprehensive a.pproach to lhanageruent of the waters of the state
which will equitably balance the competing den lands for water (municipal water
supply, agriculturc, fisheÚes, recreation, and the cnvlIonment). Continued state
fillallcial suPPO1t of both resource planning and capital progra.ms will be necessary.
This same a.pproach is also ad~oca.ted for storm wate:r management, and
Legislatioh sitillg wa.teI sl1pply facilities ill a process siIuilar to that required for the
Sitillg a solid waste facility.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Flood Damage Reduction
The City contains a number of flood prone areas, both developed and undeveloped which
require specialized planning. Recent proposed flood damage reduction legislation was
flawed, partially due to the fact that is was based on an overall flood way approach, which
does not consider all flood prone areas in the state. The City supports comprehensive flood
damage prevention planning accomplished at the local level as a partnership among
impacted cities, the county, state and affected area interests. Each flood prone area is
unique and should be planned for accordingly. Locally developed and adopted flood
damage protection plans must seek to establish a balance between the need for
appropriately designed growth and the need to reduce further flood damage.
Community Development
~
Regional Planning, Annexation Law, and Land Use Regulation/Regulatory Reform
PICSelltly, the City provides a range of mullklpal planning seIvices to ulbanlÛng èUeé1S
lying outside ofr'Cdela:l Wã'j's munidpa:l boundaÚes. Othel SeIv1GeS, not pIo'\11ded by thc
City, would, ill most cases, be iUOI¿ efficiently pIovided by the City. State, ð1ln~ation
laws should be modified to O11COtlLc1gf'- the log.tca:l development and expansion of thc City
to plovide £01 a healthy and gLOWing economy, and to bette:r implement growth
lual1agewO11t law.
The City suppo.lts 1cgi~lati:oll which would modif.~ anncxatiolllaws by mã.:kin:g the plocess
easiel fOl both cities and areas choosing to c11m~ to cities to do so. The City supports
current State law regarding annexations. The City also supports retention of city
authority to review the impacts of an annexation on the overall operation of the City
and to make the fmal detennination regarding acceptance of petitions for annexation.
The City supports legislati~ that would reduce boundary adjustment requirements, clarify
franchise relationships between trash and garbage haulers, expedite transfer of property tax
from the County to the City, and provide direction for land use and permitting functions
in newly annexed areas.
The City also supports pr~ctical solutions to private property disputes that address
specific concerns of property owners, including regulatory reform if necessary. These
solutions should not alter the Constitutional deimition of takings, place an undue
fmancial burden on taxpayers, or èliminish local governments' ability to protect the
public health, safety and welfare of their communities.
Growth Management
The State Growth Management Act creates challenges for state, county and cities. To meet
these challenges, the Legislature must continue to monitor the efforts of local agencies,
and address any necessary additional refinements to the Act in an effective and timely
5
)¡
manner. Such refinements may include clarification of the role and responsibilities of the
state in developing policies and capital plans in conformance with locally adopted
comprehensive plans, assuring the adequacy of funding sources to provide adequate
infrastructure, urban services, housing and employment opportunities within urban growth
areas. The Legislature must also act to provide sufficient time, technical and financial
resources to cities completing growth management planning.
The City continues to support the Growth Management Act as an essential and responsible
planning tool. The City supports:
.
the continued provision of adequate state funds to the Department of Community,
Trade and Economic Development to aid cities in meeting their growth
management planning responsibilities.
.
legislative measures to insure that special purpose districts and ports are required
to prepare capital facilities plans that are consistent with the required planning done
by cities and counties.
.
legislation that further derIDes, coordinates, simplifies and streamlines land
use decisions and permitting under the GMA as well as under the State
Environmental Policy Act and the Shorelines Management Act. Such
legislation should balance the benefits of statewide uniformity with the need
for local communities to govern themselves.
.
legislation authorizing GMA-planning cities to adopt technical amendments to
their GMA plans and regulations more than once a year.
.
legislation recognizing the need for local flexibility in effectively implementing
the GMA and requiring Growth Planning hearing Boards to defer to local
decisions, policies and processes implementing the goals of the GMA when
these actions are otherwise consistent with the GMA.
Finally, the City opposes any legislation which would allow for the siting of major industrial or
commercial facilities outside of urban growth areas. .
Forest Permits
The Department of Natural Resources is presently authorized to issue Class II and Class
III Forest Practice Permits, which allow logging without review by municipal authorities
within urbanized areas contained within city limits or designated urban growth boundaries.
Class IV permits, however, do require municipal authority review. The past practice of
issuing these permits has precluded city governments from providing appropriate controls
to deal with the erosion and sedimentation in those permitted areas. As well, the
uncontrolled logging of parcels within an urban area has precluded local government from
6
providing regulations to help insure that the property properly transitions into appropriate
urban development. Therefore, the City supports state legislative efforts to require that all
Forest Practice Permits issued within the city limits or within the designated urban growth
boundary be subject to the same local government review process now provided in the
consideration and issuance of Class IV Forest Practice Permits. Alternatively, cities should
be allowed to adopt and enforce land clearing, significant tree protection and related issues
for Class II and III forest permits.
Criminal Justice
The City opposes legislation andlor efforts to remove the authority of municipalities to provide
local law enforcement services, regardless of the potential for service contracting. The City also
opposes actions or legislation which would transfer incarceration responsibilities from the state
or county to municipalities without additional funding.
~
Criminal Justice Funding
The Washington State Legislature has recognized the need for additional funding
support from loeal criminal justice agencies when they enacted the CitylCounty
Criminal Justice Assistance Act. The issues facing cities, crime and limited rlSeal
capacity, which were present when the Act was approved are still present today.
Given that this funding sunsets in 1997, the City supports Legislative reauthorization
of the Act.
Radar Testimony
Current state law requires law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to utilize the
testimony of expert witnesses, when the defense specifically requests said witness,
to introduce the speed readings of radar detection devices. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration has established minimum performance specifications
for speed measuring devices that create reliability sufficient to justify their
acceptance. Many traffic infractions were decriminalized to create a uniform and
expeditious system for adjudication, yet these expert testimony requirements have
cost the City thousands of dollars each year, and causes unnecessary dismissals
and delays. The City supports legislation allowing for the admission in court of the
readings of speed measuring devices without the need for additional expert
testimony if the device satisfies specific requirements established by the
Legislature. The City would also support alternative legislation which would allow
the City to impose the cost of witness fees in cases where the infraction is found
to have been committed.
DWI Court Costs
The City supports legislation to strengthen DWI laws. The City also supports legislation
to allow recovery of necessary public expenses, including detention costs, which result
7
from incidents involving drunk driving convictions.
Juvenile Offenders
The City supports legislation revising the current juvenile disposition standards to provide
stronger sanctions for chronic, misdemeanor behavior for juvenile offenders and to permit
the court greater discretion to impose detention or some form of secure treatment in cases
of juvenile offenders who have prior criminal history.
Empty Chair Defense
The City supports legislative action related to tort reform to clarify that it is not the
defendant's requirement to mandatórily join all potential "At Fault" entities into litigation,
or risk losing ability to apportion fault to the third party(s). Any move to the contrary
would shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant in proving fault.
~
Drug Seizure Funds
The City supports efforts to enhance the ease with which cities can apply for and receive
drug seizure funds and particularly supports the expansion of the defmition of what those
funds can be expended upon to include all law enforcement functions.
DWI Legislation
The City supports legislation to reduce the bloodlalcohol standard in DWI cases to .08.
The City also supports legislation to allow municipalities to recover costs associated with
emergency and detention expenses which occur as a result of DWI convictions.
Youth and Education Programs
Child Abuse
The City supports funding for programs designed to prevent child abuse/neglect.
Child Care
The City support budget provisions to enhance the Department of Social and Health
Services ability to enforce its day care licensing requirements, to improve support services
for daycare providers, and to ensure the accessibility to child care for all citizens. The
City will carefully monitor legislation clarifying its role in regulating the siting and
operation of daycare facilities.
Funding of Youth Programs
The City supports legislation improving funding to local governments for initiating and
expanding youth services.
City/School District Cooperation
8
The City supports state programs which recognize city/school district cooperative efforts
to address locally identified youth issues.
Solid Waste, Recycling and Hazardous Materials
The transportation, handling, storage, and disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials
continues to be important. The City supports approaches to waste disposal that are environmentally
sensitive and advocates recycling efforts and aggressive waste reduction. Specifically the City
supports:
~
Transportation
.
regional planning and approaches to solid/hazardous waste materials management
with special attention paid to the significant role cities play in the process,
elimination of current restrictions on the ability of local governments to ban the use
of products which are not recyclable, and
legislation to clarify nonresidential recycling authority of counties and cities
to set recommended voluntary minimum service standards for nonresidential
collection of recyclables.
.
.
Transportation planning remains a high priority for Federal Way and is vital to maintaining
our quality of life and economic viability. These issues include both the needed capacity
and safety of our road and highway system, as well as the need for high capacity transit -
(HCT) and increased emphasis on transit and high occupancy vehicle usage. Growth
management legislation has supported the strong link between transportation planning and
land use. Specifically the City supports:
.
a legislative review of sources available to fund HCT systems, including a local
option gas tax, or sales tax on gas,
.
legislation to specify that local government has first right of refusal on abandoned
transportation rights-of-way,
.
funding sources should be received by cities on a monthly basis, with specific
expenditure decisions remaining with the local government. The City supports
legislation that would create ongoing annual appropriation of transportation funds
to municipalities, rather than awarding funds on a project by project basis. Project
specific funding increases the burden on cities and hinders long range planning
ability, and
.
the City also supports incentives for use of public transit and ridesharing, and
9
leg,ardkss of ihdividual diffe1enccs. The City supports aggressive protection of the civil
liberties of all Washington citizens.
Health and Human Services
Public Health Care
The City supports legislation passed during the 1993 Legislative Session which makes
counties responsible for the delivery of public health services through the appropriation of
additional motor vehicle excise tax revenues previously dedicated to cities. Further, the
City would urge resistance to any efforts to repeal or amend the provisions of the 1993
legislation.
~
Domestic Violence
The City supports refinements to current domestic violence law which will afford
additional protection to victims and enable improved enforcement and prosecution of
domestic violence cases.
Family Services Restructuring
The City will monitor legislation with respect to family services restructuring. The city
supports amendments which enhance the City's role in reviewing and approving
community network comprehensive plans, and ensuring continued city input in the
operation of such networks, including bench marking program effectiveness, and avoiding
the supplanting of local human services funds.
School District-City Partnerships
The City supports legislation that will minimize barriers to cities and other local
governments partnering with school districts to provide community programs, and to
jointly develop land owned by school districts.
11
opposes legislation which will reduce revenues currently earmarked for public
transit purposes.
High Capacity Transit
The City of Federal Way continues to support a regional approach to the development of
a High Capacity Transit (HC1) System. Such a system is dependant on local public transit
services and facilities. The City urges that regional transit legislation include provisions
for regional funding for local/feeder transit services and alternative modes of transportation
which would encourage reduction of single occupancy vehicle use. .
Air Transportation
Recc,nt study of the growth and capacity of the SeaTac IntemalÎonal AlrpoIt indkate that
it may leach its opelational capacity by the year 2000. rmther, the Puget Sound Air
Trc11l5pOrtation Committee., sponsored by the Port of Seattle and the Paget Sound Regional
Council, found that a third maway at Sea-Tac could never meet the long-.tedu all capacity
needs of the state. As wdl, the proposed expansion of the SeaTac Iuternational Airport
would have a dramatic impact on the surrounding communities.
)¡
As the state moves forward with its emphasis on regional growth management and
planning, the implications of activities with a statewide impact, such as the Airport
expansion, should be planned and executed on a statewide basis. The City supports State
action which would include affected communities in the study of SeaTac airport expansion,
and State actions which would explore the feasibility of a new regional airport sited outside
the SeaTac area, or even outside the four county Puget Sound Region.
As a transportation alternative, the City also supports development of high speed rail along
the Cascade corridor between Eugene, Oregon and Vancouver, British Columbia. The use
of high speed rail in these areas could reduce the number of commuter flights flown
between cities in this region.
Trails Funding
Present Trails Network funding can only be spent in rights-of-way. The rules governing
this funding should then be amended to allow expenditure of the funds on trails and paths
outside of street right-of-way.
Recognition of and Respect for Diversity
The City of Federal Way is committed to upholding the basic principles and values on which our
nation was founded, including respect for individual rights diversity, tolerance of differences.
al1d freedolh from perseGutioh. A number of groups who do not share these values are active
nationally. IIonoIÌhg its COl11111itllIent to diversity issues, tIle City supports efforts to educate
'vVaslIihgton citizens on the l1\~cd fOl a conti.hUillg col11hlÌtmetlt to tokla.hCe, diversity a.hd equality,
10
TO:
FR:
RE:
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
September 5, 1996
Land Use a~ansportation Committee
Lori Michae~1 ~enior Planner
Greg McCormick, Principal Planner
"Shared Commitment" Funding Pr~ogram for Affordable Housing
I.
Overview of the Shared FundinQ Commitment ProQram
.}
II.
The Shared Commitment Funding Program is part of a countywide effort to encourage
jurisdictions to commit local dollars to meeting the existing affordable housing need. You
will recall that the King County Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs) address two types of
affordable housing needs in the region: ."
(a)
Existino need (e.g., the 130,000 low and moderate income households in King
County that are currently paying more than 30% of their income on housing; of
these, about 54,000 households spend more than 50% of their income on
housing; and
Future/onooinQ need for low and moderate income households resulting from
population growth over the next 2 years.
(b)
The Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC) is addressing the first objective,
existing need, by establishing a three-step countywide strategy to deal with funding the
existing affordable housing gap. The shared commitment funding program is one part of
this strategy. The GMPC has also established specific numeric housing targets for each
jurisdiction to address the second objective, future/ongoing need.
The GMPC has targeted $3 million for purposes of funding the shared commitment
program on a countywide basis. To put this amount in perspective with the need, it has
been estimated that the total 1996 dollars being applied to affordable housing by cities
and the county is $24.7 million. (The bulk of these dollars is being spent by the City of
Seattle.) However, approximately $34.7 million is needed annually on a countywide basis
to fund the affordable housing targets (future/ongoing needs) over the next 20 years.
Moreover, this amount does not include the cost of funding the existing housing gap.
Therefore, the total funding goals of (a) and (b) above, are considerably greater that the
targeted $3 million.
Action Requested and Time Frame
Please review the attached memorandum dated August 5, 1996, from Larry Phillips, et.
al. The Housing Finance Implementation Committee of King County is requesting
feedback from local jurisdictions on various alternatives to implement the shared funding
commitment program. The attached memorandum details the program alternatives and
the four specific areas requested for feedback. Your input will be considered in the
committee's initial report to the GMPC. Cities will again be invited to comment on the
final draft recommendation before the end of the year.
Land Use and Transportation Committee
September 5, 1996
Page 2 of 5
III.
}
IV.
V.
