The URL can be used to link to this page

Council PKT 04-17-2001 Special/Regular I. ll. III. I. ll. III. a. b. c. d. e. f. IV. AGENDA FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers - City Hall April 17,2001 (www.ctfederal-way.1I/(LlU) ***** ~ ,~ If .-' ¡~ '.1. " J . .~ .. '" 0'. :~ ~ i o:,,'.~.i.'..'~ 'o.o;~.lt~; SPECIAL MEETING - 5:30 .m. CALL MEETING TO ORDER EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN ORIENTATION FOR CITY'S ELECTED OFFICIALS ADJOURNMENT ***** JlEGULAR~ETING - 7:00 o.m. CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATIONS SPIRIT A wardIMonth of April ProclamationIY outh Recognition Week ~amationlSister City Hacþinohe Incoq>oration Anniversary Certificate ofRecognitionIDr. John Jarstad City ManagerlIntroduction of New Employees City ManagerÆmerging Issues CITIZEN COMMENT PLEASE COMPLETE THE PINK SLIP & PRÐ;ENT TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO SPEAKING. Citizens may address City Council at this time. When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium. adjust the microphone to proper height, and state your name and address for the record. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR REMARKS TO THREE (3) MINUTES. The Mayor may interrupt citizen comments that continue too long, relate negatively to other individuals, or are otherwise inappropriate. over please. . . ," ° :0, ",'.,,:.. ,,-:0. '::";:-'-':\:¡':'~:;"",!,:,:j:';.t¡,,<\'_::~i; v. CONSENT AGENDA (Items listed below have been previously reviewed by a Council Committee of three members and brought before fulÌ Council for approval: all items will be enacted by one motion: individual items may be removed by a Councilmember for separate discussion and subsequent motion.) c. d. e. Minutes! April 4. 200 I Regular Meeting Council Bill #266/2001-2002 Carry-Forward Budget AdiustmenjL EnactntentOrdïnance Phase 2/Solid Waste & Recycling Services Procurement Process Cabin Park Project . Office of Justice ProgramslBulletproof Vest Grant a. b. VI. PUBLIC HEARING 200 I Comprehensive Plan Update/Selection Process Staff Report Citizen Comment (Please linait your rellUlTks to three (3) nainutes) City Council Deliberation & Action VII. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS VIll. CITY MANAGER REPORT IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION Potential LitigationlPursuant to RCW 42.30. 110(1)(i) x. ADJOURNMENT .. THE COUNCIL MAY ADD AND TAKE ACTION ON OTHER ITEMS NOTUSTED ON THE AGENDA .. THERE ARE 2 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETS AVAILABLE FOR CITIZEN REVIEW OF DETAILED ITEMS ON THE CONFERENCE TABLE AT THE BACK OF COUNCn.. CHAMBERS . '.'. I. . ~'~, .' MEETING DATE: April 17,2001 ITEM# x-~ ........ ............... .............".... ........................................................................................................................................ ............ ............... ......................... .............. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES ........ ...................,.. ...,..... ........... .............................. .......... ............................... ......... -........................................... ...................................................................... CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X CONSENT _ORDINANCE BUSINESS BEARING FYI _RESOLUTION _STAFF REPORT - PROCLAMATION _STUDY SESSION _OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes for April 3, 2001 regular meeting. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. SUMMARY /BACKGROUND: Official City Council meeting minutes for permanent records pursuant to RCW requirement. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................... CITY COUNCIL COMMI'ITEE RECOMMENDATION: nla ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Move approval of the official minutes. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL P A ~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED - TABLED /DEFERRED /NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # I:\COVER.CLERK-J/7/00 FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers - City Hall April 3, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Minutes Q\t~~"\ I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Mayor Park called the regular meeting of the Federal Way City Council to order at the hour of 7:05 p.m. Council members present: Mayor Mike Park, Deputy Mayor Linda Kochmar, Councilmembers Jeanne Burbidge, Mary Gates, Michael Hellickson, Dean McColgan and Eric Faison. Staff members present: City Manager David Moseley, City Attorney Bob Sterbank, City Clerk Chris Green, and Deputy City Clerk Stephanie Courtney. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council member Hellickson led the flag salute. COUNCILMEMBER GATES MOVED TO AMEND TONIGHT'S AGENDA TO INSERT PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL'S METROPOLITIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2030 UNDER CONCIL BUSINESS; COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge Yes Kochmar Yes Faison Yes McColgan Yes Gates Yes Park Yes Hellickson Yes III. PRESENT A TIONS a. Proclamation/International Building Safety Week Deputy Mayor Kochmar read and presented the proclamation to Community Development's Building Official Mary Kate Gaviglio. b. City Manager/Introduction of New Employees City Manager David Moseley announced the following new employees: Jeri-Lynn Clark, the new Accounting Technician I/Cashier for Management Services, Robert Murray, Parks Maintenance Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 3, 2001 - Page 2 Worker, and Brian Rahal, Surface Water Management Engineer in the Public Works Department. c. City Manager/Emerging Issues City Manager announced there were no emerging issues. IV. CITIZEN COMMENT Mai Lihn Vu & Shiouh Kim, spoke on behalf of the Federal Way Youth Commission, announcing the 2nd Annual Art Expo, which is open to all students K-12th grade; a reception will be held April 30th at Barnes and Noble bookstore, where all art will be up for display. Saeropda Kim, also spoke on behalf of the Youth Commission, she announced the upcoming Youth Recognition Night, which will be held at Saghalie Junior High School, Wednesday, April 18th at 6:30 p.m.; she encouraged everyone to attend. V. CONSENT AGENDA a~ b. c. d. Minutes/March 20. 2001 Regular Meeting -Approved Vouchers-Approved Monthly Financial Report/Month of February 2001-Approved Council Bill #264/ Amendments to Federal Way City Code. Chapter 22 Relating to Allowed Maximum Heights & Other Miscellaneous Changes/ Enactment Ordinance-Approved Ordinance #01-385 Council Bill #265/Amended Sprint BPA Tower Wireless Site Lease/14th Ave SW/ Enactment Ordinance-Approved Ordinance #01-386 e. COUNCILMEMBER MCCOLGAN MOVED APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED; DEPUTY MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge Faison Gates Hellickson Yes Yes Yes Yes Kochmar McColgan Park Yes Yes Yes VI. COUNCIL BUSINESS (Added Item) Puget Sound Regional Council/ Metropolitan Transportation Plan 2030 COUNCILMEMBER GATES MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A LETTER TO PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL REGARDING THE CITY'S CONCERNS WITH THE METROPOLITIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2030 AND DISTRIBUTE SAID LETTER FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNCILMEMBER REVIEW Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 3, 2001 - Page 3 FOR SUBMITTAL TO PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL PRIOR TO APRIL 13m, 2001; COUNCILMEMBER BURBIDGE SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge Yes Kochmar Yes Faison Yes McColgan Yes Gates Yes Park Yes Hellickson Yes VII. INTRODUCTION ORDINANCE Council Bill #26612001-2002 Carry-Forward Budget Adjustment AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCil.. OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO BUDGETS AND FINANCE, REVISING THE 2000-01 BIENNIAL BUDGET (AMENDS ORDINANCE 00-377). COUNCILMEMBER GATES MOVED COUNCIL BILL #266/2001-2001 CARRY- FORWARD BUDGET ADJUSTMENT TO SECOND READING/ENACTMENT AT THE APRIL 17,2001 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING; DEPUTY MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge Faison Gates Hellickson Yes Yes Yes Yes Kochmar McColgan Park Yes Yes Yes VIII. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Gates distributed a written report outlining current issues pertaining to Sound Transit, and updated Council on her attendance at other regional meetings. Council member Burbidge announced the next meeting of the Parks/Recreation/Human Services/Public Safety Committee will be held Monday, Apri19, 2001 at 12:00 noon; she also updated Council on her attendance at various regional meetings and reminded citizens of upcoming events at the Knutzen Family Theatre. Council member Hellickson asked Chief Anne Kirkpatrick to give a brief re-cap of the "Cops and Lobsters" event. Chief Kirkpatrick noted it was a wonderful event that raised $3,500.00; she was thrilled with the positive feedback she received from the community and the officers involved. Councilmember Faison noted he attended the block watch meeting for the community around 35Th Street; he was very encouraged by the discussion and asked Chief Kirkpatrick to comment further. Chief Kirkpatrick noted the Public Safety Department is active and working towards a resolution Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 3, 2001 - Page 4 in this situation. She also noted the group is scheduled to meet again in 30 days for a follow-up discussion. Councilmember McColgan echoed the comments of Councilmember Faison, thanking community members for bringing this matter to their attention to have it resolved. He announced the next meeting of the Land Use/Transportation Committee would be held Apri116th at 5:30 p.m. in Council Chambers; and updated Council on his attendance at various regional meetings. Deputy Mayor Kochmar reported to the Council on her attendance at various regional meetings; and thanked the citizens who live in the 35-yth St. neighborhood, noting the city is moving forward towards a resolution. She proudly noted the City of Federal Way was mentioned in a recent newspaper article describing it as a "model city in acceptance of diversity issues". Mayor Park reported on his attendance at various regional meetings. IX. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager David Moseley reported the 2000 Census information has been received; Federal Way's current population recorded as 83,259. He noted this was a dramatic increase from the previously projected numbers and also noted Federal Way is the 3rd largest city in King County and the 7th largest city in the state of Washington. Mr. Moseley noted the Emergency Medical Services Task Force met last week discussing the option of taking on paramedic services; the King County Council will be transmitting a request to the six cities in King County with a population over 50,000 to approve a ballot measure to be placed on the November 200 I ballot. He also noted the city offices are now connected by fiber cable installed by AT&T Broad Band. City Manager David Moseley announced the Federal Way Boys & Girls Club breakfast will be held Tuesday, April 10th at Emerald Downs; any staff or councilmember wishing to attend should contact Patrick Briggs. Mr. Moseley further reminded council for the need for an executive session for the purposes of discussing potential litigation/pursuant to RCW 42.30.11O(1)(i), and property acquisition/pursuant to RCW 42.30. 110(1)(þ); it will last approximately twenty minutes with action anticipated. x. EXECUTIVE SESSION a. b. Potential Litigation/Pursuant to RCW 42.30. 11O(1)(i) Property Acquisition/Pursuant to RCW 42.30. 1100)(þ) At 7:45 Mayor Park announced the council would be recessing to an executive session for Federal Way City Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 3, 2001 - Page 5 approximately twenty minutes, with action anticipation. Council returned to chambers at 8:10 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER MCCOLGAN MOVED TO DIRECT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO CWSE THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AT 35413 6fH AVE SW FEDERAL WAY, WA., WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY TO ESTABLISH A REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY FOR STORM WATER RUNOFF, FOR THE PURCHASE OF $235,000.00; DEPUTY MAYOR KOCHMAR SECOND. The motion passed as follows: Burbidge Faison Gates Hellickson Yes Yes Yes Yes Kochmar McColgan Park Yes Yes Yes XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Federal Way City Council, Mayor Park adjourned the regular meeting at 8: 14 p.m. Stephanie D. Courtney Deputy City Clerk /7 MEETING DATE: April,3, 2001 ITEM#~I~) ............................................................................................................................................................. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM ------------ n-- n-- - - - -- - ---- _--_n____----__---___n___-------- ---- ---- - -- SUBJECT: 2001/2002 Carry-Forward Budget Adjustment ....................... ................................................. ...... ......................... ........................................................ CATEGORY: 2001 BUDGET IMPACT: $32,176,517 2002 BUDGET IMPACT: ($221,637) )( CONSENT _X_ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION ST AFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER ..... ....................................... ............. ....... .......... ..... ......... ... .............. ............. ....... .................. ..... ..... ...... ATTACHMENTS: Budget Adjustment Summary, Memo and Ordinance. ..... ........................................ ... ....... ........ .......... .......... ...,... ........ ......... ...... ....... ...... ....,... ................ .... ..... SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: This is an ordinance to adjust the 2001 and 2002 budget to: (1) reflect the actual ending fund balance at 12/31/00; (2) carry-forward grants, transfers, and other revenues which were awarded and budgeted but not received in 2000; and (3) carry-forward projects, services, and other expenditures that were approved or committed in 2000 but not yet completed or paid at the end of2000. Unless otherwise identified, these adjustments are housekeeping in nature. ............... ............................... ............. ..,. ...................... ................................ ... ............. ..... ...... ............... CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Approve the 2001 Carry-Forward Budget Adjustment. ........................... ...................... ...................... ............................................ .... ............ ................. ..... ...... - CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to move the 2001 Carry-Forward Budget Adjustment to second reading and enactment at the April 17th regular meeting. :; ~ ~~~~.;~ ~ . : ~~~ ~ ~ ~~. ~:.~~ ~ ~.~~~ . ~ = ~:;.;.....~ .. . ...... .. ............,...... (BELOW TO BE COMP LEIED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) - COJ}NCIL ACTION: . Ii'~ -- ~APPROVED ~à ~ ./U~"-v;:l COUNCIL BILL # ~(P (p DENIED ~ ~ 17/ ð I .