Backqround
Pursuant to the Growth Management Act (RCW 35.70A.21 0), and adoption of the
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs), the GMPC appointed the King County Housing
Finance Task Force, and charged it with implementing the following cpr goals and
policies for existing needs for affordable housing:
MEachjurisdiction shall participate in developing countywide housing resources and programs to assist the large
number of low and moderate income househõlds who currently do not have affordable, appropriate housing.
These countywide efforts will help reverse current trends which concentrate low income housing opportunities in
certain communities, and achieve a more equitable participation by local jurisdictions in low income housing
development and selYices. Countywide efforts should give priority to assisting households below 50 percent of
median income that are in greatest need and communities with high proportions of low and moderate income
residents... N ...By October, 1994, the GMPC or its successor shall appoint elected and community
representatives to develop recommendations for providing low and moderate income housing and related
services... Within one year the committee shall recommend to the GMPC or its successor.
1.
New countywide funding source(s) for housing production and services, and a plan to establish this
funding within three years;
Participation by local governments, including appropriate public and private financing, such that each
jurisdiction contributes on a fair share basis; and
Objectives for housing and related selYices, including measurable levels of housing production and
costs to provide necessary related selYice(s). N
2.
3.
In the Fall of 1995 the GMPC adopted the Task Force recommendation (see attached
report, "Housing our Communities - A Regional Action Plan") and assigned the 1996 work
program to the Housing Finance Implementation Committee.
Proqram Participation
Strategies for regional participation advanced by the shared commitment program are
embodied in the CPPs. Participants include Council members and City
Managers/Administrators of Seattle and the Suburban Cities of King County. At this time,
individual city participation in the shared commitment program is voluntary.
Proqram Benefits
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
Local dollars generated will remain under the City's control
The City is not required to commit local dollars to a countywide process
Dollars will translate to credit toward the City's affordable housing targets
No new bureaucracies will be created; work through existing or proposed entities
Responds to CPPs and Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan Housing Policies
Recognizes the cross-jurisdictional nature of housing issues
Improved coordination of funding strategies
Opportunities for cross-jurisdictional collaboration
Interjurisdictional staff team participation and control
Ability to influence regional affordable housing policies
Land Use and Transportation Committee
September 5, 1996
Page 3 of 5
VI.
Staff Analysis
As indicated, the Housing Finance Implementation Committee is seeking preliminary
feedback in four specific areas. Staff offers the following analysis as a framework for
Committee discussion and determination of preferences. This analysis uses a rank-order
approach to a discussion of the preferred alternatives. This approach recognizes the
ongoing nature of the deliberation and preserves the spirit of consensus building.
(1 )
Which of the funding form_ulas makes the most policy sense to you and why?
Would an entirely different formula be better? (See Tables I and 2 of memo)
1
Tables 1 and 2 summarize four different formulas to calculate annual local
contributions for the shared commitment program. Each formula uses different
data sources in order to generate the targeted $3 million annually countywide.
The formulas use one or a combination of the following data sources: population,
local revenue (i.e. ability to pay), and local housing need (i.e. consideration of the
local housing affordability gap).
Option A is based solely on a jurisdiction's share of countywide population. It is
straightforward and easy to calculate. However, it does not consider a
jurisidiction's ability to pay, or relative housing need (expressed as local housing
affordability). Moreover, under this option Federal Way's shared commitment of
$138,120 would be the highest of all the options. Staff sees Option A as the least
desirable of the options. Staff ranks Option A as #4 of 4..
Option B calculates an average of each jurisdiction's proportion of the countywide
total assessed valuation and sales tax, in an attempt to weight contribution based
on a jurisdiction's ability to pay. The simplicity of this option is both it's strength
and it's weakness. The interjurisdictional staff team is not leaning toward any
simplistic formula for such a complex and subjective measure as "ability to pay':
City staff is additionally concerned that this option has no direct relationship to
local housing need. While we would not rule out some future modified version of
a formula based on ability to pay, it would not be preferred as a stand-alone
option. Staff ranks Option B as #3 of 4.
Option C is based on a jurisdiction's local housing affordability, and it does not
consider ability to pay. Table 4 illustrates the severity of Federal Way's existing
affordability gap. A formula that relies solely on affordability would not be
recommended for Federal Way at this time. However, please be advised that
Option C is preferred by the interjurisdictional committee members at this time.
Staff ranks Option C as #2 of 4.
Option 0 blends Options B & C. It bases a jurisdiction's contribution on it's
average from Formulas B & C. The premise is that no single formula stands out
as clearly accomplishing the objectives, and combining formulas allows more
objectives to be reflected. Option 0 (in its present form) would be relatively
complicated to administer. However, staff prefers its attempt to measure both
ability to pay and housing affordability. Staff ranks Option 0 as #1 of 4.
Land Use and Transportation Committee
September 5, 1996
Page 4 of 5
VI.
Staff Analysis (cont'd.)
(2)
What Funds Should Count? (Exhibit 1)
Staff supports the list of recommended funding sources as shown on Exhibit 1.
Inclusion of all possible funding sources will act as an incentive to creative
solutions, for cities to work aggressively toward meeting their housing targets, and
to encourage program participation.
(3)
Allocation and administration of shared commitment dollars (Exhibit 1)
1
Staff concurs that it is impractical and inefficient for cities to administer the shared
commitment funding program. Individual city-based programs would certainly
vary between jurisdictions, making it cumbersome for providers to leverage funds.
However, it is essential to retain local authority over dollars committed. Staff
concurs that a regional or sub-regional model has the best potential to balance
efficiencies of administration and local government control. This objective is
expressed on Exhibit 1. However, at this time staff would not support formation of
a new administrative organization. To this end, the Joint Recommendations
Committee (JRC), in some modified form, is the most likely entity to administer
the shared commitment funds. The JRC is an existing entity with an established
operational framework and a successful track record. However, JRC procedures
should be modified to ensure local control over project selection. Staff SUfJfJorts
the use of the JRC to administer the shared commitment funds. fJrovided that
Federal Way is afJfJrofJriatelv refJresented in the fJrocess of fJroiect selection.
Finallv from Exhibit 1. staff SUfJfJorts bullet (1) minimum affordabilitv: and bullet
(2). lonq term. quaranteed affordabilitv: provided. however. that this objective be
modified to recoqnize local markets and allow that certain fJroiects such as
homeownershifJ for moderate income households be exemfJted from any re-sale
restrictions.
(4)
Credit toward affordable housing targets (If Federal Way elects to participate
in the shared commitment program and commits funds to an outside project,
how do we want to get credit for local dollars going to that outside project?)
The CPPs direct cities to meet their local affordable housing targets within their
communities. This language appears to exclude the ability for cities to get credit
toward their housing targets by contributing funds to outside projects. Therefore,
the Task Force has recommended that communities that provide funding for
affordable housing receive credit toward their CPP targets regardless of location.
To this end, several formulas have been developed (and some discarded) to
account for both location and funding. Exhibit 2 shows the credits that would
accrue to local jurisdictions by applying four approaches (approaches lia" through
lid'j to three sample housing projects. Please be advised that approaches lie" and
d" have not been supported by the interjurisdictional committee because they
disregard location as a consideration. Staff concurs and focuses this analysis
Land Use and Transportation Committee
September 5, 1996
Page 5 of 5
VI.
Staff Analysis (cont'd)
on approaches "a" and "b". Approach "a" gives equal weight to location and
funding (50%/50%). Approach "b" gives the majority of the weight to location and
the balance to funding (75%/25%). Since the housing market in Federal Way has
not historically produced new affordable housing units, contributions to outside
projects may be a useful option to meeting our affordable housing targets.
Therefore, dollar credits would be an advantage to the City at this time, and
approach "a" g!ves the maximum credit for dollar contributions. Staff
recommends approach "a. "
VII.
Recommendation
1
Staff requests that the Land Use and Transportation Committee provide-
comments to the Housing Finance Implementation Committee on the four specific
areas discussed. The staff analysis and recommendations contained in this
memorandum were based on: Federal Way's Comprehensive Plan housing
policies and current housing programs; the City's relative position in the regional
affordable housing market; local historic development trends; and contemplation
of program benefits to the City listed at Section V. As a reminder, any comments
forwarded to the committee will not constitute a commitment by the City to
participate in the shared funding program. However, it does provide a timely
opportunity to review the merits of the program in context with implementing
Comprehensive Plan policies for affordable housing, and with meeting our
affordable housing targets as established by the GMPC. Further, the City's
comments will reserve Federal Way's place at the table as the final
recommendation to the GMPC is drafted and the regional shared commitment
program takes shape.
Attachments
Memorandum dated August 5, 1996
Housing our Communities: A Regional Action Plan
-,..,
August 5, 1996
TO:
Honorable Gary Locke and Metropolitan King County Councilmembers
Mayors, Councilmembers and City Managers/Administrators of
S~attle d the Suburban Cities
Larry Phil etropolitan King County Council; Ma~g~~er, Bellevue City
Council' eryl Cho~ City Council
Funding for Affordable Housing: the "Shared Commitment" Program
FM:
RE:
In November 1995, the Growth Management Planning Council of King County
(GMPC) adopted a motion calling for the implementation of a three-pronged work
program for the funding of low and moderate income housing. Specifically, the
GMPC commissioned the Housing Finance Implementation Committee to pursue
three action items in 1996: .'
(1)
establishing a ~hared commitment program in which each jurisdiction
dedicates local dollars to affordable housing; .
~
(2)
seeking state approval for a new dedicated local option revenue source
for affordable housing;
(3)
seeking King County voter approval of a reqional housinq levy or other
funding mechanism by 1998.
The combination of these three funding sources, GMPC stated, should generate $15
million a year - enough to fund 600 units a year. Of this $15 million, $3 million
would be sought from the shared commitment concept.
As co-chairs of the Housing Finance Implementation Committee, we are writing
today to seek your comments and suggestions' regarding the first item: shared
commitment. With your input, it is our goal to report to the GMPC about these
options in October. We would appreciate your response by Friday, September 9.
SHARED COMMITMENT
We want your reactions on four questions as to how we should implement the shared
commitment program. These four questions are described below and in the enclosed
materials. They have been developed by an inter-jurisdictional staff team for our
review. We first introduce the subject with some background information.
What is shared commitment?
Recall that there are two types of affordable housing need the region determined
to address in adopting the Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs): (1) existing need,
e.g., the 130,000 low and moderate income households in King County currently
1
paying more than 30% of their income on housing; and (2) the future/ongoing
housing needs for low and moderate income households resulting from population
growth over the next 20 years. Each jurisdiction's affordable housing targets are
meant to address the latter need. The work plan of our new committee is meant to
primarily address the former need.
Based on direction from the GMPC, the shared commitment program can be
generally described as follows:
.
Shared commitment - toqether with the other two action items noted above- .
is intended primarily to deal with fundinq the existina reaional affordable
housinq aap. There are 130,OOOlow and moderate income households in King
County paying more than 30% of their income on housing; of these, about
54,000 households spend more than 50% of their income on housing. The
shared commitment program does not solve this affordability gap. Three
million a year will only create a small number of units. In fact, the entire work
program (all three parts) will not resolve the problem, even after twenty years.
Howeyer, this is the starting point - . a critical recognition of the existihg
affordability problem, and a commitment to address it regionally.
}
.
Commitment of funds is voluntary. This is envisioned as a collaborative
approach to encourage all jurisdictions in King County to contribute some
amount of money toward the existing housing gap. However, lack of response
by cities over time may prompt the GMPC to rec.onsider this voluntary
approach.
.
Allocation of shared commitment dollars could be made locally or sub-
reqionally. hopefullY employinq existing groups or city efforts. Dollars you
generate would be under your control. You would not be compelled to commit
them to a Countywide process. We do not want to create new bureaucracies:
there are efficiencies from working through existing or proposed entities.
.
Local commitment dollars are intended to translate to credit towards your
affordable housina targets as described in the Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs). The amount of credit has not been determined.
We would like to see this concept implemented by January 1997, through the
voluntary adoption of budget-related resolutions of cities and the County, identifying
funds that are to be considered their "local commitment" to existing affordable
housing needs in the region~ King County's 1996 Affordable Housing Challenge
Grant Program, described in a letter recently sent to your jurisdiction by the County,
provides an' additional financial leveraging opportunity intended to encourage cities to
step up to the shared commitment program in the next year.
What kind of dollars are we talkinq about?
Generating $3 million annually from shared commitment is a modest effort given the
total level of need. But it is a start. To put this in perspective, it is estimated that the
2
total dollars being applied in 1996 by cities and the County toward affordable housing
is $24.7 million. This amount is far less than the estimated amount needed to fund
the affordable housing targets over the next 20 years - approximately $34.7 million
countywide, annually. (See Table 4). And, this affordable housing target number
does not include the cost of funding the existing housing gap: thus, the total fundinq
goals are Qreater.
Fortunately, most jurisdictions are making a start towards meeting their combined
(existing and future) affordable housing needs. The shared commitment program is
designed to encourage more - in fact, ALL - cities and the County to contribute to
housing needs, even if only at a very modest level as a starting point. It is critical to
recognize that the levels in this loeaf commitment program do not represent the way
to fully satisfy our affordable housing targets; it does not even meet the existing
affordable housing gap. The worst result would be for jurisdictions to misinterpret
this concept and for those regional jurisdictions who are leaders in housing funding
to view this as an invitation to fall back to the minimal start-up level represented by
the $3 million per. year countywide goal. That would.. be the opposit~ of what we
and the GMPC intend. That said, we recognize that even a start can be a difficult
budget step for some communities, and that some may find increasing funding levels
beyond current efforts to be difficult.
On what type of Questions do we want vour input?
We have questions in 4 areas, outlined below.
(1) Shared Commitment Fundinq Formula. This Fall, we would like to be able
to recommend to the GMPC a standard formula by which to benchmark our
performance as a region in meeting the shared commitment goal of $3 million per
year. We seek your input on four funding formulas (described in Tables 1 and 2)
that might be used to calculate shared commitment goals of individual jurisdictions.
One option is based solely on population; others include consideration of assessed
value, sales tax receipts and housing stock afford ability. Which of these formulas
makes the most policy sense to you and why? Would an entirely different
formula be better?
(2) What Funds Should Count? A second question is what type of local
efforts should count toward meeting the shared commitment goals? The
proposal we have from staff is that any type of local effort -- CDBG funds, general
fund dollars, other revenues, in-kind support - should all count. (See Attaohment 1).
Do you agree with this? ~x!l-/5Ir
(3) Allocation and administration of Shared Commitment Dollars. Staff have
proposed an approach that allows jurisdictions to allocate and administer their shared
commitments locally or sub-regionally, at their choice. (See Attachment 1). It is
believed that a sub-regional approach provides significant cost savings as compared
to creating a new countywide program, or having every jurisdiction pursue its own
program. Do you agree with this approach?
3
(4) Credit Toward Affordable Housina Taraets. GMPC directed us to design a
way to give credit of some type towards our individual affordable housing targets for
dollars committed in the shared commitment program. Staff have not yet provided us
with a recommendation here. As noted, the CPPs identified two sets of affordable
housing concerns: an existing gap of affordability; and an affordability gap arising
over the next 20 years. Thus giving "credit" blurs the distinction between future and
existing housing affordability needs. But because of the difficulty of identifying what a
particular unit is accomplishing - meeting existing or future needs - some type of
credit seems appropriate. Do you have any input for us as we and staff start to
propose options on the credit concept? We plan to seek additional input from
. cities on this subject as work here proéeeds.
When do we want to hear back from you?
By September 9. We will then report to the GMPC in late September, get their input,
then work to finalize our recommendation for GMPC's action before the end of the
year. We will report back to you on the input we get from the Cities, and will"forward
copies of our initial report to GMPC. We will also seek further input from you as our
work progresses.
Please send your written comments to:
Linda Peterson
Interim Program Manager
King County Housing & Community
Development
506 2nd Avenue, Room 812
Seattle, WA 98104
FAX: 296-0229
Who do I call if I have Questions?
You can call any of us, or the staff to the task force, collectively identified below.
Councilmember Margot Blàcker, Bellevue, 454-1832
Councilmember Cheryl Chow, Seattle, 684-8804
Councilmember Larry Phillips, King County, 296-1004
Councilmember Larry Gossett, King County, 296-1010
. Councilmember Shirley Thompson, SeaTac, 657-9183
Linda Peterson. King County Staff, 296-8661
Cynthia Ricks. King County Staff, 296-8644
Art Sullivan, ARCH staff, 861-3677
Elsie Crossman, Seattle staff, 684-8364
cc:
Housing Finance Implementation Committee, Suburban City CDBG and HOME
Coordinators, Technical Forum Staff Members
4
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Exhibit 1:
Contents
Poten~al Funding Formula for 1997
Analysis of Local Contribution Formulas
King County Consortium CDBG Fund Distribution
Current Local Efforts and Potential Needs
What Counts Towards Local Commitment?
Funds Allocation & Program Administration? -
Table 1
Potential Funding Fonnula for 1997
Shared Funding Commitment Comparisons
~
ad.
OPTION H/C COMBINED SO/SO
(Assessed Value & Hoúslng Arrordabllity)
U1
Argona $3,663
Auburn $65,500
Beaux Arts , $530
I[f~
Burlen $51,463
Carnation $2,770
'",ç:",.",y""d,"}~,"",tH,.!1,',""""""',""',"","","","""","',",""""""""."',,'~~' ~~.." '.
rl_",.
Federal Way $138,120
Hunts Point $930
~~\~L@.
Medina $5,671
Mercer Island' $39,582
ïl~
. Pacific . $9,854
Redmond $74,424
Renton $83 459
'111-
Snoqualmle $2,863
Tukwila $27,423
Woodinville $17,876
Yarrow Point $1,850
Suburban City Total $1,205,037
Seattle $990,766
Unlnc KIng County $804,197
KIng County Total $3,000,000
$2,726
$107,156
$23,939
$3,148
$1,422,364
$990,424,
$587,215
$3,000,000
$3,167
$67,305
$529
~~'~ñm'f9"'*
!~~,~;,~",s,'¡:'
2¡~~':
~¡fu¡1
$41,885
$1,991
,lM,~!w
1;~1RQ~í
~q~.3"':
¡s"j"s'"",ru
.~ - ..~í!IQs.¡¿
$112,481
$2,497
$~~.H=L
U.rB51r
~lJI'
$9,102
$42,526
¡3017
~rBãIDl1
":,lb,':,2W
't~1\i¡1
.' .ï '.' :~,
$5,978
$99,259
.In,~,~,~,y
:11' ',' 'l::~24s~
. "¥:"~I
",,:,;~i
$2,615
$67,323
$21,249
$2,566
$1,303,535
$1,003,746
$689,912
$2,997,191
. Shoreline Incorporated mld-1995. Numbers at thIs tJ~e are unavailable ror some rormulas. FIgure used Is based on populalJon at Incorporation.
A:V'UNOINGSWB1
TITLE
I OPTION "A"
PER CAPITA
OPTION "B"
ASSESSED
VALUE & SALES
(j)" TAX
RATIONALE
Weights contributions
based on share of
countywide population.
Formula attempts to
weight contribution
based on a jurisdiction's
ability to pay. Therefore
attempts to include
several mesures that
indicate relatively high
share of local revenue
sources.
TABLE 2 ,
ANALYSIS OF LOCAL CONTRIBUTION FORMULAS
FORMULA CALCULATION
Jurisdictio~'s percentage of the
countywide population.
EXAMPLE: Kirkland
1995 pop (42,350) is 2.62% of the
Countywid~ population (1,613,600).
Contribution = '
$3,000,000 . 2.62% = $78,737
Calculate each jurisidction's percentage
of the countywide total assessed value
(including commercial property) and the
countywide total sales tax. Each
jurisidiction's contribution Is based on
its proportion of each, and then
averaged.
EXAMPLE: Kirkland
Assessed value ($3.539 billion)
= 2.9% of countywide total.
Sales Tax ($9.113 million) = 3.36% of
countywide total
Contribution =
$3,000,000 . ((2.9% + 3.36%)/2) =
$94,099
PRO'S
0 Data readily available. Most straight
fo~ward and easiest formula to calculate and
update
0 Is an 'objective' measure.
0 Is an approach that several communities
have used to fund human services.
0 Data readily available.
0 ,Local contributions may be at least partially
base~ on an 'ability to pay'. Originally this
formula included only assessed value. \
However, property taxes are only a portion of
total local revenue, therefore sales tax was
included to g'et a more complete picture of
'ability to pay'.
0 ,Indirectly attempts to address variation in
local needs. Implies that communities with
more high priced housing (not meeting
existing needs) and/or large commercial base
(generating jobs) would pay relatively more.
CON'S
0 Does not weight funding based on
any clear correlation to the relative
need for housing.
0 The formula Is partially based on
assessed value, which presumably
would also be used for 8 levy formula.
One objective ò{~he Task Force was
to create balanc;ø and fairness In the
funding of housing by using dIfferent
fundi,ng sources based on different
formulas. The revised formula, by
Including sales f~x, offsets this
concern to somà' extent.
0 Sales tax and assessed value may
not give a complete picture of a
jurisdiction's 'ability to pay'.
However. it may be difficult to get
other information that gives a good
picture of this on 8 consistent basis
from jurisdiction to Jurisdiction.
TABLE 2 (contlnued)
ANAL YSIS OF LOCAL CONTRIBUTION FORMULAS
~
TITLE RATIONALE FORMULA CALCULATION PRO'S CON'S
OPTION "CO This formula attempts to First, an initial local contribution is calculated based on a 0 It weights funding toward 0 Determines local
achieve a more equitable community's proportion of the countywide housing stock. communities that have less funding based only on
LOCAL HOUSING distribution of affordable Second, the percenage of all housing that is rental housing rental housing affordable to low existing need.
AFFORDABILITY housing in the County by affordable to low income households is calculated. Finally, income residents. Thus is 0 Still may need to do
skewing payments each community's contribution is adjusted upward or consistent with objectives of some 'interpretation' of
towards those areas with downward depending on how much its percentage of creating more of a balance of data to do the Initial
relatively less affordable affordable housing varies from the countywide average: providing affordable housing assessments, and to do
housing. 'Over time, if a throughout the County. updates of assessments.
community provides EXAMPLE: Kirkland 0 Data for this formula is
more affordable housing, 1) Kirkland's total housing supply (19,254 units) is 2.75% available from census. May be'
its contribution would of the countywide supply. Preliminary calculation of relatively easy to update the
decrease. contribution = $3,000,000 .2.75% = $82,606. formula over time using survey
2) Of Kirkland's total housing supply, 9.1 % Is affordable information already being
rental housing. rhe countywide average Is 18%. collected. I
3) Kirkland's initial calculation Is increased by 8.9% (18% -
9.,1%).
Final calculation = $82,606 + ($82,606 . 8.9%) =
$89,981
OPTION "D" No single formula stands A jurisdiction's contribution Is based on the average of its 0 Offsets some of the concerns 0 Requires more effort
out as clearly contributions from formulas Band C. of the individual options by to collect information
COMBINATION accomplishing the combining them. and determine
FORMULAS B&C potential objectives for' EXAMPLE: Kirkland assessments.
determining local Formula B contribution: $94,099
contribution. Combining Formula C contribution: $89,981
two formulas allows Contribution =
more objectives. being ($94,099 + $89,981)/2 = $92,040
reflected in the formula.
Table 3
King County Consortium CDBG Fund Distribution
1995 Est % Co/SmCltles CDBG '95 .
Low/Mod Low/Mod Housing
Jurisdiction * Po ulatlon Population Develo ment
OJ
Algona 845 0.581 %
Beaux Arts 23 0.016%
Black Diamond 983 0.676%
_f[.~iW
Hunts Point 28 0.019%
Lake Forest' Park 1,479 1.017%
Medina 305 0.210%
~.d#t
Pacific 2,272
Skykomish 122
~~:Ìæ
Uninc: R 30,116
Uninc: SU 58,456
Total County Consortium 283,422
Total Pass Throughs 138,054
Total County & Sm Cities 145,368
Note: Future distribution calculations will account for annexations and incorporations.
* County Consortium cities that do not receive a pass through of CDBG funds.
Source: King County
,. This table provides some context for the Shared Commitment Program. HousIng needs are created by both existing needs (eg 54,000 households countywide pay more than 50% Income for housing) and
future growth (CPP Housing Targets). The data above provides an estimate of local resources needed to address affordable housing needs for households eamlng less than 50% resulting from growth.
Addressing countywide needs for existing households could requIre amounts comparable to those above.
2. Estimates of funds made available by jurisdictions during 1996 for affordable housing. Includes funding sources recommended be allowed to meet local commitments for the Shared Commitment Program.
Includes allocating to non-pass through cities a portion of King County CDBG funds used (or housing.
3: These are annual estimates based on dividing long term housing targets by 18 years. Includes only targets for 'low' Income (less than 50% median Income) housIng.
4. Based on multiplying the annual Jow Income housing target by $15,000. This assumes that cities Will continue to be able to leverage other public subsidies at current levels. However it Is likely that
local assistance may need to increase significantly (eg $25,ooo/affordable unit) due to federal cutbacks In housing assistance and Increased competition for state and federal assistance.
~
A/gona $2,906 $83,333
Aubum' $0 $1,171,667
Beaux Arts $79 $0
- .~~
Bur/en $0 TBD
Carnation . $2,834 $17,500
~tj
Federal Way $150,000 199.9 $2,999,167
Hunts Point $96 0.1 $833
1~1IJ
Medina $1,049 0.2 $3,333
Mercer Island $44,610 21.4 $321,667
~ì.~.
Pacific $7,815' 0.0 $0
Redmond $322,000 131.7 $1,975,833
If__~...
Snoqualmle $3,082 30.8 . $462,500
Tukwila . $0 59.9 $898,333
Woodlnville $7,983 . 30.0 $450,000
Yarrow Point $268 0.2 $3,333
Suburban City Total $2,103,795 1105.4 $16,581,667
Seattle $20,040,333 611.1 $9,166,667
King County (for unincorporated areas) $2,547,017 600.0 $9,000,000
King County Total $24,691,145 2316.6 $34,748,333
Table 4 (1)
Current Local Efforts and Potential Needs
LOW INCOME «50% MEDIAN)
CPP HOUSING TARGETS
A:\FUNOrNG$.WBI
07 f22I9ð
PROJECT EXAMPLE:
Anita Vista
Location:
Number of Units:
Project Type:
Funding Sources:
City of Des Moines
City of Kent
City of Renton
City of Tukwila
City of SeaTac
King County CDBGIHOF.
State
Other
Total
Cost Per Unit:
Kent (unc kc when built)
f7
14
Special Needs, New Construction
Dollar
$15,000
$40,000
$68,966
$11,648
$13,757
$627,624
$500,000
$136,260
$1,413,255
% Total
1.1%
2.8%
4.9%
0.8%
1.0%
44.4%
35.4%
9.6%
100.0%
% Local
1.9%
5.1%
8.9%
1.5%
1.8%
80.8%
nla
nla
100.0%
$100,947
a.
b. Location & Funding!
percentage
c. Funding per unitJ
No double count
d. Funding per unitJ
No double count
Location: 75% of units
Funding: 25% of units
Funding: 1 unit per $10,000
Location: Balance of units
Funding: 1 unit per $7,500
Location: Balance of units
TOTAL,ICOUNTY
Location:
Funding:
14.0ITotal:
Location:
Funding:
14.1ITotal:
Location:
Funding:
14.0 ITotal:
Location:
Funding:
14.0ITotal:
,,':::::: DESMOINES:
0.0 Location:
5.7 Funding:
5.7 Total:
0.0 Location:
2.8 Funding:
2.8 Total:
0.0 Location:
62.8 Funding:
62.8 Total:
0.0 Location:
83.7 Funding:
83.7 Total:
'.
',,-
..,;:KENTq::{:
0.0 Location:
0.1 Funding:
0.1 Total:
0.0 Location:
0.1 Funding:
0.1 Total:
0.0 Location:
1.5 Funding:
1.5 Total:
0.0 Location:
2.0 Funding:
2.0 Total:
RENTON::
7.0 Location:
0.4 Funding:
7.4 Total:
10.5 Location:
0.2 Funding:
10.7 Total:
-63.7 Location:
4.0 Funding:
-59.7 Total:
-89.6 Location:
5.3 Funding:
-84.3 Total:
.: King County total includes $123,946 of '81/82 King County Consortium Funds some of which would be allocated to pass-through cities today.
A:\PROJECTS.WB1
e.xH-Jp IT
2- (1'c.,
~r '? )
'",:::::::, "UKWILA:,::::::
0.0 Location:
0.6 Funding:
0.6 Total:
0.0 Location:
0.3 Funding:
0.3 Total:
0.0 Location:
6.9 Funding:
6.9 Total:
0.0 Location:
9.2 Funding:
9.2 Total:
SEA;TAC:;'
0.0 Location:
0.1 Funding:
0.1 Total:
0.0 Location:
0:1. Funding:
0.1 Total:
0.0 Location:
1.2 Funding:
1.2 Total:
0.0 Location:
1.6 Funding:
1.6 Total:
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.4
.1:.1
0.0
1.8
1.8
08123/96
PROJECT EXAMPLE:
Klahanie
,
Location:
Number of Units:
Project Type:
Funding Sources:
City of Bellevue
City of Kirkland
City of Mercer Island
City of Redmond
King County HOF
King County HOME
State
WSHFC LlHTC
Other
Total
Cost Per Unit:
Unincorp King County
51
Family, New Construction
Dollar
$143,050
$62,849
$10,382
$75,000
$350,000
$950,000
$1,000,000
$2,576,638
$1,069,418
$6,237,337
$122,301
% Total % Local
2.3% 22.3%
1.0% 9.8%
0.2% 1.6%
1.2% 11.7%
5.6% 54.6%
15.2% n!a
16.0% n/a
41.3% n/a
17.1% n/a
100.0% 100.0%
a. Location & Funding!
percentage
b. Location & Funding/
percentage
c,
Funding per uniU
No double count
d, Funding per uniU
No double count
A:\PROJECTS,V\
Location: 75% of units
Funding: 25% of units
Funding: 1 unit per $10,000
Location: Balance of units
Funding: 1 unit per $7,500
Location: Balance of units
OJ Ü.R 15bl ÒtION~5,HÖÜSINGtARGËTCRËÖ IT{:. ,:\:::::::/:t::::::j:::::::):::i}::::::::,:::::)Uj::::i::ti/::::::::::::})::j:::::::::::i::::::ff})):::):::,):::::::""""',
':mOJAli)::::,.ÇOUNry::::::'::):r::):: 'Bl;lili~YUE::):):f::) :KIR.KliANO::::::::):))) .ME:R<:::E:RJ$tANP)) RI;PMoNo::.):::r::j(!