- ;;' (;/ 1st READING ¥/c1/ (J I TABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION ENACTMENT READ ' ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: February 28, 2001 TO: Finance, Economic Development & Regional Affairs Committee David M~nager Marie Mosley. te~uty Management Services Director ;f1¡~ Carry Forward Budget Adjustment Ordinance VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Background The carry forward budget adjustment serves two purposes. First, it adjusts the beginning fund balance in each fund according to actual operating results from the prior year. Second, it appropriates for projects that were budgeted, but not completed in prior the year, and will continue during the current year. The following discussion is focused on General and Street funds as they account for mostly all discretionary funds in the City, the remaining funds are designated for specific purposes provided by either state statute or by Council action. General & Street Fund Operations: Fund Ba/ance Adjustment - The General and Street Funds operations for 2000 resulted in an additional $2,840,482 in ending fund balance. Of this amount, $2,054,286 is the result of additional revenues and $904,204 is the result of unspent expenditures during 2000. Most of the unspent expenditures are for projects/programs that will continue in 2001, and some of the revenues are restricted for specific uses. Once these amounts are deducted, the available balance from 2000 operations is $1,143,780. In addition to these adjustments, we are also able to reduce the amount reserved in the General Fund balance by $298,000, for an adjusted unreserved/undesignated fund balance of $1,441,611. The primary sources of additional revenues are sales tax ($297,439), security overtime and other police contracted revenues ($212,934), interest income ($231,183), fines & forfeitures ($148,512), motor vehicle excise tax ($474,105) primarily for 2001 1-695 backfill received in 2000, and gambling tax ($312,747). The cost of those projects/programs that will continue into 2001 and those expenditures supported by restricted revenue totals $1,404,712 which include: $236,519 for Community Development Department, for human services contracts, planning consultant contracts, and continue implementation of the permit tracking system; $160,543 in Management Services Department to continue implementation of the financial system and document imaging system; $697,356 in Public Safety Department, primarily for drug seizures program and various federal grants; $69,790 in Parks & Recreation Department for Arts Commission funding and provide funding for 2 additional vehicles, one new and one used; and $254,245 for Public Works Department for various studies, new and upgrade of signals and adding to replacement reserves for an existing equipment. A detail adjustment list is attached for your information. Other Project Specific Funds: The remaining adjustments are either project specific in nature or the revenues received are designated for specific purposes. These include $27,741,479 in capital projects; special revenue funds such as 2% for Arts ($24,274), government access channel equipment fund ($111,048), Arterial Street overlay program ($382,337); slight adjustment in Debt Service and the proprietary funds, primarily to correct the adopted budget; and the Internal Service Funds appropriations amount to $315,044, which mirrors applicable adjustments in operating funds. The adjustment also reflects a transfer of $2,028,294 to consolidate the Strategic, the Airport Strategic, and Self-insurance reserves into one, to cover both the economic and other risk types of exposure. Action Requested Motion: Recommend approval of the attached carry forward budget adjustment in the amount of $32,176,516 in 2001 and a reduction of $221,637 in 2002. c City of Federal Way General & Street Fund 2000 Operating Results and Cany Forward Summary 2000 . d.' Favorable (Unfavorable) Actual I Amount I Percent \ I 4,975,255 $ (118,008)\ -2.32% $2,840,482 From 2000 operations ¡ I I (23,648) 297,439 96,071 312,747 I (35,856) \' 34,446 142,165 474,105 \ - i na (11,963)\ -14.05% - I 41,1261 74,167 \. 40,112 . 23,086 ¡' 1,764 \ 5,048 (29,965) I - i - I 1 I 15,665 ¡ 148,512 Ii 231,183 212,934 ! 16,253 i (11,222)\ 116 ¡ 1 ! 2,054,286 \ "" " .",",-,-",( ".' Year-End ',' "'.'"""", Estimate Beginning FUl1d BàlâhçØ" , REVENUES Property Tax Sales Tax Criminal Justice Sales Gambling Tax License & Fees Franchise Fees Building Permits/Plan Check - CD MVET Criminal Justice H/C Criminal Justice UP MVET Equalization Liquor Excise Tax liquor Profits Grants Vehicle License Fee Fuel Tax Diverted Road Tax Plan Check Fees/Permits - PW Other Mise Street Fees/charges Financing Proceeds-PW :ees & Charges Fines & Forfeitures Interest Income Police & Security Mise Rev Recreation prog Admin Fee Operating Trsfr TotalRevøn4es " EXPENDITURES City Council City Manager Muni-Court Community Development Legal Management Services Jail Public Safety Park & Recreation Public Works Operating Transfer Non-Departmental Total Expenditures Excess of RevenuesÆxpense Ending Fund Balance ¡wen xIs Rev & Exp Variance ! i \ $ 5,093,263 \ $ , I I $ 6,995,571 \$ 6,971,923 $ 10,035,000 10,332,439 1,536,8981 1,632,969 1,350,000 I 1,662,747 172,226 \ 136,370 461,972 I 496,418 1,083,551! 1,225,716 228,709 ! 702,814 85,16; \ 73,20~ \ - ¡ I 240,226 ! 281,352 392,579 i 466,746 645,234 ! 685,346 710,000 \' 733,086 I 1,175,OOO! 1,176,764 - ¡ 5,048 I ! 341,863: 311,898 I \ ~ \ ~ \ 15861 : 31 526 ! '. 'I \1 814,264 : 962,776 276,221 I' 507,404 760,552 \ 973,486 I 56,484 \ 72,737 I I 549,651 . 538,429 ! 170,472 ! 170,588 \ I 290,158' 290,159 ! ~ I $ 28,387,655 ¡ $ 30;441,941 ! $ 197,385 $ 195,431 $ 605,720 405,196 1,000,363: 862,161 3,376,757 ¡ 2,969,746 1,224,040 ; 1,225,375 1,854.269 : 1,613,592 1,200,000 ' 1,492.341 13.129,237 12,899,772 3,106,062 ¡ 3,007,220 3.553.913 3,140,924 0 1.052,052 1,005.920 : (550,000)' 27,916 ; j $ 29,749,798 : $ 28,845,594 ¡ $ ¡ $ (1,362,143) $ 1,596,347: $ ! $ 3,731,120 $ 6,571,602: $ '$ ! w~ 1,954 200,524 138,202 : 407,011 ! (1,335) \ 240,677 : (292.341) i 229,465 l 98,842 ! 412.989 ' 46,132 (577.916) 904,204 ¡ 2,958,490 i 2,840,482 : -0.34% 2.96% 6.25% 23.17% -20.82% 7.46% 13.12% 207.30% na 17.12% 18.89% 6.22% 3.25% 0.15% na -8.77% na na 98.76% 18.24% 83.69% 28.00% 28.77% -2.04% 0.07% 0.00% 7.24% $ - - 0.99% 33.11 % 13.82% 12.05% -0.11 % 12.98% -24.36% 1.75% 3.18% 11.62% 4.38% 105.08% 3.04% ""',' Cany Forward AO'IountNòte (457,417) 1-695 $ reeved in 2000 20,180 Commute Trip/DV \ I I I i I I 158,988 Ips Grants I I \ I I I i (278,249) I GF/SF RevenUe adj. 236,519 I HS/Planning/Permit S)(S i ¡ 160.543 ¡EDEN/Kronos/DI Sys ! 697,356 : Seizure/grant programs 69,790 ¡Arts com/add truck(s) 254,2~5 ¡ Contract/Project/truck repl $ 1,418,453 ¡ , - -217.19% $(1,696,702), 76.13% $ 1,143,780. - ~.- 2/2312001 12J5PM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2001 CARRYFORWARD BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Impact to 2001 Budget General Fund: Transfer to Street Fund - General Fund Subsidy Community Develnpment Human Services Contracts ($7,565) & Employee Donations ($5.225) Nerighborhood Matching Funds long Range Planning Contract Funds Permit Tracking System-Internal Service Charge Management Services Intemal Service Charges (Document Imaging System $40.000, Eden System $78,600, Timekeeping System $23,00 Education Assistance Wellness Program Parl<s &. Recreation Arts Commission-Cultural Plan Transfer to 2% for the Arts-Skateboard Park New Vehicle and M&O on Retaining Vehicle-Internal Service Charge Celebration Park Monitoring Program Public Safety Explorer Program ($1,350) and Traffic School ($14,174)-Funded with Revenues State ($393,845) & Federal ($88,565) Seizures Grants-$12,721 COPS More '98 Grant, $162,716llEBG, $21,804 Bulletproof Vest Program) Memorabilia & Miscellaneous Account Street Fund: CTR 6 Months Extension with King County WSDOT Study: 1-5, SR18 & SR 161 Steel lake Remodel-Emergency Switch for Auxiliary Power Street Maintenance 5 Yard Dump Truck-Internal Service Charge-Accumulate Replacement Reserves Various Contracts & Professional Services (NTS, Trans Modeling, School Crossings, Traffic Signals Upgrade) Reallocate Fleet Reserves-Adopted Budget Correction . Subtotal General & Street Fund $240,504 12,790 7,580 84,149 132,000 141,600 15,122 3,821 10,649 5,000 31,000 23,141 15,524 482,410 197,241 2,181 13,741 50,000 7,728 25,000 89,195 68,581 $1,658,957 Arterial Street Fund: Asphalt Overlay Program Solid Waste & Recycling: Various Grants Sound Resource Management Contract Hotel/Motet Lodging Tax: Tourism, Promotional Materials, Convention Center Strategic Reserve: Transfer Balance to Risk Management Fund-Combine Reserves Transfer 2000 Interest Earnings to Risk Management Fund Airport Strategic Reserve: Transfer Balance to Risk Management Fund-Combine Reserves' Subtotal Special Revenue Funds 382,337 127,268 16,082 17,702 1,700,000 28,294 300,000 $2,571,683 Debt Service: Eliminate Public Works Trust Fund Loan Payment-Budget in SIIVM Enterprise Fund Transfer PWTFL Prefunded Ending Fund Balance to SIIVM Enterprise Fund Subtotal Debt Service Fund (257,152) 250,863 ($6,289) City Facilities CIP: Public Safety Facility Downtown Revitalization-Story Board Downtown Revitalization-Chamber Executive Downtown Revitalization-Sign Incentive Downtown Revitalization-Legal Fund Downtown Revitalization-Kiosk Downtown Revitalization.Capital Budget 01carry sum 01 02/23/2001 0846 AM \\, 6,335,528 5,000 ,25,000 105,247 125,333 50,000 1,038.850 -- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2001 CARRYFORWARD BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Impact to 2001 Budget Parks CIP Fund: Sportsfield Improvements Balance Neighborhood Parks Balance Celebration Park Balance Klahanee Lake Improvements Balance BPA Trail Phase 11\ ($815,612 Grants & $213,344 Balance) Skateboard Park Balance Panther Lake Balance Alderbrook Playpark Equipment Balance Historical Cabins ($50,000 Grant & $25,000 Balance) Surface Water Management CIP Fund: Reduce Annual Program Target Reduction-Adopted Budget Correction SeaTac Mall Detention Balance ($2,000,195 & Final PWTFL Draw) Star Lake Road/South 27200 Conveyance Improvements Balance SW 356th Regional Storm Water Facility Balance West Hylebos Channel Stabilization Balance 5 Year Monitoring Program Balance Transportation CIP Fund: 21st Ave SW & SW 356th-Source is Unallocated TrafflCCIP S 356th Stto SR99 Balance ROW 23rd Ave So, So 317th to So 326th ($3,285,032 Balance & $400,428 Grants) South 348th 15 to SR99 Balance South 312th - SR99 to 23rd Ave South Balance South 32Oth & SR99 ($66,736 from Streets, $200,000 from other CIP, $551,471 Grants & $1,165,309 Balance) SR99 HOV Lanes Phase I ($1,497,168 Balance & $2,284,345 Balance) SR99 @ So 33Oth Street ($77,344 Balance & $61,573 Grants) SR99 HOV Lanes Phase II ($500,000 Transfer to other CIP, $1668,523 Grants & $568,048 Balance) So 312th at 8th Ave S Traffic Signal ($18,()I)() from OIherCIP & $14,997 Balance) So 336th Weyerhauser Way South ($216,000 from Other CIP & $48,813 Balance) South 320th St @ 1stAve South Balance South 288th & SR99-From other CIP Subtotal Capital Projects Fund Surface Water Managemeni: Reallocate Fleet Reserves ($20,369) & Reduce Supplies ($300)-Adopted Buget Correction Public Works Trust Fund Loan Debt Services Dumas Bay Centre: DBC CIP-Carpet, Irrigation, Roof Repair-Adopted Budget Correction Ongoing Capital Improvements Risk Management: Street Light Replacement & Other Damage at Celebration Park-Source is Insurance Proceeds Information Systems: Systems Implementation & Upgrade ($132K Permit Tracking, $23K Timkeeping, $78.6K Eden & $40K Doc Imaging Fleet & Equipment: Parks Maintenance New Vehide and M&O on Retaining Vehicle Mail & Duplication Services: Courier Service-Police-Adopted Budget Correction Subtotal Proprietary Funds Special Studies/Contract: Government Access Channel-Equipment Fund 2% for the Arts: . Celebration Park (S 19,274) and Skateboard Park ($5,000) CDBG: Transfer 2000 Domestic Violence Reimbursement to General Fund International District Subtotal Non-Annu¡¡lIy Budgeted Funds 110,312 94,187 110,797 27,229 1,028,956 239,697 70,000 4,233 75,000 (39,270) 2,275,195 820,136 607,436 747,868 160,914 2,325 45,399 3,685,460 26,000 29,054 1,983,516 3,781,513 138,917 2,736,571 32,997 264,813 11,607 468,000 $27,223,820 20,069 6,712 50,000 31,544 7,084 273,600 31,000 3,360 $423,369 111,048 24,274 6,439 -163.215 $304,976 ..- $32,176,516 Grand Total 01carry sum01 02123/2001 0845AM ~c\ 2 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 2001 CARRYFORWARD BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Impact to 2002 Budget General Fund: Parl<s & Recreation M&O on Retaining Vehicle-Internal Service Charge . Subtotal Gel'lei'al 4,000 $4,000 Debt Service: Eliminate Public Works Trust Fund Loan Payment-Budget in SWM Enterprise Fund SubtotalDebtSel'vice.Fill'ld (250,440) ($250,440) Surface Water Management: Reduce Annual Program Target Reduction-Adopted Budget Correction Public Works Trust Fund Loan Debt Services (39,270) 6,713 Dumas Bay Centre: DBC CIP-Carpet, Irrigation, Roof Repair-Adopted Budget Correction 50,000 Mail & Duplication Services: Courier Service-Police-Adopted Budget Correction 3,360 Fleet & Equipment: Parks Maintenenace-M&O on Retaining Vehicle .Sìibtotall'i'òpnetary Funds 4,000 $24,803 Gliio!lTotal . ($221,637) - -- 01carry sum 02 02/23/2001 0846 AM \\tJ ORDINANCE NO. DR AFT 312. ¿/ð f AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FED ERAL WAY, W ASHIN GTO N, RELA TIN G TO BUDG ETS AND FINANCE, REVISING THE 2000-01 BIENNIAL BUDGET (AMENDS ORDINANCE 00-377). WHEREAS, certain revisions to the 2001-2002 Biennial Budget are necessary; and WHEREAS, these revisions are a result of funds to be carried forward from 2000; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendment. Ordinance 00-377, Section 1, is hereby amended to adopt the revised budget for the years 2001-2002 biennium as follows: Section 1. 200 1-2002Biennial Budget. That the budget for the 2001- 2002 biennium is hereby adopted in the amounts and for the purposes as shown on the attached Exhibit A & B (2001 and 2002 Revised Budgets). Section 2. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. - .- ORD.# ,PAGE I t'~ Section 3. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from the time of its final passage, as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this day of , 2001. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MA YOR, MIKE PARK AITEST: CITY CLERK, N. CHRISTINE GREEN APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY A ITORNEY, BOB STERBANK FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. K :\\fin\O I 09bdgl\ordinane\OO-O I elba.doe .- --- ORD.# , PAGE 2 \\\ Fund Adopted Begin Bal --..--------- $ 3.731.;:20 $ General Fund ..---------------- SpëcTãI-RmñüëFUñ~- -- -- ---- Street --- --- Merial Street ---- 105.157 --------Uti~--------------- -~ =--:-::-:::'~_~O.!!d WaslelRéëycling- 299.792 Special ContracV$tudies -----Sñòw & Ice Removal ---- ---- 100.ÕÕÕ ~-_---HoiõiiMõiëïLodgin9. rax------- 2% for the Arts Grants.. CDBG Paths and Trails Stralegic Roserve Air¡>ort Stralegic Reserve f--- 31.853 1.700:-000 ~ ~-- ----- 1-- ~!~~~.!!:"~ §-pE~EoEêtFüñdš:--=- - n__- City Facilities ---- Parxs swiJ,- Traffic sÏr..is 6.177.635 -- ordinance 01 EXHIBIT A 2001 REVISED BUDGET Revenues &. Other Sources Adopted Change in Revenue Revenue Fund Balance Adjustment 26.09(s4~_~_~!!.40.48~- $_~2~;9~r$ _32.371.~_$ Revised Budget- 3.517.526 1.559.534 ~ 262:4'V 90.000 591,177 9.000 132,500 ~09,471 - ----------..-- - 254.245 ' 362,337 -- ø:nã (24,333) 1~7.268 111,048 -----, -- 58,483 19;ffi &;439 -561 28.294 5.000 163:2ß 139,249) 250,440 --- .. 3.771.771 ~ 1 õ:673:ã3a 6ill54 1i'1:OO ~ ~ 24:2f4 76õ;ë3i 41T14 1.860.7g.c 300.000 11,197,417 ------- ----~- -------:ï5;59S--------:---_. - -------- 105.436'~ã:õOõ-- ------ -- --- ---- 902.746 - --ï:532':331 ~ ~--_:-_.:~-= ==~=;,4~~:~~L~~~_-~ -!Æ8°~__=-~ 865.612 275.000 7.704,917 2,084.965 7,185.378 "377:269 5]i2~Q7711-- 14.523,716 ..-- --- -- - - - --- 7.669,322 ããš:W 4,475:3õ1 313,96Õ 8.074.097 E;ijiMdltuies&.OtHe, Uses Adopted E;xpei!!I/ture Revised Budget Adjustment Budget 28.193.434 $ 3.399.526 1,622.832 Wi949 262:4'V 1 00 , 000 9õ;õõõ 591,177 132,500 4,785,693 228,000 756Jõi 18.000 1,404.712 " $ 254.245 3ãfm 143.350 1i'1:OO 17,702 24:274 169:ë54 1,728,294 ~ 6,269 7,664.958 iJ6õ:4iï ~ ms 13.203.847 - 29.598.1461$ 3.653)71 2]õ5:ï69 ~ 4õ5Tñ 1i'1:OO ~ 1õ7:7õ2 24:2f4 7ëõ;ë3i .. 1.860.7g.c 3õõ:Ooo 4.779.404 7,684.956 1,988.411 ~ ms 13.221.847 T=uiidSalance Rè-ervØdl UnieservO<1 2,773.308 118.000 4[ã5g 6.220.887 259.377 40,781 . 41.414 Õ 6.418.013 19.959 96.554 1 ,ã5ë:'398 -mw 1.301,869 -y. cÞ Enter~rI5!~~\e-~~lt~~t:~~ge~~nt-" ~-~;:_=\\=~-~:~~=~~i~~=~:~=:.~~~{fiij:-- Internal Service FundS: Risk Managemenl Information Systems Support Services Flee! & Equipment 6ulldings & Fu-rnishinQS I- 1.506.167 1.473:63-0 - 144.284 I.7S6.oèj 973:292 Grand Tolal All Funds $ 25.528,898 k \r,n\blenn,al\QrJ~anC\01Carry ordInance 01 02/23/2001 09:00 AM 626.700 1.608.911 - 20;.295 i~oi9)72 - 766.29j $54,094.599 --'O -.. --- -- -..,,----- 1 ië)3i;------ -(!i,;~:~fi._-:::-- 9,287 48~564 . ----- -ifslõï---- -2-'~~~.:~~-~.-I:>:--_~~~;~It._: - . 354.866 56.ÕOO- ---:2)80,419- - - - .. ;:I32,õ'i5 ----'O----"- -----....--....-..-.---- ---..---- - -~-_-..~~-,-2.Q"0_:.._---..-- ~: rõé~ ~~:: _~:"'63f284 ---=..-::-3.&44:8131 1.354.067 273.600 1.627.6e7 1.854.973 .. -ïšifë:i9' - --3.360 --- 162.19i¡ ------m,eei - ---874.276""--- --- - - "31.m --- "---"905.276 --- ~975:1:i3 -- 676.776" - -- - - -.--'- ----- - - 676.776" -- '-1:õš5~m $25,274.829 $8,828,744 $113,728,870 $53.119,447 $32.176.516 10,000 CDBG Intertund Loan 300.000 Pretund p3 96.631 FMV on Investments 755.734 Fund Balence Needed In 2002 165.330 Contingency needed In 2003 1,327,695 General Fund Reaerved $85.295.963 I $ 250,440 Pratund 2002 Debt Service 74.268 Set .aide for first 3 months of operations until SWM Fees in 324,708 SWM Fund Reaerved 28.430,907 EXHIBIT A 2002 REVISED BUDGET Fund Adopt.d B.glnSa/JIcB Re"ellues&Ot/lërSliiT~ '. Adopted C/l.ìlnllelli ...'Revenue Rev¡j;,ue FuirdfJî;fanc:e .ji,ilj,Jsttrtent Re"lsed . fJ.û.dget: I-c;eneral Fund 1,629,526 $ 26,738,159 $ 1,143,780 $ $ 29,511,4651 $ $ SpecTai-Revenu;FüñdS:---'-- --. ----",. --. I "..~ --'---'ArtenaISlreet 41.859 -.-.-- '--UlilityTax .-.-.-- 5.795,709 ~ . - SOlid Waste/Recycling .-.--.- -~-=-- __299,792 Special ContracVSludles --. ..- Snow & Ice Removal - ----_.... -. - ---- Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax ..-----.- -. 2% for the Arts ê - - . C;;a;;;s.COec;-_no- .-- "---"---'-------470.907 'Pãths and TraIIS"---- n_.._.... --.-- ---'--40,853--'-9.000 561 sjr~ïé9-'" Re~~~=-~ -~:=~-~-~:~= --=---~~IJOO,OÕÕ-==~==-.!..:J2..5oo -- ~ÕÕ) A"po'!.~tra.~ej¡I.':.~"s~rv~n . . .-- -- ...._-_._~QQ,OOO__.._----_...:..._.._--~OOO) - 3,464,526 1,584,254 6,476,974 266,208 -- 3,582,526 1,62ij,113 12,697,861 525,585 425,178 - (40,415) - ...----n-----....- -.. -- -- 130,781 40,781 90,000 -- 470,907 50,414 132,500 . ---n--- -., ----.-n-- Debt Service Fund . -.. -. _n._.._...... --. .....---...---------..------------ f?43T212 11.630,192 - - n------ ..Ê"~~:~.!.~-- - -- .. .~.~?-'-~----- __J383,400) Capital Pro¡.èctF-"nèi;::~:- City Facilities Par!<s SWM Traffic Streets --- ---------- --.. ----,,-- ... ---- .. : ~T---- . . '.:~;:-~E:=:~-~-:_~~~~~=-:- =~~-=-~~=~~="'-= ==:==--~~~:~;: ß-- 1,678,376 1,099.009 178,022 .. 2,955,407 --.-.. ---,~------- 63,309'---' -... 311,635 ---- ---- 374,944 - --"--- -=-'::._.1.,409,542 ~.' 1,37~ (107,673) -- =---- .. 2.674,869 .~:~-~-.~~. =--. - -=::'.-:~~:-::'::=-=. =-.-:~-;. 9:6.86 --=--=.- -- 32~~~- -==~--=- ~-- 3,5.94:374'-- ..~=_....-- 1oo,36JJ__..__--_!~~,?~-_. .._-~~-- .~O,Ooo _..___.775,800 -:I=- ~ Enterprise Fund: --- .---- . - -Sz,i1ãce ...vaier Mãnagement 5Wñas ~ay ¡::e~iõr"--- . --...... ....... .... ..---. .... --- -.--...-..-- Internal Service Funds: iæ~!~~. :_:~~:~!:ri=~E ... Buildings & Fumishlngs 1,062,809 450,863 .... - 2,13g;¡¡;¡a-----..m... ..------. (73,501) "O-- 5,827 73,564 7,510 4,275,263 3,149,039 386,862 3,000,344 1,506,162 ...-..... .-. 4,000 .. Grand Total All Funds $ 26,504,048 $ 55;841,5.u . $1,926;~5r: $84;0~~;722: ($189,727) Expendltu,,;$& OlhePVses A(fQpl.<t E;xp.(IC!lt.u~ Revised , B/i.dget:. AdJiJStìnent Budget. 27,493,893 $ 3,482,526 1,626,113 4,485,844 266,208 90,000 470,907 132.500 6,855,232 750,000 155,000 2,486,579 1,373,000 3,269,686 665,422 u- 630,650 1,219,516 157.860 453,868 868,410 $$1,11.3,794 --- t25Q..440) -. {39,270 4,000 I $ 27,497,893 I $ .. 3,482,526 1,626,113 4,485.844 288,208 90.000 470.907 132,500 6,604,792 750,000 155.000 2.427.309 1,373,000 --e:m 3,276,379 u_- 50,000 ..115,422 -, -- 3,360 4,000 ($i21,5,3tl 10,000 CDBG Interfund Loan 300,000 Prefund p3 96,631 FMV on Investments . Fund Balance Needed in 2002 185,330 ConUngency needed in 2002 571.961 General Fund Reserved .. 830,650 1,218,518 161.020 m:eee ëëë;Fo Fund.Be/ance . Ruervedl UtIr8SBl'ved 2,013,572 I 00, 000 8,212,017 259,377 40,781 50,414 0 5,025.400 1058 96,554 528,098 374,944 1,301,869 317.995 60.378 3,844,813 1:mffi 235,8"'2 2.542,878 ã3i;ffi ,$S6,4I2,157J~' ,. 27;st!1iS5S 243,727 Prefund 2003 Debl Service 74,268 Set aside tor first 3 months 01 operations until SWM Fees in 317,995 SWM Fund Reserved 01caro lnce if¡ 0212312001 09:DO AM MEETING DATE: Apri117,2001 ITEM# ~ ~) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................................................................,............... CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM Phase 2: 2001 Solid Waste and Recycling Services Options Review and Services Procurement SUBJECT: Process ""'CATEGORY';"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"........................................,....... ................ """"""""BUDGEiIMPÁ'ci~"""""""""""""""""""'".......................................... ............ _X_CONSENT _ORDINANCE _BUSINESS HEARING FYI _RESOLUTION _STAFF REPORT _PROCLAMATION _STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: Expenditure Amt: Contingency Reqd: $ $ $ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................... A TT ACHMENTS: Memo to the Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee dated March 28,2001. Memo to City Council (with attached letter from Mr. Jerry Hardebeck) dated April!!, 2001. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................... SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Phase 2 of this process focuses on two main issues: selection of service options and selection of the vendor procurement process. Service and Contract Options - Several options are recommended for solid waste services procurement process. The attached memorandum outlines the range of service options and recommendations considered in this process. oIighlights of key recommendations include: . Single Family and Multi-family recycling service expansion through system-wide imbedded-cost recycling service, and expansion of accepted materials (to bring recycling services up to current standards). A bid alternative will be included for cart-based (mixed material) curbside recycling services. Elimination of subsidies to operate the Neighborhood Recycling Center (compensated by the expansion in residential recycling services). Adding a "user pay" service for bulky waste collection (to reduce reliance on County transfer stations). Replacing the "retainage" contract management fee with a set administrative fee, tied to the contract rate adjustment (for ease of calculation and to offset inflation impacts associated with contract administration). Excluding a "prevailing wage" clause in the base contract to stimulate competition among potential bidders. . . . . Recommendations were also made to maintain the status quo for many key contract options, including: . Maintaining non-mandatory collection (to allow self-haul option to continue). Maintaining existing 'variable' can rate structure (to create adequate incentives to reduce garbage disposal amounts through waste reduction and recycling efforts). Maintaining the City's position of not intervening in the collective bargaining agreement negotiated between the union and area contractors. Maintaining the City's current rate structure policy for allocation of service costs. . . . Vendor Procurement Method - The second part of Phase 2 will launch the City's procurement process by selecting either a Request'-foP.Proposals (RFP) or a Request-for-Bids (RFB) procurement process. Review of these two options suggests that the bidding process (RFB) will best fit Federal Way's needs, based on the following points: . Adequate Potential Proponents and Potential Wide Service Area: There are at least three experienced area haulers that will have interest in this contract (AlliedJRabanco, Waste Connections, Inc., and Waste Management Inc.). The combined Federal Way/Auburn service area may also attract additional haulers ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................... . from outside the region, as the City of Auburn is now embarking on a similar procurement process. Extended Bidder Qualifications: Extended bidder qualifications required in the RFB will screen responsive bidders, by requiring detailed information in areas such as litigation history, implementation capability, system components, and financial forecasts. Readily Available Performance Data: Operating costs can be readily forecasted for all service options now under consideration. Upgraded Contract: The RFB will include a substantially upgraded base contract, requiring confirmed bids based on set provisions. The upgraded contract will preclude the need for extensive negotiation with proponent(s). Avoided Consulting and Legal Costs: The RFB process will reduce the potential for higher consulting costs and legal challenges that may result under a protracted RFP process. . . . Following the March 28, 2001 Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee meeting, Mr. Jerry Hardebeck, a representative of the City's current contracted hauler, sent a letter to the City Council outlining several issues related to this procurement process. Staff responded to this letter via the attached memorandum addressed to the City Council, dated April 11, 2001. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................................................... CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At its March 28, 2001 meeting, the Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee made the following recommendation: A. Service Options Incorporate the approved service options and City Council recommendations into the sample contract and procurement packet. B.ProcurementProcess 1. Direct staff to develop and release a Requests for Bids (RFB) for procurement of a new solid waste collection provider, with extended bidder qualifications and a requirement for confirmed bids based on the sample contract provisions; 2. Direct staff to proceed with Phase III of the Solid Waste and Recycling Services Options Review and Services Procurement Process (including reviewing bids, and updating the City Code to reflect service revisions), and to return to the City Council to complete the bid award and City Code updates. C. Overall Process Approval Place Phase II of the 2001 Solid Waste and Recycling Services Options Review and Service Procurement Process on the April 17, 2001 City Council consent agenda with a motion for approval of the process to date. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................."""""""""""""""""""""""""'" CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve Phase 2 of the 2001 Solid Waste and Recycling Services Options Review and Service Procurement Process as outlined in the attached memorandum. Further to direct staff to proceed with Phase 3 of the Council-approved Solid Waste and Recycling Services Options Review and Services Procurement Process. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CL COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED _TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # k:\council\agdbills\200 1 \swr procure process 2001 (phase 2).doc DATE: March 28, 2001 TO: Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee Rob Van Orsow, Solid Waste and Recycling Coordinator David H. ~anager Phase II:-2001~Oli~ Waste and Recycling Services Procurement Process FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: Options Review and Services BACKGROUND In December 2000 the City Council established a process for reviewing solid waste and recycling service options, selecting a preferred service strategy, and then procuring a service provider during 2001. Phase 1 of this process was considered at the January 23, 2001 FEDRAC meeting and February 6, 2001 City Council meeting. Phase 2 focuses on preparation for service provider procurement, including: 1. Selection of Service Options 2. Selection of the Vendor Procurement Method SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICE OPTIONS Review of a wide range of solid waste service options yielded several key service options and related issues that call for City Council input and direction. These issues are outlined in the following chart, along with recommendations. Significant changes from existing options appear in bold type. The attachment to this memorandum (Table 1) further details various alternatives, advantages and disadvantages. Once the City Council has provided direction on these issues, a sample contract will be tailored to reflect the selected service options and contract elements. This contract will then become part of the procurement packet. Service Option/Contract Element I Recommendation . . ..' ResIdentIal Garbage CollectIon Contamer SIzes and Fre uenc of Collection Residential Yard Debris Service Residential Recycling Multi-Family Recycling Services Neighborhood Recycling Center Keep status quo. Keep status quo: Subscription-based (only users pay), collection weekly April-November and every other week December - Februa . Curbside collection every other week. Expand range of collected materials. Include bid alternative for commingled collection (using a wheeled cart). Expand recycling services to mobile home and condominium facilities. Continue to require contractor to provide recycling containers, with costs included in garbage rates. Revenues or costs from sale of rec clables retained b contractor. Imbed recycling costs in base garbage rates, creating universal residential recycling availability, and provide a range of recycling collection options. Eliminating the subsidy for the recycling center (as described below) will partially offset irnbeddin these costs. Discontinue subsidy of this center (in conjunctioô with imbedding Multi-family recycling costs in garbage rates). Encourage proponents to provide a variety of non-subsidized dro -off rec clin services. c-r Phase 1 - 2001 SW &R Services Procurement Process March 28, 2001 Page 2 of 3 Service Option/Contract Element (cont.) I Recommendation . . . BO ulk Waste Clean-u Events Temporary Containers VENDORPROCURMENTMETHOD The second part of Phase