Location: 25.5 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 13.9 Funding: 5.7 Funding: 2.5 Funding: 0.4 Funding: 3.0
51.0 ITotal: 39.4 Total: 5.7 Total: 2.5 Total: 0.4 Total: 3.0
Location: 38.3 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 7.0 Funding: 2.8 Funding: 1.2 Funding: 0.2 Funding: 1.5
51.0 ITotal: 45.2 Total: 2.8 Total: 1.2 Total: 0.2 Total: 1,5
Location: -13.1 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 35.0 Funding: 14.3 Funding: 6.3 Funding: 1.0 Funding: 7.5
51.0 ITotal: 21.9 Total: 14.3 Total: 6.3 Total: 1.0 Total: 7.5
Location: -27.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 46.7 Funding: 19.1 Funding: 0.8 Funding: 1.4 Funding: 10.0
51.0 ITotal: 19.7 Total: 19.1 Total: 0.8 Total: 1.4 Total: 10.0
Ex J.l-ì15IT 2. ('fM,é 2 tJF '3 )
08/23/96
PROJECT EXAMPLE:
The Glendale
Location:
Bellevue
Number of Units:
Project Type:
Funding Sources:
City of Bellevue
City of Kirkland
City of Mercer Island
King County HOME
WSHFC
Private
Total
Cost Per Unit:
82
Family, Preservation/Rehab
Dollar
$255,000
$25,000
$20,000
$300,000
$2,965,000
$1,135,000
$4,700,000
% Total % Local
5.4% 85.0%
0.5% 8.3%
0.4% 6.7%
6.4% n/a
63.1% n/a
24.1% n/a
100.0% 100.0%
$571317
a. Location & Funding/
percentage
b. Location & Funding/
percentage
Location: 75% of units
Funding: 25% of units
c. Funding per uniU
No double count
Funding: 1 unitper$10,OOO
Location: Balance of units
d. Funding per uniU
No double count
Funding: 1 unit per $7,500
Location: Balance of units
A:\PROJECTSWB1
J U RISDICTION'S..'HQUSI NG"TARGETCREDIT(:::¡\.'::,:%:'.;:;:r"...."':'...""f"':.'..:"""":....'...."'...."..'...........'.{:.%;:\'I
,', .rOTALlcPÛNTY'" ':'J;:..BE LLEVU E'....:::: KIRK LAN P)":':.'.::.'(.'('MeRCf:~IStANI:t."1
Location: 0.0 Location: 41.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 0.0 Funding: 34.9 Funding: 3.4 Funding: 2.7
82.0 ITotal: 0.0 Total: 75.9 Total: 3.4 Total: 2.7
Location: 0.0 Location: 61.5 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 0.0 Funding: 17.4 Funding: 1.7 Funding: 1.4
82.0 ITotal: 0.0 Total: 78.9 Total: 1.7 Total: 1.4
Location: 0.0 Location: 52.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 0.0 Funding: 25.5 Funding: 2.5 Funding: 2.0
82.0 ITotal: 0.0 Total: 77.5 Total: 2.5 Total: 2.0
Location: 0.0 Location: 42.0 Location: 0.0 Location: 0.0
Funding: 0.0 Funding: 34.0 Funding: 3.3 Funding: 2.7
82.0 ITotgl: 0.0 Total: 76.0 Total: 3.3 Total: 2.7
fxfhÞ/T t.. Cr~ 5 tJF ;) .
08/23/96
, ,~
,t,
.~,
'Y,
, ,
"'"
" "
,', ,
"
, "
",',
", "
" ,.
":'/"',
'.,',
c'.', :,,'"
, ;,'
.~~~~I~~:~? .~t.. .
-@Ol11lf!11lfunttte;s,:
t~Æ~~~~~~âl
)j~~i~?;.;~ì~n '
Rmprtè#nW,'_~~:~ co rn ménda lio 11s
~§t, kï~~¡,:,.,~:%~~àJk
,,' .
,', ,
,,:
August 1995
,: ,
-...
,v--
The King County Housing Finance Task Force
The Task Force was appointed in fall 1994 by the Growth
Management Planning Council and charged with
recommending a new countywide funding source (or sources)
for affordable housing production and services. The complete
mission of the Housing Finance Task Force appears at the end
of this document.
Co-Chairs:
The Honorable Margot Blacker. Bellevue City Council
The Honorable Sherry Harris. Seattle City Council
The Honorable Larry Phillips. King County Council
Members:
Doreen Cato . Director, Resource Development, United Way of King County
Lynn Claudon . Manager, Puget Sound Government and Community Affairs,
Weyerhaeuser Company
The Reverend Marvin Eckfeldt . Senior Minister, First Christian Church of Kent
Mark Freitas. Commercial Real Estate Consultant
The Honorable Larry Gossett. King County Councilmember
Sharon Lee. Executive Director, Low Income Housing Institute
Josephine Tamayo Murray. Executive Director, Catholic Community Services,
King County
Joe Niemer . Executive Vice President, West One Bank
Carla Okigwe . Executive Director, The Seattle-King County Housing
Development Consortium
Jay Reich. Partner, Preston, Gates & Ellis
John Spangenberg. President, Redmond Chamber of Commerce
The Honorable Shirley Thompson. SeaTac City Council
The Honorable Tom Weeks. Seattle City Council
Staff:
Melora Battisti, Maureen Kostyack and Janna Wilson. King County
Karen Reed. City of Bellevue
Elsie Crossman and Saroja Reddy. City of Seattle
Art Sullivan. A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH)
Consultants:
Deborah Gooden and Nikki Parrot. Pacific Development Concepts
,"
i Contents
-
Executive Summary ............,................................................................................1
The Urgent Need for Affordable Housing.......................................................7
Affordable Housing Today..................... ................ ....... .... ................ ............... 11
A Comprehensive Approach to Financing Affordable Housing ................19
Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing................................................ 25
Shared Commitment by Local Jurisdictions................................................... 28
Dedicated Revenue Source..............................................................................29
Regional Housing Levy ........... ......................... ................... .............. .............32
Putting the Plan Into Action ............................................................................ 35
Attachments
A.
B.
Housing Finance Task Force Mission ......................................................i
Glossary "'."".."".."""""".""".""'.".""""""'.'..................,.................. ill
Background Report
The Technical Background Report: Housing Programs and Finance is a companion report to the Task
Force recommendation and includes the information used by the Housing Finance Task Force during
its deliberations.
For more information please contact:
Maureen Kostyack, King County Housing and Community Development
812 Smith Tower, 506 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 296-8669
Fax: 296-0229
This document is available in alternate formats upon request. Please call 296-8669 or TIT 296-8646.
Andrew's Heights, affordable housing located in Bellevue, Washington.
Owner: St. Andrew's Housing Group.
All other photographs courtesy of Seattle-King County Housing Development Consortium.
Cover Design: Gary Richardson. Document Design: Jamie Wilson.
Cover Photo:
H---U-~--
-- ---------
í '
..
Executive Summary
Included in the Countywide Planning Policies
that guide the future growth of the Seattle-King
County region is a policy that all jurisdictions
support the development and preservation of
affordable housing. To help advance this
policy, the King County Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC) appointed a
Housing Finance Task Force in faZZ1994 and
charged its members with recommending a
new countywide source or sources of funding
for affordable housing. With this document, the
Housing Finance Task Force conveys its
recommendations back to the GMPC and to
the community at large.
i.
Page 2
Housing Finance Task Force, Executive Summary
A Firm Commitment to Housing
The King County Housing Finance Task Force is pleased to recommend new and
expanded financing sources to support affordable housing development in the Seattle-
King County region. In putting forth this recommendation, members of the Task
F-orce are thoroughly aware of the challenges that lie ahead. Citizens and elected
officials are calling for lower taxes, and intense competition surrounds the limited
public and private resources that are available. In this political and economic climate a -
proposal that includes new fees and taxes may seem bold, but the Task Force believes
that the severity and extent of the housing problem warrants a firm commitment to
affordable housing solutions.
An expanding problem
For a growing number of King County residents, the cost of housing is so high in
relation to income that no amount of apartment or house hunting will yield a place
which is affordable to them. Today, about 54,000 low and moderate income
households in King County pay more than half their income for housing each
month-which doesn't leave enough money for other basic necessities-and another
5,000 people are homeless each night.
Much has been done; more is needed
Local governments throughout the region, as well as the private sector, have for many
years brought resources and creativity to bear on this serious problem, and in doing so
have helped uplift our communities, our economy, and our residents. A far greater
response is needed, however, to address the rising demand and to ensure that all
communities in King County have affordable housing options for the people who live
and work there. Furthermore, the region has recendy lost. tWo of its most critical
sources of local funding for affordable housing: a Seattle housing levy expired in 1994,
and King County lost the use of a dedicated revenue source in 1995. Given these
compelling conditions, the time to take action to fund affordable housing is now.
I '
Housing Finance Task Force, Executive Summary
Page 3
Three New Funding Sources Are Proposed
The Task Force proposes a comprehensive, three-pronged approach to funding
affordable housing which encourages participation of the full community and helps
leverage other state, federal, and private funds for housing. The proposed sources are
as follows:
.
Secure a shared commitment from all communities in King County by
1997 to fund affordable housing from existing revenue sources.
As a first step to expanding local funding for housing, the Task Force
recommends that all jurisdictions make a modest commitment of local resources
to affordable housing. A target contribution level (e.g., $2 per resident per year)
would be determined by the cities and county. Jurisdictions already making such
commitments would be encouraged to enhance or maintain that level, while
others would take on the challenge of meeting the targeted commitment amount.
.
Create new dedicated revenue.source(s) for affordable housing in 1997.
By securing state legislative authority for a dedicated revenue source, a dependable
financing source would be created. For illustration purposes, a local option to
increase by $5 the fee on recorded documents-an approach used in other parts of
the country to fund housing-would generate about $2 million per year in King
County.
.
Ask King County voters to approve a regional housing levy in
1997/1998.
A regional property tax levy, due to its ability to generate a substantial amount of
money compared to other sources, must be part of the c~mprehensive financing
approach and we should begin now to lay the groundwork. A levy ranging in size
from $90 million to $150 million ove,r nine years should be proposed to all King
County voters. If a Seattle levy passes prior to a regional levy, the Seattle levy rate
would be reduced by the amount of the new regional levy, so Seattle voters would
not be asked to pay more than they originally agreed to pay.
í,
Page 4
Housing Finance Task Force, Executive Summary
Housing Production Goal:
600 Units Per Year
The Task Force recommends that, using funds generated from the three sources
described above, our region set a goal of constructing or preserving 600 additional
housing units per year. As summarized below, about $21.6 million could be raised
each year (assumes levy of $150 million over 9 years).
Source Targeted $ To Raise # of Units
(Annually) (Annually)*
Shared Commitment $3 million 95
Dedicated Revenue Source $2 million 60
Regional Levy $16.6 million 530
TOTAL $21.6 million 685
*Estimate only; assumes an investment of $30,000 per unit, which would be matched by
other public and private funds, and 5% administration costs. Exact number of units would
depend on location, unit size, population to be served, the extent of housing services,
availability of other funds, and numerous other factors.
Six hundred units per year may sound small relative to the need, but keep in mind that
an affordable unit serves many households over time. Based on typical turnover rates,
600 units would serve 3,850 households over a forry-year period.
Use and Distribution of Funds
Targeting those most in need
The Housing Finance Task Force recommends that the funds raised through these
sources be used to address the highest priority regional and local housing needs. For
the most part, programs would focus on developing housing that is affordable to low-
in~ome households, such as individuals with incomes of $18,000 or less annually, or
families of three earning $23,000 or less.
( J
t.
Housing Finance Task Force, Executive Summary
Page 5
The local voice
The specific types of housing programs created would depend on such factors as the
fund source and on the needs of local communities. The Task Force recommends that
communities be involved in prioritizing, reviewing, and selecting the affordable
housing projects to which these public dollars will be applied locally. Where
appropriate, new funds should be distributed through existing interjurisdictional
organizations, such as A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) and the King
County Consortium, which have a track record of successful housing programs.
From Planning to Action
Action Plan and Implementation Committee are the keys
The Task Force considers this recommendation a starting point. For each proposed
fund source further detail and refinement is needed, a process which will require
dialogue and compromise among the interested parties. To ensure the plan is
implemented, the Task Force includes an Action Plan in its report. An
"Implementation Committee" will oversee the detailed work needed on the three
funding sources and serve as a link back to the GroWth Management Planning
Council. The Task Force recommends that the GMPC adopt the Action Plan and
appoint an Implementation Committee.
A three-year timeline
Successfully implementing these recommendations will take time and commitment.
The goal is to carry out the first tWo recommendations-the shared commitment and
the dedicated revenue source-within tWo years, and the regiGnallevy within three.
This building block approach is a key to the overall success of the Task Force's
recommendation, making it possible for the region to employ, by 1998, multiple
sources of financing for affordable housing.
Page 6
Housing Finance Task Force, Executive Summary
...
Public opinion research verifies that the high cost of housing is a serious concern to
King County residents, and most agree that government should playa role in
addressing the problem. The Task Force knows, however, that opinions alone are not
enough to move its recommendations to success. The crucial element ,that must
continue to be emphasized in the months and years ahead is community input-the
direct involvement of cities and residents in refining housing program approaches they
can support.
( \
The Urgent Need for
Affordable Housing
In the 35 cities and unincorporated
areas of King County reside over
1.5 million people.
As varied as this region is, from
busy city streets to quiet farms, its
communities share a common
hardship: housing that costs more
than many of its residents can
afford.
II
Page 8
Housing Finance Task Force, The Urgent Need for Affordable Housing
III I
The Prohibitive Cost of Housing
Over the years the rise in rents and home prices, which occurred without comparable
rises in people's incomes, has seriously eroded our overall quality of life. A staggering
number of residents struggle to pay their rent or mongage every month and have
enough left over for other bills. We all know people in this situation: a family down
the street, a clerk at the grocery store, a grandmother. No type of household and no
King County community is exempt. And as our region has grown, the problem has
worsened.
A High Proportion of King Cqunty Households
Affected
According to government standards, when a low or moderate income household pays
more than 30 percent of its income for housing, it typically doesn't have enough to
cover other expenses such as child care, food, car payments, or health care. Today in
King County over 130,000 low and moderate income owners and renters are in this
predicament, paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income for the rent or
mongage payment. Of those, about 54,000 households spend more than half of their
income on housing. [1990 Census]
These 130,000 households account for over 20 percent of all King County households.