II will launch the City's procurement process by selecting either a Request for Proposals (RFP) or a Request for Bids (RFB) method. Review of these two procurement options suggests that the bidding process (RFB) will best fit Federal Way's needs, as supported by the following points: Potential Proponents and Potential Wide Service Area: There are at least three experienced area haulers that should show keen interest in this contract (Allied/Rabanco, Waste Connections, Inc., and Waste Management Inc.). The combined Federal Way/Auburn market may also attract additional haulers fTom outside the region, as the City of Auburn is now preparing to embark on a similar procurement process almost in parallel with Federal Way. . . Extended Bidder Qualifications: Extended bidder qualifications required in the RFB will screen responsive bidders. . Readily Available Performance Data: All of the service options under consideration have costs that can be readily forecasted by proponents, which in turn will foster development of competent bids. Upgraded Contract: The RFB will also include a sample contract, and require confirmed bids based on the sample contract provisions. The upgrades planned for the new contract will preclude the need for extensive negotiation with proponent(s). . . Avoided Consulting and Legal Costs: The RFB process will reduce the potential for higher consulting costs and legal challenges that may result under a RFP process. RECOMMENDA nON Staff recommends that the Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee forward the following recommendations to the City Council consent agenda: A. Service Options Incorporate the approved service options and City Council recommendations into the sample contract and procurement packet. C~2- Phase 1 - 2001 SW &R Services Procurement Process March 28, 2001 Page 3 on B. Procurement Process 1. Direct staff to develop and release a Requests for Bids (RFB) for procurement of a new solid waste collection provider, with extended bidder qualifications and a requirement for confirmed bids based on the sample contract provisions; 2. Direct staff to proceed with Phase ill of the Solid Waste and Recycling Services Options Review and Services Procurement Process (including reviewing bids, and updating the City Code to reflect service revisions), and to return to the City Council to complete the bid award and City Code updates. C. Overall Process Approval Place Phase IT of the 2001 Solid Waste and Recycling Services Options Review and Service Procurement Process on the April 17, 2001 City Council consent agenda with a motion for approval of the process to date. RMV:kk k:\fedc\200 I \swr phase 2.doc Q~3 Table 1. City of Federal Way 2001 Solid Waste and Recycling Procurement Process Review of Key Service Options and Contract Elements Note: Recommendations are denoted by a "-V " in the right hand column. Recommendations that appear in bold text reflect proposed changes. Contract/Service Decision Alternatives Ad van tages/D isad van tages Recommendation Residential Garbage Collection Keep current range of container The current weekly garbage collection -V [Status quo] Recommend retaining current Services sizes and collection frequency system could be shifted to an every other range and frequency of residential garbage week schedule. This would allow the City to services Shift to an every other week offer alternating week garbage and recycling collection schedule (e.g. collection at no additional cost. However, it [Every other week collection is not Olympia, Bellingham) would require residents to retain their recommended because the potential savings garbage for two weeks at a time and could be are not likely to outweigh the logistical perceived as a significant decrease in service. difficulties of implementation and public resistance to the perceived reduction in service.] Residential Yard Debris Services Single-family: Higher frequency increases diversion but also -V [Status quo] Recommend maintaining increases cost; a larger cart size and every current frequency and cart size. Frequency: (weekly, every other week service is the least cost approach. other week); winter schedule -V [Status quo] Recommend maintaining Incorporating cost of yard debris service in subscription yard waste service [rather than Container Size: keep cart basic garbage rates increases incentive to incorporating this service into garbage rates]. size? participate but may also divert some material from backyard compo sting to curbside -V [Status quo] Recommend subscription- Payment: Incorporate in collection. based multi-family yard debris collection to garbage rates or keep as maintain compliance with King County subscription based service? Retaining yard debris service as a CSWMP. subscription (extra cost) service results in Multi- family: higher per-household costs for participants and maintenance of current participation Offer only as subscription- levels, but lower costs for non-users. based service City of Federal Way - Soh rzste & Recycling Option Review .. Contract/Service Decision Alternatives Ad van tag es/D isadvan tag es Recommendation Residential Recycling Single-family: (assumes 'curbside' Higher frequency increases participation, ....J Recommend adding a bid option for style recycling service) diversion and cost. cart-based curbside recycling collection [every other week], to improve upon Frequency: weekly, every other 3-bin containers cost less than carts, but existing 3-bin system. week) require additional sorts. Carts allow fewer sorts and the easy addition of plastic films, ""Recommend collecting a wider range of 3-bin or cart-based (one sort, containers and scrap metal. recyclables to maximize participation and two sort) diversion. Most of curbside recycling cost Essentially all King County cities have the is cost of getting truck in front of house. Range of materials (e.g. cost of curbside recycling embedded in Incremental cost of adding additional newspaper; mixed paper; garbage rates. Separate billing typically materials is minimal. cardboard, glass, plastic, tin upsets residents. and aluminum containers; "" [Status quo] Recommend incorporating plastic bags; scrap metals; If contractors include revenues/costs in rates, recycling costs in residential garbage rates. motor oil) competitive pressure during procurement will ensure that contractors hedge market ""Recommend adding a parallel multi- Cost embedded in garbage fee? risk/reward. family/condominium and mobile home facility imbedded-rate recycling system, Multi- family: Splitting revenues/costs shifts risks (and handling similar materials as the single- rewards) from the contractor to the City. family program. This will provide these Same system, with carts or City may gain revenues but in the off years residents with the same recycling service containers distributed as would need to cover losses. Also requires availability as single-family residents. appropriate with charges effective market price audits and monitoring. incorporated in garbage service "" [Status quo] Recommend having fees. An imbedded-rate recycling system will not contractors include recyclable material allow for contractor to 'price themselves out' revenues/costs in rates. Material Revenues: of having to provide recycling services. This will in turn encourage the contractor to Have revenues and costs accrue provide efficient recycling service for all fully to contractor and be customers. included in rates All revenues/costs to be split with City Only revenues/costs beyond set thresholds would be split with City. Page 2 of 7 City of Federal Way - Solid Waste & Recycling Option Review Contract/Service Decision Alternatives Advan tages/Disad van tages Recommendation Neighborhood Recycling Center Retain current system and Retaining the current system will increase v'Ratepayers have subsidized this private embed $70-80,000 annual cost costs to ratepayers but will continue facility. Recommend separating its costs in rates recycling access for multi-family residents from the collection system, and eliminating without collection service, and others with recycling center subsidy and contractor Eliminate subsidy for recycling oversized materials. operation requirement, in conjunction center, and replace with with adoption of expanded standard expanded recycling collection Eliminating the depot system will lower recycling services for Single-family and program. costs, but would require the City to expand Multi-Family sectors. If a decision is made multi-family recycling access and direct to continue subsidizing this facility, a residents to other alternatives. King County separate funding source, procurement would also be encouraged to comply with process, and contract is recommended. In recycling access requirements at Algona any case, proponents will be encouraged to Transfer Station. provide non-subsidized 'drop-off' style recycling services throughout the City. Bulky Waste Collection Add user pay service for Current contract does not specifically include v'Recommend adding user pay service for oversized materials (couches, bulky waste item service. Residents with bulky waste. King County has indicated a mattresses, appliances)? bulky waste could pay to have those items strong desire to increase fees for self- disposed, although costs/rates are likely to be haulers at its disposal sites, so more cost- Provide annual curbside high compared with self-haul and disposal effective service should be made available collection event on a fees. to residents. subscription basis or with costs incorporated in rates? A monthly or annual curbside collection -J [Status quo] Recommend not adding event could allow all residents to set out a annual curbside collection event(s), due to deemed quantity of bulky waste on a certain probable high cost for adding this service. week. This service would increase costs and may encourage waste accumulations. On the other hand, the service would provide easy access to disposal for those without vehicles or without sufficient quantities to justify transfer station minimum fees. Page 3 of 7 City of Federal Way - Sol raste & Recycling Option Review Contract/Service Decision Alternatives Ad van tages/Disadvan tages Recommendation Clean-up Events None Having no clean-up events would effectively " [Status quo] Recommend continuing with require all residents to self-haul or pay for current semi-annual "recycling day" services. Centralized Events (e.g. current relatively expensive contractor collection for "recycling day" approach) all oversized wastes, but would lower overall ratepayer costs. Once per year curbside pick-up (as discussed under "Bulky Centralized clean-up events require Waste") establishing a temporary site, paying for container hauling/disposal and staffmg the collection site. This requires administrative effort and requires residents to self-haul their materials to the site. Curbside collection allows residents without vehicles to handle excess waste, but might encourage accumulations, depending on how the program is structured. Temporary Containers Add temporary detachable Residents and businesses would be allowed -" [Status quo] Recommend retaining service. container service: 2, 4, 6 & 8 to order fee-based temporary container. No cubic yard? disadvantages identified. Commercial Garbage Collection Keep current range of No advantages/ disadvantages identified. " [Status quo] Recommend continuing Services containers, frequency choices? existing system. Page 4 of 7 City of Federal Way - Solid Waste & Recycling Option Review Contract/Service Decision Alternatives Ad van tages/D isad van tages Recommendation Commercial Recycling Exclude from contract Excluding commercial recycling from the ...,¡ [Status quo] Recommend maintaining collection contract would reduce incentives existing subscription based recycling Include as embedded part of for diversion, but would minimize conflicts collection system. garbage service from competing private recycling companies. Including commercial recycling as an embedded rate service (included in rates) would maximize diversion incentives, and eliminate the contractor's ability to charge excessive rates for recycling services, although it would increase basic garbage service costs for non-recycling customers. Mandatory Collection Maintain non-mandatory Mandatory collection increases customer ...,¡ [Status quo] Recommend maintaining non- Co llection? density and could reduce unit costs as well as mandatory collection. discouraging waste accumulations. Introduce Mandatory However, it also requires enforcement, which Collection? is difficult under Contractor billing. Continuing non-mandatory collection may result in higher rates than necessary, and could be responsible for some illegal dumping. Mandatory Collection Under contractor billing, Mandatory collection is often difficult with ...¡ [Status quo] No change needed. Enforcement collection enforcement could contractor collection. If a "customer" refuses include initial contractor to pay the bill, the contractor cannot notification to residents, then: discontinue service (due to mandatory (l) no city follow-up with non- collection) and must attempt to collect the compliers; (2) city follow-up; debt commercially or place liens. This and/or (3) acceptance of a increases costs for other customers. certain level of non-compliance. Page 5 of 7 City of Federal Way - Sol raste & Recycling Option Review Contract/Service Decision Alternatives Ad van tages/D isad van tages Recommendation Rate Design Maintain current rate Existing residential rate relationships are ...J [Status quo] Recommend retaining existing relationships based on King County incentive guidelines residential and commercial rate relationships and provide some incentives to reduce waste. More incentive for diversion (e.g. linear rates where two cans A shift to greater rate incentives such as cost twice as much as one can) linear rates could increase diversion, but would increase the level of subsidization by Less incentive for diversion larger waste generators and may impact those with large household sizes. A shift to lower rate incentives could decrease diversion, but may more closely reflect the actual cost of providing services, decreasing or eliminating cross-subsidies between various levels of service. Method of Revenue Generation Administrative fee based on Administrative fee based on customer counts ...JRecommend setting a base administrative to Cover City Contract customer counts or revenues requires additional management fee, using the non-grant portion of the Management costs. effort and verification of revenue and/or SW/R Division budget ($162,000) as the Administrative fee based on total customer count data. initial funding level. This represents a revenues $7,000 increase in the fee from the 2002 A base administrative fee, when tied to the budget amount. The base administrative Base administrative fee tied to contract Rate Adjustment method, will better fee will adjust up or down annually per the contract Rate Adjustment reflect set costs, and will allow for more contract rate adjustment. This will offset method predictable City revenue projections inflationary costs associated with contract administration. Page 6 of7 City of Federal Way - Solid Waste & Recycling Option Review Contract/Service Decision Alternatives Ad vantages/Disad van tages Recommendation Senior Citizen/ Disabled/Low Explicit rate reduction for the Rate reductions limit the impact of rate ...¡ [Status quo] Recommend uniform rates, Income Rates selected class with implicit rate increases to selected groups by shifting those with "free" carryout service for garbage, yard increases for other residents. costs to other residents. While this may be debris and recyclables for those who meet popular with those groups, this may be selection criteria. Uniform rates. perceived as inequitable and unnecessary if a range of lower cost service levels is available and also requires the City or Contractor to screen and accept applicants for reduced cost service. Uniform rates are administratively easier and equitable, but do not offer rate relief to those on limited incomes. Union Wage and Seniority Yes or No [If 'Yes', what basis Establishing this as a union wage-based ...¡ [Status quo] The collective bargaining Maintenance/Hiring Preference should be used to establish contract could equalize wage assumptions agreement negotiated between area for Existing Contractor's standardized union wage and used by various bidders. contractors and the union in 2000 will be Employees. Prevailing Wages seniority maintenance/hiring effect until 2006. Therefore, the preference for existing Maintaining status quo regarding union wage recommendation is to keep issues related to contractor's employees?]. and seniority maintenance/hiring preferences wage, staff retention, and hiring preference would foster competition by encouraging between the union and the contractor, and proponents to make their own decisions on forgo City involvement. If the City were to staff retention and wage levels versus establish wage and hiring requirements, the training needs and the management overhead procurement process must be modified to required to meet the contract's service specify the basis for the requirements and the requirements. criteria to monitor how the requirements apply. For example, were the requirements followed in the price quotes, and then correctly applied during implementation of operations? This could become a thorny issue. The status quo should encourage competition by allowing proponents to make management decisions in conjunction with the existing collective bargaining agreement structure. Therefore, the recommendation is to not include a prevailing wage clause in the base contract. k:\fedc\2001\phase 2 option table - no c-s.doc Page 7 of 7 DATE: April 11, 200 I TO: City Council FROM: David H. Moseley, City Manager {~ SUBJECT: Letter from Federal Way Disposal related to Solid Waste and Recycling Procurement Process The City Council and City Manager received the attached letter related to Phase 2 of the City's solid waste and recycling service procurement process, dated April 4, 2001 from Mr. Jeny Hardebeck, the Municipal Contract Manager for Waste Management/F ederal Way Disposal (FWD). City staff reviewed this letter and prepared the following response. On March 13, 2001 City staff met with Mr. Hardebeck and other FWD representatives to discuss a wide range of issues related to Phase 2 of this procurement process. Many of these same issues were then incorporated into this process, and then addressed in recommendations provided during the staff presentation on this subject at the March 28, 2001 Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee (FEDRAC) meeting. Although representatives from FWD were present at the meeting, they did not raise the issues detailed in the attached letter during this meeting. There are two main points in Mr. Hardebeck's letter. The first relates to hiring preferences and wage levels for represented employees. The current wage rates were negotiated between Waste Management and the bargaining unit in 2000. The City had no input regarding these wage rates, and was also not made aware ofthe related "Letter of Understanding" side agreement dealing with wage rates at that time. One recommendation presented at the FEDRAC meeting is to maintain the City's status quo position of non-intervention in the collective bargaining arrangement between the Union and Waste Management. This means no City involvement in establishing wage and hiring requirements, or in seniority issues. This recommendation is intended to foster competition and thereby obtain the best service at the best rates for Federal Way ratepayers. This recommendation will allow the market to establish wage rates, and will not preclude any contractor from hiring existing staff. The second point in Mr. Hardebeck's letter concerns how criteria will be used to evaluate bids. Mr. Hardebeck suggests that four subjective criteria be included (as listed on page two of his letter). Staff has begun preparation of a draft bid procurement packet. This draft bid packet is being structured to address the first three criteria Mr. Hardebeck supports. Although this packet is still in draft fonn and subject to further internal review, the sections that correspond to these criteria are cited below. For example, the first criterion relates to the "transition element," necessary if a new contractor is awarded the contract. This issue will be addressed in the draft bid document through its extended Bidder Qualification requirements, which were discussed at the FEDRAC meeting. Section 2.6.10 sets a basis for bids to be considered non-responsive, and thus rejected, if the bidder's implementation plan shows a lack of competence, either in fonnulating a transition plan, or in prior experience in assuming operation of existing collection programs. The second criterion relates to ensuring that high-quality recycling programs are provided to ratepayers. Again, the draft bid document substantially addresses this concern through the extended Bidder Qualification FWD's Letter on Solid Waste and Recycling Procurement Process Aprilll, 2001 Page 2 requirements. Specific qualifications require bidders to fully describe the following: their proposed solid waste and recycling collection system (Section 2.6.6), their proposed recyclable materials processing system (Section 2.6.7), and their proposed public information methods and materials (Section 2.6.11). Bids can be considered non-responsive, and thus rejected, if the proponent shows lack of competence in establishing and operating quality recycling and public information services. Mr. Hardebeck's third criterion relates to customer service. This criterion will be addressed through inquiries regarding the bidders' past municipal clients per the Investigation of Qualifications process established by the bid procurement packet (Section 2.7). If the City's inquiries show a pattern of dissatisfaction with past services provided by any proponent, the City may use this information in determining the level of responsiveness of the proponent's bid. The fourth criterion raised by Mr. Hardebeck relates to the level of community involvement a given proponent may demonstrate. Although this criterion is not directly addressed in the bid packet, any contractor will be encouraged to assume a positive "corporate citizen" role in the community they serve. However, the purpose of this procurement process is to obtain the best service at the best price for ratepayers, and this criterion is not relevant to that purpose. Therefore, it is not recommended for inclusion in the bid process. In closing, City staff believes that the Finance, Economic Development and Regional Affairs Committee has directly considered the first point raised in Mr. Hardebeck's letter, regarding hiring preference, and that the remaining issues will be substantially addressed in the bid document now under preparation. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter. cc: Project File Day File k:\council\memos\solid waste services - hardebeck letter.doc RECEIVED APR 0 6 2001 WASTE MANAGEMENT April 4, 2001 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS RECYCLING/SOLID WASTE DIV. 701 2nd St. NW P.o. Box 1877 Auburn, WA 98071-1877 (253) 939-2065 (253) 735-9093 Fax Honorable Michael Park and Members of the City Council City of Federal Way PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 RE: City Solid Waste and Recycling Bid Dear Mayor Park and Council Members, The City of Federal Way, along with a number of other cities in the Puget Sound area, is about to begin the unfamiliar process of procuring solid waste and recycling services through a competitive bidding process. You have hired one of the best consulting companies in the Northwest to help you through the process but we thought you might be willing to consider a couple of additional items before releasing your request for bid. Unlike other bidding processes you may conduct for other public utility projects, this one effects every resident and business in the City multiple times a year (about 1.5 million collections/year) and deserves your very careful consideration. Over the past decade, solid waste collection has shown to be considered a «service" rather than a traditional "public works" activity. This is important, as it not only indicates the nature of the business, but the way in which the procurement process should be conducted. Furthermore, over the last ten years these collection programs have been a focal point in the City's position on the environmental issues. They have, to a great degree, shaped the public's perception of Council and their staff's initiatives in the environmental arena. As the City moves forward with new programs and waste reduction initiatives, it is essential that the City "partner" with the right contractor if the public's perception is to remain positive. Federal Way will want a collection firm that not only provides a good value to the City but is also willing and able to shoulder the responsibility of being a professional representative of the City and its programs. The first issue is one that I think we can all relate to as employees in our respective jobs. This is a very difficult time for the men and women who work for our company servicing the City of Federal Way. Each of them knows that if Waste Management is not awarded the new contract, they will either be out of work or be forced to take a serious reduction in pay and benefits. It would be my personal hope that the Council would not want these innocent bystanders and their families to become casualties of the City's decision to enter into a new contract. A Division of Federal Way Disposal Inc. @ Page 2 April 4, 2001 A year and a half ago the Seattle City Council..enœœd into a new contract with Waste Management and required our company to abide by conditions described in the following language (which was contained in their procurement package). I would ask that the Federal Way City Council consider adding the same requirement to your bid package. Hiring Preference For initial hiring under this contract the Contractor and subcontractors shall give hiring preference to any garbage, yard waste or recyclables collection workers who have been displaced as a result of the City awarding this Contract, provided that such workers are fully qualified and meet the Contractor's standards for employment. The Contractor will not reduce the compensation or benefits paid to such hired employees. As a final note on this issue, the City of Seattle benefited a great deal ITom this requirement to hire these employees. These employees' experience and knowledge of the idiosyncrasies in the serve area and with the customer base had an enormous benefit in facilitating a smooth transition to a new contract. Another issue I would like the Council to carefully consider is the criteria you are currently planning to use in deciding which contractor will get the contract. The current plan is to award the contract solely based on price; and while I certainly think that cost is the most important issue, it is not the only one that should be considered. Other Councils have historically considered some of the following in their deliberations over which contractor should get the contract. L To insure a smooth transition into a new contract they have reviewed all the contractors' transition planning details and financial commitments relevant to a successful transition. They have also wanted assurance that local managers have had experience in putting together and implementing a transition plan for cities like The City of Federal Way. 2. To insure the continuation of good recycling programs, they have asked to see and have evaluated the competitors' recycling educational and promotional programs and experIence. 3. To maintain good customer service they have evaluated the competitor's history of customer complaints in other cities (e.g. service complaints per 10,000 services rendered) 4. They have asked to know what a contractor's involvement has been in the communities they're presently servicing, to see if the contractor has a reputation as a responsible corporate citizen in that community. Page 3 April 4, 2001 If these issues are important to Federal Way, then now is the time to factor them into your evaluation process. Using a modified bid process, you can simply establish the importance of these or other criteria, add weighting to each criteria; and then once the bids have been received, proceed with determining which contractor is best for your City. Your consultant will probably ask for help from Council and staff in making that determination but it would seem that the extra effort is worth it - especially given the scope ofthis contract and its impact on the customers in Federal Way. If you want to incorporate anything other than pricing into a City review, then it would be my recommendation that such a modified bid process incorporate clear criteria for awarding the contract and clearly states that the City has the unilateral right to choose the contractor. The bottom line is that if you are willing to risk giving the contract to the lowest price bidder based purely on price, then stick with th~ bid process you are now considering. However, you must be willing to take the risk that the lowest price may not be the best value and your decision will be with the community for a minimum of probably five years. I wish you the best especially in this time of uncertainty as to who will be your future contractor. I can assure you that we have already begun to take the necessary steps to insure that our bid will be extremely competitive. If there are any questions I can answer or serve you in any way, please feel free to give me a call at 206/264-3075. Once your bid request has been released, I will no longer be able to address your questions. , -c ~t:z.- debeck Municipal Contract Manager ce. David Moseley, City Manager Carey Roe, Public Works Director Rob VanOrsow, Solid Waste and Recycling Coordinator Dan Bridges, Waste Management District Manager Jeff Brown, Sound Resource Management MEETING DATE: April 17, 2001 2DQ) ITEM# CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: Cabin Park Project, Phase One Construction Approval, Gravel Trail Extension CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: X CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Committee action fonn dated April 9, 2001 SUMMARYIBACKGROUND: Since 1992, the Federal Way Historical Society and the Friends of the Hylebos have been working with city staff on conceptual designs for the Cabin Park located at 411 South 348th Street. The open space park property is host to the historic Denny and Barker Cabin. On August 1,2000, the City of Federal Way entered into an agreement with the Historical Society and the Friends of the Hylebos for the Design, Development and Construction of the Historical Cabin Park. The City of Federal Way Community Development has completed its review of the Master Land Use Process III regarding the Cabin Park Project. After the public comment period has been completed, Staff will anticipate issuing the grading pennit for the project. The City of Federal Way Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Departinent have completed construction documents for phase one the gravel trail extension. The construction budget is $75,000. Engineer's estimate for the Gravel Trail is $7,500-$8,000. Engineer's estimate for the Parking Lot is $15,000-$20,000, Landscaping estimate cost is $10,000, signage cost is $5,000, and Contingency is $15,000. Total construction estimate is $58,000. Construction estimates for the Cabin Park Project Phase One and Phase Two are within the engineer's cost estimate. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On April 9, 2001, the Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Council Committee passed an amended motion publicly advertise Phase One Construction of the Cabin Park Project, Gravel Trail Extension and forward to full Council on April 17, 2001. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to Approve Council Committee recommendation to publicly advertise Phase One Construction of the Cabin Park Project, Gravel Trail Extension and forward to full Council on April 17,2001. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: T (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading - T ABLEDIDEFERRED/NO ACTION Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # I:\COUNCIL \COUNCIL - MEMO.DOC ITEM 5.A CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Date: March 30, 2001 Jon Jainga, Parks Planning and Development Manag~ David Mo a gel' tI tI From: Via: Subject: Cabin Park Pro ct, Phase One Construction Approval, Gravel Trail Extension Backeround: Since 1992, the Federal Way Historical Society and the Friends of the Hylebos have been working with city staff on conceptual designs for the Cabin Park located at 411 South 348th Street. The open space park property is host to the historic Denny and Barker Cabin, some of the fIrst cabins built in Seattle's Pioneer Square District. The Historic Society and the Friends of the Hylebos have spent the last several years restoring the cabins for the park's interpretational program. August 1, 2000, the City of Federeal Way entered into an agreement with the Historical Society and the Friends of the Hylebos for the Design, Development and Construction of the Historical Cabin Park. The City of Federeal Way Community Development has completed its review of the Master Land Use Process III regarding the Cabin Park Project, File number 01-100480-UP. The 14-day public comment period will be complete on April 16, 2001. After the public comment period has been completed, Staff will anticipate issuing the grading pennit for the project. The City of Federeal Way Parks, Recreation and Cultural Service Department have completed the construction documents for phase one the gravel trail extension and phase two parking lot construction. Construction Budeet The Construction budget is $75,000 The following is a breakdown of the construction project cost estimate: . Engineer's estimate for the Gravel Trail is $7,500 - $8,000 . Engineer's estimate for the Parking Lot is $15,000 - $20,000 . Landscaping estimate cost is $10,000 . Signage cost is $5,000 . Contingency: $15,000 Total Construction estimate is $58,000 Construction estimates for the Cabin Park Project Phase One and Phase Two are within the engineer's cost estimate. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the approval to publicly advertise Phase One Construction of the Cabin Park Project, Gravel Trail Extension and Phase Two Parking Lot Construction and forward to City Council for fmal acceptance. Committee Recommendation: Recommend a "do pass' to full Council for approval to publicly advertise Phase One Construction of the Cabin Park Project, Gravel Trail Extension agO Phase Twe Parking Let Cön3tmeti8B. ólvJ. p'h.L-~.:) \\~ lA....àtr ~~~~ ....+ +k . (',\ lì ~c:..1 "'^~) PORT:/' MEETING DATE: April I?, 2001 ITEM# ~-}/. k) CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT: Office of Justice Programs Bulletproof Vest Grant CATEGORY: BUDGET IMPACT: CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Chief Anne Kirkpatrick regarding the Parks, Recreation, Human services and Public Safety Committee recommendation for the Office of Justice Programs Bulletproof Vest Program. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: In 1999 and 2000, the Department of Public Safety was awarded $10,692.66 and $10,902.20, respectively from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to fund and purchase 50% of the cost ofbulletproof vests. This year we will offset the required 50% local match from our 2001 carry over funds. In 1999, we purchased Threat Level III vests from Protective Apparel Corporation of America (P ACA). This purchase )rovided half of the Department's vest replacements with the intent to purchase the remaining vests in 2000. During the year, it became apparent that the P ACA vests were not appropriate for our needs. The fit was inadequate and P ACA did not make a female vest. Consequently, the female officers had a choice to wear their existing vest or wear the PACA men's fitted vests. The Department has identified a second manufacturer, Second Chance Body Armor. They provide a more favorable vest with a slightly higher threat level, as well as a female fitted vest. The Pierce County Sheriff s Office has already successfully negotiated a contract with Second Chance through a bid process and we have an interlocal agreement with Pierce County. The Department is in negotiations with P ACA to return unused vests. The Department will use the 2001 award to fund the remaining half of the Department's vests. The Department is requesting authorization to purchase the Second Chance Vests using the 2000 Bulletproof Vest award in the amount of $10,902.20 and the 2001 carry forward in the amount of $11,935. Approximate costs are $21,804.40. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: At the April 9, 2001 meeting, the Parks, Recreation, Human Services and Public Safety Committee recommended the proposed use of grant funds in the amount of $10,902.20 and the 2001 carry forward funds in the amount of$11,935 be forwarded to City Council for consideration at the April 17,2001 meeting. CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to authorize the City Manager to approve the proposed use of grant and carry over funds. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: ~~ (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED T ABLEDfDEFERRED/NO ACTION COUNCIL BILL # 1st Reading Enactment Reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # I:\Agenda\City Council\Bullet Proof Vests FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL ITEM 5.E PARKS, RECREATION, HUMAN SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY Date: April 9, 2001 To: Parks, Recreation, Human Services & Public Safety Council Committee From: Anne Kirkpatrick, Chief of Police David M~ger Office of Justice Programs Bulletproof Vest Grant Via: Subject: Back2round: In 1999 and 2000, the Department of Public Safety was awarded $10,692.66 and $10,902.20, respectively from the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to fund and purchase 50% of the cost of bulletproof vests. The Department earmarked funds from our Training Budget to offset the required 50% local match. This opportunity is available again, the deadline is April 14, 2001. We will again, offset the required 50% local match from our Training Budget. In 1999, we purchased Threat Level III vests from Protective Apparel Corporation of America (P ACA). This purchase provided half of the Department's vest replacements with the intent to purchase the remaining vests in 2000. During the year, it became apparent that the P ACA vests were not appropriate for our needs. The fit was inadequate and P ACA did not make a female vest. Consequently, the female officers had a choice to wear their existing vest or wear the PACA men's fitted vests. The Department has identified a second manufacturer, Second Chance Body Armor. They provide a more favorable vest with a slightly higher threat level, as well as a female fitted vest. The Pierce County Sheriff s Office has already successfully negotiated a contract with Second Chance through a bid process and we have an interlocal agreement with Pierce County. The Department is in negotiations with P ACA to return unused vests. The Department will use the 2001 award to fund the remaining half of the Department's vests. The Department is requesting authorization to purchase the Second Chance Vests using the 2000 Bulletproof Vest award and Training funds to offset our local match. Approximate costs are $21,804.40. Committee Recommendation: Motion to approve and accept this request to purchase the Second Chance Vests using the 2000 Bulletproof Vest award"ttfld Tmining funds, and forward to full Council for consideration at its April 17, 2001 meeting.\...¡-\",~ ~ ~ ,} löl1Ö"L.1..j) C.......J- ~ Zoo) ~\ t:~ \:., ~ ~ % . .9I!.ci 35 iIlc/agenda/ps/04090l/bulIetproofvests 2000 & 2001 ITEM# J.L--.-.--.....-.-..---.-. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY City Council AGENDA ITEM Selection Process -- 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update MEETIN~ DATE: April 1', 2001 SUBJECT: ..------.-------------- CATEGORY: CONSENT ORDINANCE BUSINESS X HEARING FYI RESOLUTION STAFF REPORT PROCLAMATION STUDY SESSION OTHER BUDGET IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: $ Expenditure Amt: $ Contingency Reqd: $ .--.-------.------.-.------------..----.-.-.---.-..-.--....-------.-..---.-..-.---- ATTACHMENTS: April 10, 2001 Memorandum to City Council with the f<?llowing two exhibits: 1) February 28, 2001 Staff Report to the Land Useffransportation Committee; 2) Maps of Site Specific Requests .-..--...-....---...-.---.--.-.-.-------.---.---..--------......-.....-..--..-.-.-.--...--....-.-....-...-..--.....--..-..--"'.-.-.-.-.."'.--.-.-"'.-..--""---.-.-.-"'-. SUMMARYIBACKGROUND; A formal process for updating the comprehensive plan and development regulations was adopted in March 1999. This process sets up a yearly deadline of September 30 to submit application(s) for amendments. Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-523, after the deadline for accepting applications, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and select those docketed amendment requests it wishes staff to analyze further. On March 5, 2001, the Land Useffransportation Committee (LUTC) reviewed six new site-specific requests and one request to change the text of the comprehensive plan. -.--.---.........-.---.....-.--...--.-.-.-.---...----.-.--..-.-"."""--.-.....-"'---.-----".-..---..-..-"'.""'....."---......................-..-.-....--...-.--..--....-......-...--..-.-...'-"--...-.- CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The LUTC recommended that four (Requests No's 3, 4, 5 and 6) of the six Site-Specific Requests be analyzed further. The LUTC recommended that Site- Specific Request No.1 and the text amendment not be analyzed further because they did not meet certain of the Selection Criteria. The applicant withdrew site-Specific Request No.2 during the LUTC meeting. -.-...---..-..-......-...-.--..-.-....---.--...------...-.---..--..--."'....---""-."'.-...-.-.-..-.-."'..-.--..-----.-.--.-.--.----.--....-... CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION: Motion to approve the LUTC'srecommendation. -..---.-.---.---. APPROVED FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET: (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERK'S OFFICE) CO UN CIL A CTI ON: APPROVED DENIED T ABLEDIDEFERREDINOACTION COUNCIL BILL # ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # I:\OICOMPPLAN\CC AGENDA COVER SHEET ON SELECTION PROCESS.docl04/1012001 4:17 PM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM April 10,2001 FROM: Mayor and City Council Members Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services ~ Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner ~ To: SUBJECT: Selection Process -- 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update MEETING DATE: April I?, 2001 I BACKGROUND A formal process for updating the comprehensive plan and development regulations was adopted in March 1999. This process sets up a yearly deadline of September 30 to submit application(s) for amendments. Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-523, after the deadline for accepting applications, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and select those docketed amendment requests it wishes staffto review further. It is the city's practice that all city business be presented to a Council Committee, in this case the Land Use/Transportation Committee (LUTC), prior to Council deliberation. In September 2000, the City received six new site-specific requests for changes to the comprehensive plan designation and zoning and one request for changes to the text of the comprehensive plan. On March 5, 2001, the LUTC reviewed these requests based on the staff report shown in Exhibit 1. The LUTC's recommendations, which are being forwarded to the full council for action, are contained in Section II of this staff report. Following the LUTC meeting, notice was published in the Federal Way Mirror and posted on all public notice boards utilized by the city. In addition, all property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified by mail, and the sites were posted. II LAND UsEffRANSPORT A TION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION This section includes a summary of each request (their locations are shown on Exhibit 2), followed by the staff recommendation on whether it should go forward for further analysis and the LUTe's recommendation to the Council on whether the Council should further consider it for adoption. In addition, any telephone or written comments received prior to completion of the staff report have been included. Please refer to the staff report (Exhibit 1) for staff analysis of each request relative to the eight selection criteria -1- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE SIX NEW SITE-SPECIFIC REQUESTS RECEIVED IN SEPTEMBER 2000: SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #1 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: 00-104941-00 UP 122103-9029 North ofS 320th St and west of 30th Ave SW (Exhibit 2, Page 2 of 11) 28.79 acres Richard Senn Same Same Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 7.2 (one unit per 7,200 square feet) to Multi-family and RM 3600 (one unit per 3.600 square feet) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Single Family High Density Residential RS 7.2 Multi- family RM 3600 Staff Recommendation: That the request not go forward for further analysis because it does not meet Selection Criteria No's 1 and 2. LUTC Recommendation: Public Comments Received: Concur with staff Three telephone calls have been received voicing concern about potential increased density on this site. In addition, two neighbors, one of whom had also telephoned, visited the Community Development Services Office to discuss the request. -2- SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #2 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Owner: Request: 00-104926-00 UP 082104-9074,082104-9076 & 082104-9167 North of S 312th St and east of 151 Ave S (Exhibit 