With so many people struggling to get by each month, our region is experiencing an
urgent need for affordable housing like never before.
The problem is most severe for those in low-paying jobs or living on fixed incomes.
For example, a hotel housekeeper earning $6.50 per hm;r would spend over half of his
monthly take home pay on a one-bedroom apanment at the average rent of $540.
Most people with disabilities receive a fixed amount each month that often does not
even cover the cost of housing alone. Under these conditions, people are unable to
weather an unexpected medical expense or job layoff. These households are living
with the threat of homeless ness, and far too many end up on the streets.
(/
-,
Housing Finance Task Force, The Urgent Need for Affordable Housing
Page 9
-
The problem is not expected to go away. Population groWth, projected at 195,000 new
households in King County over the next 20 years, will bring fresh demand for
affordable housing. In addition, the growing number of seniors living on fixed
incomes and people with service-sector jobs will deepen the need for affordable
housing in every King County community.
The Public Voices Support for Affordable Housing
As part of the Housing Finance Task Force investigation of countywide housing.
initiatives, a survey was conducted to assess public opinion regarding affordable
housing. The survey showed that King County voters consider affordable housing a
high priority. Among the survey results:
. In a list of ten potential new public services or projects that would require increased
taxes, affordable housing for low-income residents ranks third behind law
enforcement and education.
. 70 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "We must ensure that
enough affordable housing is available for low-income households."
. 61 percent of those surveyed agreed with the statement, "It's only fair we should
designate part of our property taxes for affordable housing. It's simply the right
thing to do."
The survey report concludes, "Clearly, these results, combined with existing public
awareness of the problem and the level of willingness to consider low-income housing
a high priority for increased taxes, suggest that there is an expectation that government
will act to preserve an adequate stock of low-income housu;.g."
"
Page 10
Housing Finance Task Force, The Urgent Need for Affordable Housing
Local Efforts Must Grow to Meet Housing Needs
The time to replenish and expand local funding for affordable housing is now. The
region has lost tWO critical local funding sources. A Seattle housing levy expired in
1994 and King County has lost the use of a dedicated revenue source which provided
aboUt $2.5 million per year.
Successfully addressing the affordable housing problem requires creativity, patience
and commitment. A problem of this magnitude cannot be solved overnight, but the
steps taken tOday will make a big difference tOmorrow.
,/
Kent's Hamson House provides 92 units of affordabLe housingfor elderLy peopLe. It was
built with funds from a Kent Senior Housing Bond. The King County Housing Authority
manages the building.
f.
t.
Affordable Housing Today
Throughout King County, effective
affordable housing programs have been
operating for a number of years.
Through private and public cooperation,
small-scale housing projects that fit well
into the community have been built or
renovated.. Unfortunately, many
misconceptions exist about the effect that
affordable housing has on communities,
who develops and owns it, and what it
actually looks like. Thanks to our
region's track record in housing, we have
many model projects-and many
benefits-to feature.
"
Page 12
Housing Fin~ce T2.sk Force, Affordable Hou~illg Today
It
Why Invest in Affordable Housing?
Affordable housing is a significant contributor to the economic prosperity and social
fabric of any community. Most imponant, it gives people a safe, secure place to live.
Communities which have chosen to invest in affordable housing enjoy many benefits:
. Low-income seniors who have lived their entire lives in a community can
continuing living near friends and f~mi1i~r stores and services.
. Deteriorating neighborhoods are renewed with public investment.
. HistOric buildings which have deteriorated are restOred and reused.
. Housing is created for people with disabilities, for whom the private market is
almost always too expensive.
. Women and children who flee from domestic violence have safe places to live.
.. First time homebuyers become stakeholders in their community, helping to invest
in and maintain stable neighborhoods.
In addition, the economic benefits of housing investments enrich the entire region:
. People in lower-paying jobs and entry-level positions can live and work in their
own community, reducing transportation costs for the region as a whole.
. Jobs are created: the Washington State Housing Finance Commission estimates its
programs alone have supponed 24,000 construction and permanent jobs.
. The local propeny tax base is increased due to inv~stment in construction and
reconstructIon.
Housing Finance Task Force, Affordable Housing Today
Page 13
---
Gale Place
Apartments:
Before and After
: ¡
GaLe Place, providing 24 units of rentaL housingfor families, was renovated by two
nonprofit organizations, CapitoL HiLL Housing Improvement Program and South East
Effective DeveLopment.
Funding came from the City of SeattLe, First Interstate Bank, and the LocaL Initiatives
Support Corporation.
I'
Page 14
Housing Finance Task Force, Affordable Housing Today
Local Investment Builds Public and Private
Participation in Housing
The private market alone cannot provide all the affordable housing that is needed to
serve low and moderate income residents. Housing for very low income people
requires public subsidy to make rents affordable. Vacant or deteriorated buildings are
often not financially feasible to rehabilitate and preserve as affordable housing without
public financial assistance. Public dollars "fill the gap," enabling owners to serve a
lower income housing consumer than the market would otherwise reach.
In recent years most low-income housing has been developed through public-private
partnerships. Project financing comes from an often complex combination of public
and private equity investments, loans, grants and donations. The project sponsor may
be a private nonprofit housing organization, a for-profit developer, or a local housing
authority. The project development typically involves the full range of housing
industry participants-lenders, architects, lawyers, realtors and builders-and therefore
contributes to jobs and economic growth. in the community.
Local government funding can serve as a catalyst to public and private investment in
low-income housing. By contributing to a housing development-from as little as
$10,000 up to $50,000 per unit, depending on program type and availability of other
funds-local programs assist housing developers to assemble other loans, grants and
equity investments. In some cases the local funds are repaid, and are used to fund
additional housing development.
By attracting private and other public financing for housing, limited local funds stretch
further. King County's Housing Opportunity Fund, for example, leverages about
$5.50 for each $1 of County funds, Of these leveraged f\tnds, 26 percent are mortgage
and bond financing, 24 percent are private equity and charitable contributions; and 50
percent are public funds (including funding from 15 cities within King County). Over
the five years of the program, a $13.2 million investment by King County was
matched by $72.2 million in other public and private investment in low-income
housing.
Housing Finance Task Force, Affordable Housing Today
Page 15
Seattle's housing levy, which produced 1,046 units since 1986, also leveraged a
substantial amount of additional funding. The voters approved a $50 million housing
levy, of which $42 million is for capital development. So far, the program has
leveraged $37 million in other public and private financing.
Housing Developments Designed to Fit into
the Community
Over the past ten to fifteen years, affordable housing has been constructed or
preserved in the majority of King County communities. This housing assists senior
residents, people with low-wage jobs, homeless adults and children, people with
disabilities, and first-time homebuyers.
Onen the surrounding community is unaware of assisted housing because it looks just
like market-rate housing: small apartment buildings, larger rental properties, and
single family houses. Many projects use existing, rather than new housing: older,
onen run-down buildings are purchased and rehabilitated, and public funds keep rents
low.
These recently funded developments provide typical examples:
.
A lOO-unit privately owned apartment complex in Federal Way was rehabilitated
using federal funds provided by King County as well as the owner's own
resources. In return for public support, the owner will keep rents affordable for
existing low-income tenants for five years.
.
Ten townhouses are being developed in Bellevue by Habitat for Humanity for
salé to low-income first-time homebuyers. Local govern:ment funds helped pay
for the land; the nonprofit developer will construct the new units using a
substantial amount of volunteer labor and charitable contributions.
"
Page 16
Housing Finance Task Force, Affordable Housing Today
.
Two confidential shelters for victims of domestic violence devdoped by the
Domestic Violence Abuse Network and the Eastside Domestic Violence Program
are located in suburban areas of King County. The nonprofit sponsors purchased
existing single family homes.
.
Eighteen units of housing for low-income families in Bothell were devdoped by
the Lutheran Alliance to Create Housing (LATCH.). A church-sponsored
nonprofit, LATCH rehabilitated an existing apanment building and added a
se~ond new building.
LA TCH's Easternwood Family Housing Cooperative, Bothell
¡
'", i,
" ,
" .
.... \
.
One hundred units of family rental housing were built on First Hill in Seattle by
the Seattle Housing Resources Group on land sold at below-market price by a
private owner. Known as Cascade Court, the two-to-four-story building with an
interior courtyard won architectural awards for its excellent design and
neighborhood fit, on a site adjacent to the Stimson Green Mansion.
(,
Housing Finance Task Force, Affordable Housing Today
Page 17
Cascade Court
Today's approach to affordable housing brings together the energy, talent and
resources of the public and private sectors and a host of community volunteers. Many
examples can be pointed to as we seek additional resources for housing development
and preservation.
I
-
PagelS
Housing Finance Task Force, Affordable Housing Today
A Comprehensive Approach
to Financing Affordable Housing
The King County Housing Finance Task Force
is charged with recommending a countywide
funding source or sources that would allow this
region to increase its affordable housing efforts.
With local budgets already tight, and both
citizens and elected officials calling for lower
taxes, increasing resources for housing is
difficult at best. It's clear that no one funding
source can solve housing problems, just as no
one type of housing program will meet the
wide range of housing needs.
Page 20
HouJ;ing Finance Task Force, A Comprehensive Approa¡;h to ¡:;lMncing Affordable Housing
The Foundation of the Comprehensive Approach
The Task Force proposes the following strategies for new countywide funding and
programs:
. Housing programs that are focused, that build and rehabilitate housing to address
the highest priority regional and local needs;
. A comprehensive financing approach that uses multiple sources of funds and raises
funds from all communities in King County; and
. A structure for distributing funds that assures each community will panicipate in
sening program priorities and reviewing the affordable housing which is built in
their own community.
To accompany these broad strategies, a set of principles should guide development of
the fund sources and housing programs. These principles were developed through
Task Force discussions and a series of briefings conducted by the Task Force to discuss
its preliminary recommendations with interested groups. These principles, discussed
below, should be applied when determining how to best raise and use funds for
affordable housing countywide.
Principles for Housing Programs
.
Focus on high priority needs.
Of the more than 54,000 households in King County who pay more than half
their income for housing, ninety percent earn less than $25,000 per y.ear. They
have a critical need for apartments and homes with very low rents which can not
be provided by the private housing market without public subsidy. The creation
or preservation of affordable rental units for low-income and no-income
households should be a priority use for new countywide funding.
Housing Finance Task Force, A Comprehensive Approach to Financing Affordable Housing
Page 21
Within this priority, there is room to tailor housing programs to meet specific
needs and community goals. For example, programs could emphasize
rehabilitation of older buildings, housing for frail elderly and others who need
supportive services, safe housing for women and children threatened by domestic
violence, rental housing for local service workers, or assisting low-income tenants
to become homeowners.
.
Respond to regional and local priorities.
Increasing the supply of affordable housing should involve all cities and the
County in both raising funds and determining what kind of housing should be
funded. The use of funds should allow enough flexibility to address both regional
and locally identified priorities. For example, jurisdictions could choose to pool
some funds to support a regional network of shelters serving victims of domestic
violence, while at the same time reserving funds to support projects ll;lltiated by
local communities.
.
Involve the public and business early.
The cornerstone of successful affordable housing programs is providing housing
of the type, density, and appearance which both meets housing needs and fits well
into communities. Representatives of the community and the many private sectOr
businesses which sell, build, finance, and rent housing, should be at the table when
decisions are made about how housing funds will be spent. Then, public dollars
invested will be compatible with community goals, and will attract and use private
sector resources.
.
Design cost effective programs.
Housing programs in King County and elsewhere should be evaluated in order to
create cost-effective housing programs. When designing new housing programs,
innovative approaches should be explored with the goal of maximizing private
investment in affordable housing and reducing development costs. Housing
program types such as rental vouchers and revolving loan funds should be
.explored, as well as ways to increase the capacity of nonprofit housing developers.
--
Page 22
Housing Finance Task Force, A Comprehensive Approach to Financing Affordable Housing
Principles for Funding
.
Develop multiple funding sources.
A comprehensive approach which provides multiple sources of financing should
be developed to avoid creating a large burden through one tax or fee, and to
encourage the participation of the full community.
.
Establish reasonable funding levels.
The amount of money sought from each financing source must balance two
important factors: first, the need to raise enough funds to make a dent in the
problem-housing development is expensive-and second, the need to be aware of
many competing needs when asking the community to open its pocketbook.
.
Ask all jurisdictions to participate.
Through growth management planning, the need for affordable housing has.
become widely understood as a regional problem requiring a response from all
jurisdictions. Housing markets are not defined by city boundaries and needs exist
in all communities. Pooling resources allows enough money to be raised to make
a meaningful response to housing needs, as well as to avoid concentrating the
financial burden in a few jurisdictions. Communities must begin a dialogue in
1995 to determine a method of equitable participation which will generate a
sufficient amount of funding for housing assistance. If appropriate, the refined
funding approach should be recommended to the Growth Management Planning
Council for adoption in the Countywide Planning Policies.
.
Build public-private partnerships to increase funding for affordable
housing.
Programs and projects funded with local public funds should be designed to
attract the most private capital, mortgage financing, labor, leadership, and
charitable giving possible. Private participation stretches the public dollar.
Experience shows that, for those developments which generate rents sufficient to
repay a mortgage, private loans can constitute up to 45 percent of development
financing.
Housing Finance Task Force, A Comprehensive Approach to Financing Affordable Housing
Page 23
Principles for Fund Distribution and Use
.
Build on current models of fund distribution, including
inter jurisdictional approaches.
Seattle, King County, and many suburban cities have procedures in place for
distributing housing funds, and to the extent possible the proposed new fund
sources should take advantage of these. For example, King County and suburban
cities currently administer federal funds cooperatively. Projects are selected by an
interjurisdictional committee, after review by staff and private experts. The King
County Consortium and A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) are two
interjurisdictional models. As a single large jurisdiction, Seattle also has successful
procedures currently in place which can be used for ac1mini~tering new housing
funds.
.
Give local communities a role in selecting housing projects.
All communities will invest in the countywide housing strategy, and all
communities should participate in decisions aboUt how funds will be distributed
and how projects will be selected for funding. The funding process must provide
for local project review within the jurisdiction where the housing will be
developed.
.
Make programs cost effective to administer and use.
Financing aHordable housing for very low-income people often requires private
nonprofit or for-profit housing sponsors to apply to five or more funding sources.
Housing development is more efficient and less costly for both housing sponsors
and fund administrators when several fund sources can be accessed through a
single process. Aggregating funds, where appropriate,â1so results in large enough
amounts of money to fund larger developments. Private capital and debt is more
likely to be attracted when public programs are efficient and structured to be
compatible with private sectOr programs and procedures.
----
Page 24
Housing Finance Task Force, A Comprehensive Approach to Financing Affordable Housing
.
Seek opportunities to link housing programs to other community
amenities.
Affordable housing programs can be linked successfully to other community
development efforts such as economic development, capital improvements such as
parks, street or sidewalk improvements, and lleighborhood safety programs.
Regional housing funding should be linked to other regional investments where
possible.