2, Page 3 of 11) 4.03 acres Paul Benton Same Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Professional Office (PO) to Office Park (OP) in order to build senior housing Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Professional Office Professional Office (PO) Office Park Office Park (OP) Staff Recommendation: That the request goes forward for further analysis with the goal of allowing senior housing. LUTC Recommendation: During the March 5, 2001 meeting, the applicant, Paul Benton, withdrew the request because his client was no longer interested in pursuing senior housing in Federal Way due to market saturation. -3- SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #3 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Owner: Request: 00-104891-00 UP 082104-9138 South of S 308th St and west of 14th Ave S (Exhibit 2, Page 4 of 11) 0.71 acres/31,050 sq ft John Nguyen Same Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of the Lake Apartments from Professional Office (PO) to Multifamily and RM 1800 (one unit per 1,800 square feet) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Professional Office Professional Office (PO) Multi-family RM 1800 (1 unit per 1,800 sq ft) Staff Recommendation: LUTC Recommendation: Public Comments Received: That the request goes forward for further analysis. Concur with staff One telephone call was received from a neighbor, voicing a concern about privacy if additional units were built. -4- SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #4 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: 00-104441-00 UP 726120-0060 East of 33rd PI S in East Campus (Exhibit 2, Page 5 of 11) 3.1 acres John Smith Harry Horan Rachel Smith Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 to Office Park (OP) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Single Family High Density Residential RS9.6 Office Park Office Park (OP) Staff Recommendation: LUTC Recommendation: Public Comments Received: That the request goes forward for further analysis. Concur with staff None -5- SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #5 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: 00-104875-00 UP 202104-9121 North of S 344th St and west of Pacific Hwy S (Exhibit 2, Page 6 of 11) 1.43 acres Chong Nam Yi Harry Horan Yi/Roe Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park (BP) to Community Business (Be) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Business Park Business Park (BP) Community Business Community Business (Be) Staff Recommendation: LUTC Recommendation: Public Comments Received: That the request go forward for further analysis. Concur with staff None -6- SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #6 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: 00-104224-00 UP 302104-9033 South of proposed Silverwood Subdivision, west of 9th Ave SW (Exhibit 2, Page 7 of 11) 15.46 acres Richard Hanson De-En Lang, Subdivision Management Richard Hanson Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0, to Single Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Single Family Medium Density Residential RS 15.0 Single Family High Density Residential RS9.6 Staff Recommendation: LUTC Recommendation: Public Comments Received: That the request goes forward for further analysis. Concur with staff Two telephone calls voicing concerns about potential cluster development on the site were received. -7- REQUEST TO AMEND mE TEXT OF mE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: A request was received from Rhys Sterling on behalf of Jean Suh to change the text of the comprehensive plan as follows: 1. On Page IV -4, under Residential Areas, delete the last eight words of the sentence as follows: The City of Federal Way encourages integration of high-density housing with retail and other uses, @sp@cÏally along SR 99 and iN th@ City C@nt@r. 2. On page IV-B, under Economic Development Goals, add the following goal: EDG4 The City will encourage the integration of high-density single-family and multi-family housing with compatible retail and other non- residential uses. 3. On Page IV-14, under Economic Development Goals, add the following goal: EDP23 The City will actively permit retail and other non-residential commercial uses within existing high density single-family and multi-family residential zoned areas, subject to minimum conditions imposed under Process III to ensure such integrated uses are compatible, and public health, safety, and welfare are protected. Staff Recommendation: That the request not go forward for further analysis because it does not meet Selection Criterion No 2. LUTC Recommendation: Concur with staff Public Comments Received: One telephone call, requesting a copy of the application materials, was received. -8- NOTE: There were four carry-over requests from previous years. These requests have already gone through the selection process, and will be analyzed along with the above-described requests as part of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. A description of these requests can be found on pages 17 through 20 of Exhibit 1 - February 28, 2001, Staff Report to the Land Use/Transportation Committee. Their locations are shown on pages 8 through 11 of Exhibit 2. III COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-523(D), based on its review of requests according to the criteria in Section V of Exhibit 1- February 28, 2001 Staff Report, the City Council shall determine which requests shall be further considered for adoption, and shall forward those requests to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. The Council's decision to consider a proposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted, nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration. IV NEXT STEPS IN THE PROCESS The next steps in the comprehensive plan update process will be preapplication conferences for those projects selected for further analysis by the Council. Following the preapplication stage, an environmental determination will be issued pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This will be followed by public hearings in front of the Planning Commission. Following the completion of the public hearings by the Planning Commission, their recommendation will be forwarded to the LUTC, then the City Council for final action. IV LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 February 28,2001, Staff Report to the LUTC Maps of Site Specific Requests K:IComprehensive Plan\200]104170] LUTC Recommendation on Comp Plan Selection Process to City Council.doclLast printed 04110/200] 02:20 PM -9- February 28, 2001 To: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMO RAND UM Dean McColgan, Chair Land Useffransportation Committee (LUTe) Kathy McClung, Director of Community Development Services Margaret H. Clark, AICP, Senior Planner It-*' David ~er Selection Process - 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update A. BACKGROUND The City of Federal Way updates its comprehensive phin once per year, starting September 30th of each year. As discussed in the attached staff report, the City received six new site-specific requests and one request to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan in September 200 I. We also have four requests from previous years that have already been through the Selection Process, and are waiting for the Transportation Model to be finalized prior to being presented to the City's Development Review Committee for review. . Staff is proposing to combine the site-specific requests received in September 200 with those requests received in previous years in order to complete them all this year, and be on schedule for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle (deadline for these request is September 200 I). B. PROPOSAL 1. Following is a summary of the six-site specific requests received in September 2000: a) Site Speâfic Request #1 - Request from Richard Senn to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of28.79 acres located north of South 320th Street and west of 30th Avenue SW from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 7.2 (one unit per 7,200 square feet) to Multifamily and RM 3600 (one unit per 3,600 square feet). b) Site Specific Request #2 - Request from Paul Benton to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 4.03 acres located north of South 3 12th Street and east of 1st Avenue South from Professional Office (PO) to Office Park (OP). c) Site Specific Request #3 - Request from John Nguyen to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 0.71 acres located south of South 308th Street and west of 14th Avenue South from Professional Office (PO) to Multifamily and RM 1800 (one unit per 1,800 square feet). EXHIB""r...J~... . PAGE...L~f 41- d) Site Specific Request #4 - Request from John Smith to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning 00.1 acres located east of 33rd Place South in East Campus from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 (one unit per 9,600 square feet) to Office Park (OP). e) Site Specific Request #5 - Request from Chong Nam Yi to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 1.43 acres located north of South 344th Street and west of Pacific Highway South from Business Park (BP) to Community Business (BC). f) Site Specific Request #6 - Request from Richard Hanson to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 8.16 acres located south of the proposed Silverwood Subdivision, west of 9th Avenue SW from Single Family Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (one unit per 15,000 square feet) to Single Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 (one unit per 9,600 square feet). 2. Request to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A request was received from Rhys Sterling on behalf of Jean Suh to change the text of the comprehensive plan to allow compatible retail and other non-residential uses in areas designated for high-density single-family and multi-family uses. c. RECOMMENDA nON Staff is recommending that Site-Specific Request #1 not be considered further because it does not meet certain selection criteria as discussed in the attached staff report, and that Site-Specific Requests #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 be analyzed further. Also, staff recommends that the text amendment to allow compatible retail and other non-residential uses in areas designated for high- density single-family and multi-family uses not be considered further because it is not consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. In addition, the code already allows for Home Occupations in residentially zoned areas. ApPROY AL OF COMMITIEE ACTION: e22/1fc? ~ an McColgan .. ~'IJØ~ Jeanne Burbidge Eric Faison Page 2 EX~"B"T. I P AGE. 2 ,..¡( Jf1- K:\Comprehensive Plan\200llMemo to LUTC on Selection Process for 030501 Mtg.docILlSt printed 021281200101:40 PM CITY Of FEDERAL WAY STAFF REPORT February 26, 2001 Selection Process -- 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update I BACKGROUND A formal process for updating the comprehensive plan and development regulations was adopted in March 1999. This process sets up a yearly deadline of September 30 to submit applications for amendments. Pursuant to Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-523, after the deadline for accepting applications, the City Council shall hold a public hearing and select those docketed amendment requests it wishes to consider for adoption. It is the City's practice that all City business be presented to a Council Committee, in this case the Land Useffransportation Committee, before Council deliberation. Changes and updates to the comprehensive plan can be divided into updates to chapters and requests for changes to comprehensive plan designations and zoning for specific parcels. A. Status of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1. The 2000 Comprehensive Plan Update The City is in the process of working on the 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendn1ents (requests received September 1999). These site-specific requests were presented to the Council on October 17,2000 to determine which requests should go forward for further analysis. The next stage in the Amendment Process is review by the City of Federal Way Development Review Committee (ORC). The Development Review Committee is comprised of representatives from the City of Federal Way Planning and Building Divisions, the Public Works and Public Safety Departments, as well as the Lakehaven Utility District and Federal Way Fire Department. The DRC reviews requests to identify any significant impacts that may result from changes in comprehensive plan designation and zoning. One of the impacts normally analyzed is impact on the transportation system. The City has recently updated the Transportation Model. The Model, although built, is undergoing further analysis in order to evaluate the Year 2000 Requests. Once analysis is complete, we will present the Year 2000 Requests to the DRC for review. EVW"~nTJ . P A (;, L --3.. -' I ~ Jf.L- 2. The 2001 Comprehensive Plan -Update In September 2000, the City received six new site-specific requests for changes to the comprehensive plan designation and zoning. We also received one request for changes to the text ofthe comprehensive plan. 3. Proposal to Combine the 2000 and 2001 Comprehensive Plan Updates Staff is proposing to combine the site-specific requests received in September 1999 and those received in September 2000 due to the following reasons: (a) The site-specific requests received in September 1999, although having completed the Selection Process, cannot move forward until further analysis of the Transportation Model has been completed. (b) The previous deadline for the Five-Year Update of the Comprehensive Plan was September 2002. A bill has been introduced to extend that date to September 2004 for King County cities. This means that as part of the 200 I Update, we can review the Site Specific Requests received in September 2000 without having to make substantive text changes to comply with the Five-Year Update requirements. (c) Due to their scope, Phase II of the Potential Annexation Area (PAA) Study, the Planned Action SEP A for the downtown, and changes to address the Endangered Species Act (ESA) will not be completed in 2001. With a pending change in deadline from September 2002 to September 2004 for the Five-Year Update, we can complete the site-specific requests submitted to date without delay. As a result, staff is bringing forward the site-specific requests received in September 2000 for the Selection Process, in order to combine them with the two sets of requests previously received (those received in September 1999 and those received in September 2000) to move them forward simultaneously through the process. The alternativè would be to complete the 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process (requests received in September 1999), and then process those requests received for the 2001 Update (requests received in September 2000). By combining the 2000 and 2001 site-specific requests, we will be able to complete both updates in 2001 and be on schedule for the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Update (deadline for these requests is September 2001) during which we will incorporate those items referenced in 3( c), above. B. 