Sources of Financing for
Affordable Housing
_.
Addressing the affordable housing problem
successfully requires a long-term, comprehensive
approach. The Housing Finance Task Force
recommends that multiple local funding sources
be developed to avoid creating a large burden
through one tax or fee and to encourage the
participation of the full community. These fund
sources will leverage state, federal and private
sector financing for affordable housing in King
County communities. Each of these fund sources
can be used to construct new housing and to
rehabilitate existing units. Private for-profit
and nonprofit organizations as well as public
housing authorities could participate as
developers and owners.
Page 26
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing
Three Funding Sources Are Proposed
Three funding sources should be developed: 1) a shared commitment by local
governments to use locally-generated revenues for affordable housing; 2) a dedicated
revenue source or sources; and 3) a regional housing levy. Each of these fund sources
is described in the pages that follow.
Comprehensive Approach to Financing Affordable Housing
# 1:
Shared Commitment to
Fund Affordable
Housing
;1
I!J!!J
~~
#2:
Dedicated Revenue
Source
~.i,lfIID.'
~
~........'......I......"....c'..",".','
f!l~
~
. . . .
I' I. I. ..
II II II II
II II II II
Affordable homes and apartments
#3:
Voter-Approved Levy
~.. ~I ~"I"
UID....¡gJ.". ~. GID..f!1.:.'...
[eJ [{ID ~
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing
Page 27
--
Housing Production Goal: Construct or Preserve
600 Affordable Units Annually
The Task Force recommends that our region set a goal of constructing or preserving
600 additional affordable housing units per year using local funds. This goal requires
development of all three funding sources proposed in this repon: a combination of
local government contributions, new dedicated revenues and a regional housing levy at
$150 million. As summarized in the table below, these sources would together
generate nearly $21.6 million per year.
Estimated
Source Targeted $ To Raise # of Units
(Annually) (Annually)
Shared Commitment $3 million 95
Dedicated Revenue Source $2 million 60
Regional Levy $16.6 million 530 <
~
TOTAL $21.6 million 685
Achieving a goal of 600 additional affordable units per year will require the region to
make affordable housing a genuinely high priority. And although the number of units
appears small compared to the need for such housing, over time, the housing would
serve many low and moderate income households. Based on typical turnover rates in
housing using public funds, 600 units produced in one year would provide affordable
housing for 3,850 households over a forty-year period.
For planning purposes, these estimates assume that an average of $30,000 in local funds
would be spent per housing unit. The remainder of housing development costs would
be financed using other public and private sources. In addition, five percent of tOtal
funding would be reserved for program administration. Actual costs can vary widely
depending on the size and type of housing, the income of people served, and
availability of other funding.
,
1
Page 28
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of FiMncing for Affordable Housing
'/
.1
. ~
j
!
j
f
t II
Funding Source 1:
Shared Commitment
Secure a shared commitment from all communities by 1997 to fund
affordable housing from local revenue sources.
~""}~V! :12
~1~""
'1 !-:"p:j ¡
:V=~' ¡1""""
Amount raised (target):
Would result in:
$3 million annually
Approximately 95 units annually
~
r~.=
-
-
~
The importance of demonstrating that housing is a priority
An effective way to jump start funding for affordable housing is to ask every
jurisdiction to make a multi-year funding commitment, even in small amounts, to
affordable housing. When each jurisdiction makes a commitment, the region
demonstrates its willingness to come tOgether around an important problem.
This sends a signal to the state legislature, voters, and other funders that "we are
doing our part!"
The goal of this recommendation is to provide additional funding for housing and
achieve the equitable participation of all jurisdictions called for in groWth. management
policies. Each jurisdiction would agree to make a relatively modest multi-year
commitment of locally generated funds for affordable housing (not including federal
pass-through funds).
Set a target to raise $3 million per year; the contribution level for
individual jurisdictions should be negotiated among cities and the County
As a target, $3 million in additional local funds should be raised. The method for
determining the amount of contribution by individual jurisdictions would be
developed by the cities and county, taking into consideration the contributions
jurisdictions are already making to support housing. J urisdictÌons that are currently
funding housing assistance would be asked to maintain or increase their participation;
other jurisdictions would be asked to participate at some minimum level. Each
jurisdiction would participate in setting priorities for housing projects and in selecting
projects w be funded through a regional or subregional process (such as ARCH).
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing
Page 29
An example
If popul4tion were used as the basis of fund contribution, $3 million could be raised from
Seattle ($1 million), King County ($1 miLLion) and suburban cities ($1 miLLion collectively).
This funding leveL represents $2 per person per year. About 95 units per year could be
produced, or 475 units from a/we-year fund commitment.
Get started in 1996 where possible; bring other jurisdictions on board
by 1997
In the first year of operation, several communities could panicipate in jointly funding
affordable housing even if all communities were not ready to panicipate. By 1997, all
jurisdictions should panicipate. At that time, the Growth Management Planning
Council may wish to consider, if appropriate, amending the Countywide Planning
Policies to reflect the method of equitable panicipation developed by jurisdictions
making funding commitments.
--
,
1
)
~
.~
I
d
,:~
~
1
&
Page 30
Housing Finance T:1sk Force, Sources of Fimncing for Afford:1ble Housing
~
I
I
j
Funding Source 2:
Dedicated Revenue Source
Create new dedicated revenue source or sources for affordable housing
in 1997.
Amount raised (target):
Would result in:
Approximately $2 million annually (depending on source)
Approximately 60 units annually
~
A dedicated source provides flexibility and stability
Creating a local revenue source which is dedicated solely to the funding of affordable
housing establishes a dependable resource which is renewed each year. This allows
housing programs to function efficiently by pl~g development and rehabilitation
projects over several years. The State legislature must provide the authority for local
government to create dedicated revenues for affordable housing.
An example
King County, Seattle, and suburban cities could seek legislative approval for a local option
to increase document recordingfees by $3 or $5 on all instruments recorded with the
recorder of documents. A $3 additional fee would raise $1,170,000 annually and produce
approximately 37 units. A $5 additional fee would raise $1,950,000 and produce
approximately 62 affordable housing units per year.
Many potential sources of dedicated sources
Dedicated fund sources for affordable housing exist nationwide in 77 cities, counties
and states according to the National Housing Trust Fund Project. Jurisdictions in
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Missouri use a fee on document recordings as revenue for
their housing trust funds. Other examples of revenue sources include general funds,
increases in sales tax, excise taxes on new residential and commercial development, real
estate excise tax, inclusionary zoning fees paid in lieu of construction, impact fees on
conversion of rental units to condos, proceeds from land sales, impact fees on constru-
ction of residences in excess of 800 square feet, and a surcharge on hotel room charges.
~
;:
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing
Page 31
Working with interest groups to identify the most appropriate source
King County and cities should work with legislators and interest groups in 1996 to
evaluate the document recording fee and other potential dedicated funding sources.
This effort may be more successful if use of the funds are linked to a high priority for
the State, such as growth management or housing for people with disabilities.
If the funds are collected at the County level, jurisdictions could come together to
determine priorities for regional programs, such as special needs housing or
homelessness prevention programs. Individual jurisdictions would participate in
funding decisions.
Page 32
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing
,
,.¡
1
i
¡
,~
j
."i
"
~~
'.
"
Funding Source 3:
Regional Housing Levy
Prepare now to ask King County voters to approve a regional housing
levy in 1997 - 1998.
11'.
"
Amount raised (target):
$90 to 150 million over nine years ($10 to $16.6 million
annually)
190 to 317 units annually for a $90 million levy
320 to 528 units annually for a $150 million levy
Would result in:
'"
The power of a levy
A regional levy should be pan of a comprehensive financing approach due to its ability
to generate a substantial amount of money compared to other sources. Levies and
bonds have been successful for several cities: Seattle passed a housing levy in 1986
which financed 1,046 aHordable housing units by 1995. Kent voters passed a $6.7
million housing bond in 1990 which funded a 94-unit apanment building for seniors.
In Renton voters approved a $5.5 million housing bond in 1989 that helped fund 104
units of low and moderate income senior housing.
An example
A nine-year housing levy ranging in size from $90 million to $150 million could be
proposed to King County voters. A $90 million levy would cost $12.40 per year for a house
assessed at $150,000; it would create 1,710 to 2,853 housing units over nine years or 190-317
units annuaLLy. A $150 miLLion levy would cost $20.70 per year for a $150,000 house and
would create 2,850 to 4,750 housing units over nine years or 320-528 units annually. The
estimated number of units is based on an average of$30,000 to $50,000 in local funds per
unit; the remainingfunds would come from other public and private sources.
c-.
r-
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing
Page 33
-'---
Public input and education is needed
Before proposing a levy to county voters, the County, cities and concerned groups
must organize an effective public education effort. Voters must have a clear
understanding of housing needs and the successful track record of housing programs.
A broad-based process will help identify housing activities that should be priorities for
a levy as well as the size of levy that voters are willing to support.
A focused use of funds may increase voter support
While the high dollar amounts generated by a levy could potentially allow allocating
funds to a variety of programs, this may not rest well with the voters. Proposing a
focused use of funds-for a specific type of program or a specific population, for
example-may help voters understand more clearly what they are buying and why.
Coordination with Seattle)s proposed levy
Seattle voters may approve a housing levy before a regional levy is put on the ballot.
In the case where a countywide levy is passed later, Seattle voters will not be asked to
pay more for the County and Seattle levy combined than they are already paying for
the Seattle levy.
Page 34
Housing Finance Task Force, Sources of Financing for Affordable Housing
Putting the Plan Into Action
-
The Action Plan presented in this
section outlines the steps for establishing
the three proposed funding sources.
The Task Force believes that these
continuing efforts are vital if the housing
finance recommendations are to be
understood, embraced and adopted.
Page 36
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
An Action Plan to Carry Out the Finance
Recommendations
Each section of the Action Plan includes steps to involve key interest groups and the
larger community, to negotiate funher refinements related to the source and use of the
funds, and to reach agreement on a system for distributing funds. Because this
subsequent work is needed to refine the details of the proposed fund sources, it is
important to keep in mind that their final form may vary from the examples provided
by the Task Force.
The Action Plan calls for carrying out the first tWo recommendations-the shared
commitment and the dedicated revenue source-within tWo years, and the regional
levy within three. This building block approach will make it possible for the region to
employ, by 1998, multiple sources of financing for affordable housing.
The First Step:
Committee
Creation of an Implementation
I
«
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING COUNCIL
t
J.
I
I Woek Pcageam foe Woek pcagmm foe Woek Pcageam foe
~ Funding Source #1 Funding Source #2 Funding Source #3 "
æ SHARED DEDICATED REGIONAL.
~~ COMMITMENT REVENUE SOURCE HOUSING LEVY I'
~ '
'?1
~ 0/" .../?""~} ~,-Æ"W= E.<ikJA,~-"f'X hW'" ~ ~;!Uj$;<~ -=' Ø"..m- 4.;': ~<;;$!:';;~~ ~~~~
lMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
for Housing Finance Action Plan
Interjurisdictional Staff Work Group
~
'"
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
Page 37
--
Given the large number of issues under consideration by the Growth Management
Planning Council (GMPC), the Task Force recommends that the GMPC appoint a
Housing Finance Implementation Committee to guide the work outlined in the
Action Plan. The GMPC would also appoint staff or, in some cases, a citizen group to
carry out specific tasks.
Periodically, the Implementation Committee would bring items back to the GMPC
for review and approval. The link would also allow for coordination with other
regional finance issues.
The Task Force recommends that the GMPC adopt this Action Plan and appoint an
Implementation Committee in fall 1995. The GMPC's support and leadership is
essential to the success of these recommendations. As the growth management policy
body for King County, the GMPC is in the best position to involve all jurisdictions in
meeting the Countywide Planning Policies' commitment to create new countywide
funding sources for affordable housing.
Community Involvement and Education
Surveys show that the public recognizes the need for affordable housing, yet equally
evident are the public's many concerns about what such housing looks like, where it is
located, and whom it serves. The Task Force recognizes the importance of addressing
these concerns openly and directly; the success of the finance recommendations
depends on such dialogue.
The Task Force therefore recommends that the Implementation Committee, in
addition to its oversight function, take on a broad role related to outreach and
education as part of the development of each funding sourcë: The Seattle-King County
area has a positive track record in the use of public funds for affordable housing, a
record of which many residents may be unaware. Sharing such information with the
community is an important means of acquiring a deeper understanding of residents'
concerns about aHordable housing, as well as helping alleviate some of those concerns.
Further, documenting the positive track record of housing projects and local
participation established through the first two funding sources will be key to building
community support for a regional housing levy.
Page 38
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
Summary of Action Plan Components
Presented below are the highlights of the proposed approach for refining
each of the three fund sources. For more details, please refer to the Action
Plan, which follows.
Funding Source 1: Shared Commitment by Local Jurisdictions.
r ¡
Jump start in 1996
The action plan calls for all communities to establish a multi-year commitment to fund
housing by 1997. To make this program a reality, several jurisdictions should help
launch it by making funding commitments to affordable housing in their 1996
budgets.
Refinement of the program and drawing in other jurisdictions
To broaden the program to include all jurisdictions, staff representatives of cities and
the County will make recommendations to the GMPC regarding an equitable funding
level for each jurisdiction. This recommendation will include a method for
acknowledging existing and new local funding as parr of meeting a jurisdiction's
affordable housing planning targets established through the Countywide Planning
Policies.
Formalizing commitments through agreements
Following GMPC approval of the proposed funding levels and administrative
procedures, King County, Seattle and suburban cities would enter agreements making
multi-year commitments of funds for affordable housing. Agreements would include
the amount of funds to be raised by each jurisdiction and the process for allocating
funds. Staff will also develop, if needed, an amendment to the Countywide Planning
Policies reflecting these agreements for consideration by the GMPc.
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
Page 39
Funding Source 2: Dedicated Revenue Source
-
Identification of an appropriate dedicated source
King County, Seattle and suburban cities will assign staff to research potential fund
sources in detail and identify the most appropriate source. This would include
research of a increase in document recording fees (the example used by the Task Force)
along with other potential sources.
Working with statewide associations and constituents
The Housing Finance Implementation Committee and assigned staff will coordinate
with statewide associations of cities and counties, the State's Affordable Housing
Advisory Board, private industry associations, and other state and local organizations
concerned with potential fees and revenue sources under consideration.
Legislative approval
Staff would identify a revenue source or sources and work toward approval by the
legislature in 1996 or 1997.
~
Page 40
Hou:¡ing FinmcE! T:l.sk Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
Funding Source 3: Voter-approved Regional Housing Levy
"'~. . m
OJ .
"
~~-"
--
Community education and input
The Implementation Committee, with the involvement of cities and the County,
would initiate a public education effort in 1996 to increase understanding of housing
needs and the benefit of housing assistance for both residents and the larger
community. This community education effort would seek community input
regarding the highest priority needs and types of housing assistance which have the
greatest commUllity support.
Levy development
A Housing Levy Advisory Committee would be created; one of its first steps would be
to collect broad input regarding the size and scope of a regional housing levy. Part of
its effort would include understanding how a housing levy may fit with the region's
other potential capital needs. The Advisory Committee would then develop a finance
plan proposing the size, program emphasis and admini~trative structure of a regional
housing levy.
Voter approval
After reviewing the finance plan, the King County Council would decide whether to
place a levy proposal on a 1997 or 1998 ballot for voter approval.
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action: Action Plan
Page 41
Action Plan
Funding Source 1:
Shared Commitment
. step 1 :.JUMP START .IN1996(',~lnterim~';Prògra~)' ::.. . - .
.. "
.. ..
,
..
. Jump start the shared commitment approach by identifying
several jurisdictions willing to commit 1996 funds.
. Develop an interim program model based on fund
contribution levels and administrative procedures defined
by participating jurisdictions.
. Solicit housing project proposals.
Step.2::'DESIGN THESHAREDCOMMITMENTA~PROACH .
. Propose a funding participation level, including details
on the following:
- the specific types of funding and activities that would
"count" toward participation
- the proposed dollar amount to be raised
- the conditions under which a jurisdiction's existing funding
for affordable housing would be applied toward the "shared
commitment" contribution goal
. Develop proposed mechanisms for administration,
collection and distribution of funds, and project selection
procedures,
. Design a proposed method for crediting housing
production from these funds towards GMPC housing
targets as adopted in the Countywide Planning Policies
(CPPs),
,. , Fall,1995 to:Spring'.1.996
Who:
. Participating jurisdictions
Products:
. Fund commitment and
administrative procedures for
interim program
Fall.1995 to Spring 1996
Who:
. Staff work group
Products:
. Recommendations to GMPC
regarding funding level, program
administration, project selection,
and method of crediting against
CPP targets.
I
Page 42
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Phn Into Action; Action Plan
Funding Source 1:
Shared Commitment, continued
"-----.-.-. ,..,".,"m.,",n "._-----:----'".__._'-----~~~---- -,,---"----,- -¡
, .. i
Step 3: SOLICIT INPUT' , ' ' Spring 199(; ¡
. ' I
.' :-"-," '".' ""',,'~ '"'.. .,' ."'" ""-"'."..',",,"---'::""'---.-"".'."'" ."""'~""--"""""'~"'"=":,"..,"".'-"" ..=:~,,"'""' ."'""',,"'",""""" ", ..",,-,":."".',-":.'==,,"':,,"=';'-.:...-=-:."==~,==--,",::,,--==... i
. Solicit input on the proposed design ofthe shared
commitment approach from cities and other groups with
interests in affordable housing. Discuss and make
appropriate changes and refinements.
Who:
. Implementation Committee
. Staff work group
Products:
. Refinements to
recommendations for. funding
levels and administrative
procedures
Step 4: SECURE GMPC APPROVAL
!
Spring 1996 !
i
". ." , ""'".' -." --".' - -- ---. - -----,,- -- --.--. ----- --.".." - . . . -" ------. -- --.---- - --------" ---
,.", ,.,. .,-" ,",-" ",-,. " --,----_.__._---------------------- '.'.'--'-'-'-'----'------'-'----'-'---"
. Transmit a recommendation for funding levels and
administrative procedures to the GMPC for its approval.
Work Group would make any needed refinements.
Who:
. Implementation Committee
. If needed, prepare amendments to CPP affordable housing
policies reflecting the approved shared commitment
approach.
. Staff work group
. GMPC
Products:
. GMPC approval of funding levels
and administrative procedures
. Draft cpr amendments, if
needed
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action: Action Plan
Page 43
Funding Source 1: Shared Commitment, continued
-'--"""""----""-""""'---""'-"'--"".--.--- --'_m__-___..._..,n____......--, .--.-. ---, .-- - -1
Step 5:' ESTABLISH AGREEMENTS. Féll1199G !
'- "'-""""" .-...-........ _.':'-==-=""'" ,,= ....::.,.~=:-. '.=.-=-=,.....=....,-==--:-..,.....""--==-,,i
. Work with cities and County to prepare and adopt
agreements by which jurisdictions would commit funds to
the regional housing program.
Who:
. Staff work group
. County and City councils
. ARCH and South County
organization (proposed)
Products:
. Agreements from each
jurisdiction in King County
,-."..-----.... "'--'-'"--'-'- --- -- -..-. u_- .- ....-
Step 6: SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR HOUSING Winter 1997 ¡
-- --- .-.......-=-==..,-""""-' -""'.~-==""--="' .,=".=-===....,~,....:...=,.._.-:=.,....=.,.,.,_. =.""',-"""""-.""""-"".-'
. Publish a request for proposals to allocate new local 1997
housing funds.
Who:
. Administrators of program(s)
Products:
. Funded projects
......
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action: Action Plan
Page 44
Funding Source #2:
Dedicated Revenue Source
00"-' -. ...-. .. -....--. I
I
Step 1: IDENTIFY BEST POTENTIAL SOURGE, , . Fall 1995 to Spring 1996
I
...,....--:.:.,......--'=--"--=-=-=---="'"'=-,. '. .. - . . . . ... no... ..,==--,n=- .,"'--=, .,"-...,..,.. ., '.=:-_----=
. Assign staff and community representatives to
develop and propose a dedicated revenue source. and
related legislation (a "legislative work group").
. Complete legal and technical research conducted by
HFTF regarding potential fund sources and amount of
revenue to be generated.
. Solicit input on sources through discussions with key
legislators, State agencies, local government
associations and lobbyists, trade groups representing
sectors for Which a new revenue source is proposed,
citizen representatives, and affordable housing
advocacy groups.
. Select the source or sources that are most appropriate
and most likely.to be passed by the legislature.
Who:
. GMPC
. Legislative Work Group
Products:
. Analysis of three potential dedicated
tax sources:
~ proposed tax rate
- revenue generated
- analysis of effects (pros and
cons)
. Assessment of political feasibility
. Proposed dedicated revenue source
, St,ep 2: DEVELOP LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY AND
Dr~AFT LEGISLATION
..-. .-_... .--...
"'" nu..._,_....... -.._n.._n..__..__..._no..
Smntm!r 1996 to Wintur 1997 !
f ,.""--- ,:..--. ~.n_.,.......,......=...."",-...,....,.,..-....= .:=m,=..=.,--=.,-=--:.:.:..:'"""""",=,:"""""".""",_."""""",,,,_,
,
. ...no.....- "".-- '_'_"n___'- no_.
-.. ..-- ..--. - -----
. Prepare information and background materials.
Approach key legislators to seek support and
sponsorship.
. Prepare draft legislation.
. Identify and work with supporters, and negotiate with
groups affected by the proposed revenue source.
Work with various jurisdictions and organizations to
ensure the item is included in their 1997 legislative
agendas.
Who:
. Legislative Work Group and other
city and county staff
. King County and Seattle Councils,
Sl,Iburban Cities Association
Products:
. Bill sponsors
. Endorsement of revenue source
recommendation by Washington
State Association of Counties,
Association of Washington Cities,
etc.
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
Page 45
Funding Source 2: Dedicated Revenue Source, continued
"'.--'" ... .__n..._n"__-__-"'O_------ -.n. _n______--- .
,
I Step 3: WIN LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL
!
Spring 1997 I
I
.-=='===-='==--=--"'-"===--===- ,,=----'"-=~,- n.,-.-",.~="",,""--==--., .: n_.:...,-,-=",..".=..,..-...', '-_.="..'-==--=""""-",,
. Coordinate legislative campaign to win approval for
new funding source.
Who:
. Legislative Work Group
Products:
. Successful legislation
n."."n_.. .------ . .m
I
r--- -. ..n...... ..n.. .. .-....-..,- """".""':-'==--===-=---===""""""-=-===-".-'."'._-
¡ Step 4: DEVELOP AGREEMENTS REGARDING DISTRIBUTION AND USE
__.__n_n- n'.'____._.n. '--' n-
__n. -----.....--.-..
. Convene local jurisdictions and a wide range of housing
interests to discuss housing program priorities and
options for distributing a new dedicated fund source.
New funds could be distributed the same as local funds
provided through the shared commitment approach.
Alternatives could include funding different housing
priorities, funding regional programs such as
homelessness prevention, or providing matching funds
to local projects.
. Propose program administrator(s) and housing program
priorities.
SlImmQr1997 !
!
Who:
. Implementation Committee
. GMPC
. City and County Councils
Products:
. Agreements regarding housing
program priorities, distribution of
funds and project selection
procedures.
. Program administrator(s) selected
Step 5: SOLICIT I.IOUSING PROJECT PROPOSALS
.............__m...n__._._..-.....---.----.. n . n... ... - - -----....
.-- -.- ...--.----- . ----.__._--_n .. -
. Publish a request for proposals for affordable housing
projects.
, Fal/1997 to Winter 1998 I
...-.---------... n .
-.... -- -- n-
..___.n..-
.. --------.
Who:
. Project administrator(s)
Products:
. Funded projects
"'-----
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action: Action PI:rn
Page 46
Funding Source 3:
Regional Housing Levy
'--'-.,----..-..-,......
Step 1: INITIATE COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND INPUT
." -,_,_-------,--,,'--'-'-'- -'- ------,-, ....--,-.-
'" .. ..,....,-,-,- --,- ._---,--,----_.-
---,-,..,-_..,-,---,.,
------.-,--- - - -",
To lay the groundwork for a levy and broaden involvement in
levy planning, many types of community education and
input activities may be appropriate. Examples include:
. Conduct a series of housing forums and focus groups to
obtain citizens' perspective on the highest priority use of
housing funds.
. Initiate a public education campaign to inform the
community about housing needs and the accomplishments,
of existing housing programs.
. Organize a housing conference or summit to broaden
participation in affordable housing issues.
. Seek active involvement of jurisdictions, business groups
and service organizations at the local level to expand
public education efforts and provide input to levy planning.
Who:
. Implementation Committee
Products:
. "---,
I
1996 !
i
!
, , .. - ,- -
. Regional housing levy supporters
identified
,---,---_._-,---,
,
j
ì Step 2: DEVELOP LFVY PROPOSAL ("Regional Housinn Levy Finance Plan") 1996
i
1",....."..."""",....,...""..,.._-,....,...,..,--,-..",:-,-,-.":-":"'-"':",-'---"':'-:":'."-"':":":- ',',',,',',",,',"""""',
. Establish a Levy Advisory Committee with represen-
tatives from local jurisdictions, private sector housing
interests, and low-income housing advocacy groups.
. The committee would prepare a housing finance plan
which describes the amount of the proposed levy, the
types of housing programs to be funded, the amount of
housing and housing-related services to be funded, the
method of distributing funds and the administrative
structure,
. Gather public comments, and finalize recommendation
regarding size and scope of levy, distribution of funds and
administrative structure.
Who:
. Implementation Committee
. GMPC
Products:
. Proposed Regional Housing
Levy Finance Plan
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
Page 47
Funding Source 3: Regional Housing Levy, continued
r--'-.." -"'--.--.--.---.---.'.
Step 3: PREPARE LEVY ORDINANCE
,--", ---' - .-1
1997
. .
,=-'-==...,... -=-~-=====---===--,.=-=--- ...,=~ -==:-.=~-==-- =--===--=---=-.-.', - """-'.=. - .,..".. =--.- .:--
. Prepare ordinance for adoption by Metropolitan King
County Council. Ordinance w~uld adopt the plan .and
place the measure on the ballot. An agreement with
Seattle to replace or reduce local housing levy revenues (if
approved by Seattle voters) with regional levy revenues
would be included if needed.
Who:
. King County, Seattle and
suburban cities
Products:
. Levy Ordinance
. Interlocal agreement regarding
prior Seattle Housing Levy if
needed'
I
I step 4: ORGANIZE LEVY CAMPAIGN
1997 i
n, --- ,.--- ,-- , -., .--- ---." ,- n-. -.---- -- --- -. -., -, -., -.- '.--..- n- ,-_.. ..-.
---- .-. -.___._n__. --- -.- --.--.--- -- -. , - -- .--. . n , __n "
. Identify community leaders to run levy campaign.
Recruit members with broad geographic ~nd interest group
representation-
Who:
. Implementation Committee and
others
Products:
. Levy Campaign Committee
formed
I Stel> 5: PLACE LEVY ON BALLOT
-.., . n , ... , ., '.."- . ,. --,
..,-,_.--_.,._, ...,-",--
- .-,..-. -."-"..-"--"'---'...-"..'-"...-"'.-"'--"".-.'
-. .--.....------.-----,-.. -. -.--. '..n- ... ,..
1997.1998 .
,
. The King County Council would vote to put the Housing
Levy before King County voters, and would select the
date for a ballot.
Who:
. King County Council
Products:
. Adopted Levy Ordinance and
Housing Levy Finance Plan
..:....
Page 48
Housing Finance Task Force, Putting the Plan Into Action
Funding Source 3: Regional Housing Levy, continued
I
! Step 6: IMPLEMENT LEVY CAMPAIGN STRATEGY',
',-,-=:....:."=..,.::....=,,,,-,-:-,-=,=---===,==_. - -'-=-"'-- ...---
,- --- n.._- "---' n- ,--
-"----'
. . 1991- 1998 1
I
I
. Campaign for levy, including mobilizing civic groups,
working with the media, preparing written campaign
materials, fundraising, and holding community meetings.
Who:
. Levy Campaign Committee
Products:
. Successful ballot measure
...-=::------==~,.._-"'"' :'n= ,==-..:.,==-.'n"'="':,:=~"""-=.n===",-..,.---"=:=====_:,-,.:.-,,..,--...:=.:.._._=-,,.:,-""-",:::-=.=,,,-- '"
!
1998. 1999 ¡
!
Step 7: SOLICIT HOUSING PROJECT PROPOSALS
I
. Publish a request for proposals for housing projects.
Who:
. Program administrator(s)
Products:
. Funded projects
----------
Housing Finance Task Force, Attachments
Page i
Attachment A:
Housing Finance Task Force Mission
From the 1994 Countywide Planning Policies:
Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing countywide housing resources and programs to
assist the large number of low and moderate income households who currently do not have
affordable, appropriate housing. These countywide effons will help reverse current trends which
concentrate low income housing opponunities in certain communities, and achieve a more
equitable participation by local jurisdictions in low income housing development and services.
Countywide effons should give priority to assisting households below SO percent of median
income that are in greatest need and communities with high proportions of low and moderate
income residents.
By October 1994, the GMPC or its successor shall appoint elected and community representatives
to develop recommendations for providing low and moderate income housing and related
services. Within one year the committee shall recommend to the GMPC or its successor:
1.
New countyWide funding source(s) for housing production and services, and a plan to
establish this funding within three years;
Participation by local governments, including appropriate public and private financing, such
that each jurisdiction contributes on fair share basis, and
2.
3.
Objectives for housing and related services, including measurable levels of housing
production and costs to provide necessary related services.
Countywide programs should provide the following types of housing and related services:
1.
Low income housing development, including new construction, acquisition, and
rehabilitation;
2.
Housing assistance, such as rental vouchers and supportive services;
3.
Assistance to expand the capacity of nonprofit organizations to develop housing and provide
housing related services;
4.
Programs to assist homeless individuals and families;
5.
Programs to prevent homelessness; and
6.
Assistance to low and moderate income home buyers.
Page ii
Housing Finance Task Force, Attachments
Housing Finance Task Force, Attachments
Page üi
Attachment B:
G I ossa ry
A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH): ARCH is a membership organization of east King
County cities and King County created through interlocal agreements. ARCH is governed by an
Executive Board. Participating cities allocate housing funds, including federal and local funds, to
ARCH for centralized adminic;tration. Participating jurisdictions have final approval of projects
selected for funding.
Affordable Housing: . Housing for which the occupant pays no more than 30 percent of gross
income for all housing costs, including utilities.
Assisted Housing: Owner-occupied or rental housing for which rents or sale prices are restricted
as a result of public subsidies for capital development or operating costs.
Capital Funds: Funds which are used to pay for the capital costs of housing such as acquisition,
rehabilitation, or construction expenses. Capital funds contrast with operating funds which are
provided to pay for costs of operating the housing (i.e., utility costs, maintenance costs, insurance
costs) and services funds, used to provide supportive services to residents.
Countywide Planning Policies (CPPs): Policies which guide the groWth and development of
King County for the next 20 years. The CPPs are mandated by the State GroWth Management
Act; comprehensive plans prepared by cities and the county must be consistent with the CPPs.
The CPPs were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by a majority of cities. The
CPPs established the mission of the Housing Finance Task Force.
Dedicated Revenue Source: A source of revenue available to local governments through fees,
taxation, or other means, which is available solely for the purpose of providing affordable
housing.
Disabled Person: A disabled person is one who has been determined to have a physical, mental
or emotional impairment that: (1) is expected to be of continued and indefinite duration, (2)
substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently, and (3) is of such a natUre that the
ability to live independently could be improved by more suitable housing conditions. A person is
also considered to have a disability if he or she has a developmental disability as defined in the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act.
Family: A self-defined group of people who may live together on a regular basis and who have a
close, long-term, committed relationship, and share or are responsible for the common necessities
of life. Family member may include adult partners, dependent elders or children, as well as people
related by blood or marriage.
First-Time Home Buyer: An individual or family who has not owned a home during the three
years preceding the purchase of the home that qualifies as their "first" home. Exceptions include
displaced homemakers or single parents who previously owned homes jointly with a spouse.
-
, ,
Page iv
Housing Finance Task Force, Attachments
Growth Management Act (GMA): The Washington State GroWth Management Act requiring
counties and cities to plan for groWth over the next twenty years. GMA requires both
countywide planning policies and comprehensive plans to include affordable housing policies and
objectives.
Growth Management Planning Council (GMPC): The GMPC comprises elected officials from
King County, Seattle, and suburban jurisdictions. It was fonned in response to the GMA
requirement for King County to develop countywide planning policies. The GMPC developed
the CPPs, which were adopted by the King County Council and ratified by a majority of cities,
and continues to oversee their implementation.
Homelessness Prevention Program: Homelessness prevention programs help families and
individuals avoid becoming homeless, typically by providing (1) rental, mortgage, or utility
assistance to prevent evictions, (2) assistance securing a public housing unit, (3) moving and initial
rental costs for households which have been evicted, and! or (4) legal assistance and help with
landlord! tenant negotiations.
Household: One or more persons occupying a housing unit.
Housing Authority: A state-chartered agency created primarily for the purpose of building,
owning, and operating public housing projects for low-income people. Housing authorities
receive the majority of their funding from HUD, which is used primarily to subsidize the
operation of their housing units. Housing authorities also arImini"ter the federal Section 8
Housing Certificate and Voucher programs which provide rent subsidies for low-income
households to use in privately-owned rental units. There are three housing authorities in King
County-the King County Housing Authority, the Seattle Housing Authority, and the Renton
Housing Authority.
Housing Bonds: Bonds sold by local governments to provide funding for affordable housing.
Bond sales must be authorized by a vote of the people in the jurisdiction proposing to sell the
bonds. To approve a bond sale, 40% of the voters who voted in the last general election must
vote, and 60% of these voters must vote affirmatively. Bonds are repaid through special property
tax assessments.
Housing Development Costs: Costs associated with the development of housing such as the
costs of architectural and engineering services, appraisals, hazardous materials inspections, permits,
and financing fees.
Housing Levy: A special property tax assessment to provide funding for affordable housing.
Passage of a housing levy requires approval of a simple majority of voters in the jurisdiction
proposing the levy.
Housing Preservation: The rehabilitation of existing housing units. Preservation often includes
acquisition of the housing by an organization which commits to maintain affordable rents.
Housing Unit: An occupied or vacant house, apartment, or room designed for single occupancy
(Single Room Occupancy or SRO) that is intended as separate living quarters. [U.S. Census
definition]
Housing Finance Task Force, Attachments
Page v
King County Consortium: The Consortium, organized in 1975 to receive federal Community
Development Block Grant funds as an entidement urban county, is made up of 29 cities and
towns and the unincorporated areas of the County (the cities of Seattle, Auburn, and Bellevue).
The Consortium is artminic;tered by King County, with oversight by a Joint Recommendations
Committee of city and county representatives. The Cities of Bellevue and Auburn have joined the
Consonium for the purpose of sharing federal HOME Program funds.
King County Housing Opportunity Fund (HOF): A locally funded King County housing
program which provides funding for the capital costs of developing low- and very low-income
housing countywide, focusing primarily on special needs population. Since 1990 the HOF has
used local real estate excise taX revenues to fund housing development; however, recent state
legislation prohibits the use of REET funds for this purpose after December 1995.
Leveraged Funds: Investment of funds in affordable housing by one funding entity which
stimulates investment of additional funds by other public or private entities.
Low-Income: Under Washington State code, local government may provide housing assistance to
households with income not greater than 80 percent of the area median income. This limit of 80
percent of median income also applies to federal housing programs. Some programs define below
80 percent of median as "low-income;" however, federal, state, and local programs sometimes use
different terms for various income levels. Common definitions are:
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
< 30% of the median
< 50% of the median
50 - 80% of the median (for homebuyers, this may go up to 115%)
MediaIî Household Income: The income level, for a given geographic area, at which 50% of all
households are above and 50% are below. The figure is calculated for various household sizes.
For example, in 1995 the median income for a household of three in King County is $46,350, and
for a household of one it is $36,050. Median income is an important figure because most
subsidized housing programs define eligibility according to what percentage of median income the
household earns. (See also Low-Income)
Private Nonprofit Housing Organizations: Organizations, authorized by state law, which are
formed and directed by Boards of Directors comprised of community members with interest and
expertise in housing. They typically have federal tax exempt status. Nonprofit organizations
finance, develop, preserve, construct, rehabilitate, operate manage and own affordable housing.
Nonprofit organizations rely on developer fees, management fees, grants and donations to pay for
their operations.
Public/Private Partnerships: Public/private partnerships are primarily financial relationships
between public entities and private lenders, corporations, developers or other private entities
which result in funding for the provision of affordable housing.
-
" ,
Page vi
Housing Finance Task Force, Attachments
Rental Assistance: A form of housing assistance using existing units, which may be owned by
private for-profit landlords or by non-profit landlords. Rental assistance is linked either to
housing units ("project-based") or to tenants ("tenant-based"). Under project-based rental
assistance, tenants give up the right to this benefit upon moving from the project. Under tenant-
based assistance programs, assistance is provided to income-eligible tenants for use in any rental
unit which meets specific housing quality standards. The federal Section 8 Cenificate and
Voucher program is the most well-known tenant-based rental assistance program. Tenants pay
30% of their monthly income toward the cost of rent and utilities.
Revolving Loan Fund: A fund from which moneys are loaned to an affordable housing projeCt
with the stipulation that when the project is either sold or no longer serves the purpose for which
it was originally intended, the moneys will be repaid to the fund and lent again to a subsequent
affordable housing project. In addition, predevelopment costs (architeCtUre, engineering, etc.) œn
be paid via a revolving loan fund and repaid when project development financing has been
secured.
Services, Housing Related: Services provided to residents of housing which has been subsidized
for either development, operation, or both. Services are provided for the purpose of helping
residents live independently. Examples of services include case management, on-site child care,
medical services, or psychological counseling.
Subsidized Housing: Housing which receives direct public financial assistance, such as low
interest mortgage loans, construction funds, operating funds, etc.
Supportive Housing: Housing, including group quarters, that has a supportive environment and
includes a planned service component.
Voucher: See "Rental Assistance."
Washington State Affordable Housing Advisory Board: The 1993 Washington Housing
Policy Act established the 21-member Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB). The AHAB
was created to advise the Governor on housing policy and to help coordinate the interagency,
intergovernme!ltal, and private sector aspects of the state's housing policies.
Washington State Housing Finance Commission: The Housing Finance Commission was
created in 1983 to provide below-market financing to buy, build or preserve affordable housing
and nonprofit capital facilities projects. The Commission raises funds through the sale of tax-
exempt revenue bonds and functions as a financing conduit betWeen lenders, developers, first-time
homebuyers, nonprofit organizations and others engaged in the provision of affordable housing,
cultural, and social services facilities. The Commission also awards the state's allocation of federal
low-income housing tax credits to eligible projects.
MEMO
TO: Land Use Committee
FROM: Kathy McClung, Deputy Director Development Services
DATE: August 30, 1996
RE: Sign Enforcement Update
Since I met with you earlier this month we have finally worked
out most of the bugs in the data base and are now making better
progress in sign enforcement. This memo will provide you with
some updated statistics. I will be providing another detailed
report at your Land Use Committee Meeting in September.
Letters- We have now issued over 400 letters to businesses
representing 830 permanent signs and approximately 320 signs that
require immediate compliance such as banners and portable signs.
The City has approximately 2700 permanent signs in the city.
The staff have also picked up an additional 50 signs in the
public right of way. We have sign sweeps scheduled for the next
two weekends.
The number of calls or contacts staff are getting is remaining at
about 15 per day.
The sign team has been primarily been concentrating efforts along
Pacific Highway up until this week. Now we have been to the Twin
Lakes area around Fred Meyer and have been west of Pacific
Highway on 312th to Sam's Market. These two areas will be
receiving their notices at the first part of next week.
Since the computer system we are using has only been working
really well the past week, I will have a much better picture for
how much longer this project will take by your next Land Use
Committee Meeting and will give you that information at that
time.
If you have questions, please call me at 661-4107 or drop by the
sign Command Center (formerly the CD conference room). An update
of this memo will be provided at the LUTC Committee meeting on
September 9.
c. Mayor Priest
Deputy Mayor Elder
Councilmembers Parks and Dovey
Ken Nyberg, city Manager
Greg Moore, Community Development
services Director
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
September 3, 1996
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land U se/Transportation Committee
FROM:
Richard Perez, City Traffic Engineer ¡¡f)
RE:
Access Control Construction Project
Background:
On October 3, 1995, the City Council approved an access control plan, which involves the
installation of Type C-curbs at several locations within the city to control access to/from abutting
developments. As part of the implementation process, requests for quotes were sent to contractors
and the lowest quote was received from Apply-A-Line, Inc. for $23,005. The budgeted amount
for this project is $20,000. Affected property owners were recently notified with the upcoming
construction project. Previously, they were also notified to attend a meeting to discuss this plan,
which was held on September 18, 1995.
Recommendations:
Staff is requesting the Committee's authorization to award this contract to Apply-A-Line, Inc. for
$23,005 and for allocation of an additiona1lO% contingency ($2,300) for a total of $25,305. The
$5,305 above the budgeted $20,000 will be moved from the operational budget of the Traffic
Division. If the committee agrees with these recommendations, they should be forwarded to the
next council meeting for consent.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land UselTransportation Committee
Jeff Pratt, Surface Water Manager ~,~
September 5, 1996
FROM:
DATE:
BE:
1996 Surface Water Management Annual Water Quality Improvement Project
Program - Small Works Roster Bids
Back2round:
As a part of its 1996 Annual Water Quality Improvement Project program the Surface Water
Management division requested bids from the list of small works roster contractors for proposed
improvements to the stream channel running through Olympic View Park. As the total bid
amount is anticipated to be in excess of $20,000.00, we are seeking the Council's authorization to
award the bid to the lowest responsive responsible bidder. However, bids are not due until
Friday September 6th and are not now available. A bid summary will be provided to the
committee during their September 9th meeting.
The proposed work in the stream channel within Olympic View park consists of the following:
.
Removal of sediment behind several traps located within the stream.
.
Installation of several stream bed grade stabilization structures
.
Removal of stream blockages and large debris
.
Structural reinforcement of the bank at key stream turn points
.
Installation of natural energy dissipation devices
.
Revegetation of stream banks and other disturbed areas
Our engineering cost estimate for this project is $55,200 and is budgeted in the Annual Water
Quality Improvement Program.
Recommendations:
Staff recommends that Committee forward this matter to Council for consideration at their
September 17, 1996 meeting and that the bid be awarded to the lowest responsive responsible
bidder with a 10% construction contingency added to the low bid amount and authorized for the
project.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Phil Watkins, Chair
Land Useffransportation Committee
Jeff Pratt, Surface WaterManager~
September 5, 1996
FROM:
DATE:
BE:
Proposed King County S360th Street Regional Storm water Control
Facility/Potential 1-5 Entrance Ramp Conflict
Back2:round:
The King County Surface Water Management Division has identified a need for a regional Storm
water control facility along the east branch of the Hylebos Creek. The proposed location of the
facility may be in conflict with the long range planned use of the property. King County has
requested that the City formally state their position as regards the preferred use of the property,
i.e., Storm water control facility or interstate highway entrance ramp.
As a part of the "Executive Proposed Basin Plan - Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound" King
County identified several problems and projects along the east branch ofHylebos Creek. In
addition to identifying several significant flooding problems along this branch ofHylebos Creek,
King County identified several stream stability problems along this branch. Please note that the
stream stability problems (and proposed projects) are all located the portion of stream running
through the Regency Woods subdivision - an area of potential annexation.
An integral part of the proposed solution to both the flooding and stream stability problems is the
proposed S360th Street regional storm water control facility to be located within the northwest
quadrant of the intersection of Milton Road and Enchanted Parkway. Should the S360th facility
be constructed, it will reduce the required size of the projects downstream from it - both the
flooding projects and the stream stabilization projects. This of course translates into reduced
project costs and is an important consideration in proposal to annex this portion of the County.
The proposed location of the facility was chosen because it is the only practical location for this
type of facility. Unfortunately, the proposed location is contained almost wholly on State right-
of-way which has been set aside in anticipation of someday constructing an entrance ramp within
it. Therefore, when the State was approached by the County with th~ idea of constructing a
facility in this location, the State was reluctant to agree to this proposed use of their right-of-way.
The State feels that the County proposed use is incompatible with the State's long term plans and
will only agree to a very reduced storm water project in this vicinity - a reduction that the County
feels would kill their proposed project. The County has also suggested that there is no alternative
location for this project.
The County has recently asked for the official City position on this issue. Further, the State has
suggested that, should the City not desire a ramp in this location, the State might be convinced to