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update - Site-Specific Comprehensive Plan Changes 1. In September 2000, the City received the following six site-specific requests (Exhibit A Composite Map): (a) Request from Richard Senn to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of28.79 acres located north of South 320th Street and west of 30th Page 2 of22 E","" ~" -~ ", r-'I n"""',l ¡;< 1<' : ., PAGL-4,.A -4L Avenue SW from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 7.2 (one unit per 7,200 square feet) to Multifamily and RM 3600 (one unit per3,600 square feet) (ExhibitB). (b) Request from Paul Benton to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 4.03 acres located north of South 312111 Street and east of 1st Avenue South from Professional Office (PO) to Office Park (OP) (Exhibit C). (c) Request from John Nguyen to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 0.71 acres located south of South 308111 Street and west of 14111 Avenue South from Professional Office (PO) to Multifamily and RM 1800 (one unit per 1,800 square feet) (Exhibit D). (d) Request from John Smith to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of3.1 acres located east of33rd Place South in East Campus from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 (one unit per 9,600 square feet) to Office Park (OP) (Exhibit E). (e) Request from Chong Nam Yi to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 1.43 acres located north of South 344th Street and west of Pacific Highway South from Business Park (BP) to Community Business (BC) (Exhibit F). (f) Request from Richard Hanson to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of8.16 acres located south of the proposed Silverwood Subdivision, west of 9th Avenue SW from Single Family Medium Density Residential and RS 15.0 (one unit per 15,000 square feet) to Single Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 (one unit per 9.600 square feet) (Exhibit G). 2. The following requests were received in September 2000 and have already been through the Selection Process. (a) Request from DMB Consulting Engineers on behalf of the owners of the . Goodwin Dental Clinic to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 0.48 acres located north of South 288th Street and east of Pacific Highway South from Multifamily and RM 1800 (one unit per 1,800 square feet) to Community Business and BC zoning (Exhibit H). (b) Request from Jerry Jackson on behalf of himself and others for a City of Federal Way Community Business comprehensive plan designation and BC zoning with a Development Agreement associated with annexation of27.19 acres located north ofSW 320th Street and east ofI-5. The property presently has a King County Comprehensive Plan Designation of Commercial Outside of Office and Urban Residential (4-12 dwelling units per acre) and zoning of Office and R-4 (Residential, four units per acre) (Exhibit I). 3. Requests received in Apri/1999 and deferred for review based on applicants' request: Page 3 of22 E,,~~~rT ~~~-~ P A G L -5:. .2': 4I= (a) Request from a number of property owners to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 45.85 acres located south of South 336111 Street and west of Pacific Highway South from Business Park and BP zoning to Community Business and BC zoning and Multifamily (Exhibit 1). The properties located east ofthe wetlands and adjacent to Pacific Highway South are requested to be Community Business and the northern three parcels west of the wetlands are requested to be Multifamily (b) Request from the Weyerhaeuser Company to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 49.97 acres located south of South 336th Street and east of Pacific Highway South from Business Park and BP zoning to Multifamily and RM 3600 zoning (one unit per 3,600 square feet) (Exhibit K). C. Request For Change To Comprehensive Plan Text A request was received from Rhys Sterling on behalf of Jean Suh to change the text of the comprehensive plan as follows (Exhibit L): 1. On Page IV -4, under Residential Areas, delete the last eight words of the sentence as follows: The City of Federal Way encourages integration of high-density housing with retail and other uses, @sp@cially along SR 99 and in the City C@nt@r. 2. On page IV-B, under Economic Development Goals, add the following goal: EDG4 The City will encourage the integration of high-density single-family and multi-family housing with compatible retail and other non-residential uses. 3. On Page IV-14, under Economic Development Goals, add the following goal: - EDP23 The City will actively permit retail and other non-residential commercial uses within existing high density single-family and multi-family residential zoned areas, subject to minimum conditions imposed under Process III to ensure such integrated uses are compatible, and public health, safety, and welfare are protected. II REASON FOR COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC Article IX, "Process VI Review," the City Council is required to review all requests concurrently. Further, prior to adoption, the Council is required to hold a public hearing, at which time it selects those amendment requests it wishes to consider for adoption based on specific criteria outlined in Section IV of this staff report. Page 4 of 22 EX~" F'- ~-r- I . PI h 6" . --' " , M.~L... -¡¡ -r- III PROCEDURAL SUMMARY FOR 2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS September 30, 2000 Deadline for Applications March 5, 2001 LUTC Meeting - A summary of all requests will be presented to the LUTC for detennination of which requests should be considered during the upcoming amendment process. April 17, 2001 Public Hearing by City Council. IV DECISIONAL CRITERIA The following criteria shall be used in selecting the comprehensive plan amendments to be addressed during the upcoming cycle: 1. Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. 3. Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. 4. In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated accordiRg to the following criteria: 5. Whether the proposed amendment can be incorporated into planned or active projects. 6. Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large-scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to workloads, staffing levels, etc. 7. Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year. 8. Order of requests received. Based on its review of requests according to the above criteria, the Council shall detennine which requests shall be further considered for adoption, and shall forward those requests to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. Page 5 of22 Ey"=,,nr-)"~ , PAGLJvÎ 4L v STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #1 00-104941-00 UP 122103-9029 North ofS 320th St and west of 30th Ave SW (Exhibit B) 28.79 acres Richard Senn Same Same Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 7.2 (one unit per 7,200 sq ft) to Multi-family and RM 3600 (one unit per 3.600 sq ft) File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Single Family High Density Residential RS7.2 Multi-family RM 3600 DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response This area was not studied during the last amendment process. This apartment complex was approved by King County as Quail Run III; a Planned Unit Development (PUD) of 166 attached units and was recorded on December 1989, prior to the City's incorporation. At that time, ihe King County zoning was Suburban Residential (SR). As stated in King County, Title 21 - Zoning, the intent of a PUD is to permit flexibility that will encourage a more creative approach in the development of land. Upon incorporation, the site was zoned RS 7.2 (Single Family - one unit per 7,200 square feet) by Federal Way. Apartments are a legal nonconforming use in this zone. The complex has since been renamed as Forest Village. Adjacent uses to the east and west are single family residential. To the north is vacant property owned by Collella Estates, for which there is an application in process for preliminary plat approval for 108 lots. To the south are condominiums (Quail Run Divisions I and II). Existing density is 5.77 units per acre. A zoning ofRM 3.6 allows a density of approximately 12 units per acre, which could potentially allow an additional 179 units for a total of345 units. Based on a site visit, there are steep slopes on the western portion of the site through which Joe's Creek runs. Joe's Creek discharges into the nearshore environment (Shorelines), critical habitat for the threatened Chinook Salmon species. The remaining area is developed with two-story attached units. An RM 3.6 zoning could result in doubling the density. Conditions have not changed since construction in 1989/ "~.J . J~I I EX. ;~..; ..;.\ ' 0 .-. PÁ~L-O-JÎ -lfJ- Page 6 of22 1990 to make the requested change within the public interest, especially as the complex is selVed by one access only, 30th Avenue SW, which is only a half street for a portion of its length. Originally, there was a second access, SW 3 19th, a private road through Quail Run Phases I and II. However, this private road has been blocked by the residents of Quail Run I and II due to through traffic from Quail Run III. Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response The site has been developed as a Planned Unit Development since 1989/1990. The existing development fits in with adjacent uses. However, potentially doubling the density would not be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal LUG3 - Preserve and protect Federal Way's single-fami/y neighborhoods. Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Staff Response The proposal does not conflict with any existing state or local laws, including the Growth Management Act. The area is already developed with all existing selVices. However, as mentioned under Criterion 1 above, there is only one access to Forest Village presently, which does not meet City code. Ifthe request was approved, and a multi-family land use designation was granted, any future development pennit would have to meet all City requirements. Criterion No 4 In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. Staff Response This criterion does not apply to this request, since it is a site-specific request. - If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Please note that the response to the following Criteria 5, 6, and 7are the same for all six requests and therefore, only one analysis will be done for these three criteria. Criterion No 5 Whether the proposed amendment can be incorporated into planned or active projects Staff Response The proposed requests can be incorporated into this year's comprehensive plan update. Criterion No 6 Amount of analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on the request. If a large-scale study is required, a request may have to be delayed until the following year due to workloads, staffing levels, etc. Page 7 of22 ~Ä~ ~ ", V /]j.r . Staff Response The analysis necessary to reach a recommendation on these requests can be done as part of the work required for the combined 2000 and 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update. Criterion No 7 Volume of requests received. A large volume of requests may necessitate that some requests be reviewed in a subsequent year Staff Response Six new requests for site-specific comprehensive plan amendments and one request for a text amendment have been received. In addition, the Council approved two requests to be considered further for the 2000 Update and there were also two requests carried over from 1999, based on requests of the applicants and the need for additional market and transportation-related information. This brings the total to ten site-specific requests and one request for a text amendment. These requests can all be processed this year. Furthermore, processing the site-specific requests concurrently will enable staff to analyze the overall impact on the transportation system and the demand for land. Criterion No 8 Order of requests received Staff Response This was the sixth site-specific request received. Staff Recommendation: That the request not go forward for further analysis because it does not meet Criteria No's 1 and 2. SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #2 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Owner: Request: 00-104926-00 UP 082104-9074,082104-9076 & 082104-9167 North of S 312th St and east of 1 st Ave S (Exhibit C) 4.03 acres Paul Benton Same Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Professional Office (PO) to Office Park (OP) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Professional Office Professional Office (PO) Office Park Office Park (OP) Page 8 of22 E)(~~~r-r-' . PAG¡¿1Q. ~r-4l- DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response This area was studied as part of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. At that time, these parcels had a comprehensive plan designation of Suburban Residential and zoning of Professional Office (PO). The applicant requested a comprehensive plan designation of Office Park to eliminate the inconsistency between PO zoning and the Suburban Residential land use designation. The City Council approved the request to designate the parcels with an Office Park Land Use designation, which at that time corresponded to the PO zoning. During the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process, a new Comprehensive Plan designation of Professional Office was added to reflect more closely uses allowed in the Professional Office Zone. The applicant is requesting OP zoning to build senior housing. Land uses in the immediate vicinity have not significantly changed during the last five years. The adjacent use to the north is a single- family development, Parkwood Campus, which was constructed after incorporation of the City in 1990. The adjacent use to the east is also single-family. The use to the south is a multi-family complex (Greystone Meadows Apartments), and across the street to the west is a 7-11 convenience store and Papa John's Pizza on the comer with vacant land further to the north. Senior housing is allowed in the RS Single Family Residential zone and all Multi-Family zones, either of which may be more appropriate zoning for this location than an Office Park (OP) zone. Senior housing is also allowed in the Community Business (BC), City Center Core (CC-C), City Center Frame (CC-F). Office Park (OP), and Business Park (BP) zones. These commercial designations are not appropriate for this location. Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensiye plan. Staff Response The overall vision of the comprehensive plan is to provide an appropriate balance of services, employment, and housing. This comer was designated Professional Office to provide for small- scale office development compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Designating these parcels as Office Park would not conform to this vision as the Office Park Designation allows for a mix of office and compatible manufacturing type activities with a limited amount of retail support services. Therefore, Office Park uses would not be appropriate for this location. Moreover, a Market Study prepared for the City in 2000 found that the City has enough capacity designated for different uses to accommodate the 20-year employment forecast. However, while there is adequate land for employment growth in the aggregate, several districts achieve more than 50 percent buildout. These are Neighborhood Business (BN), City Center Frame (CC-F), Corporate Park (CP-l), and Professional Office (PO). Even though the majority of uses allowed in the OP zone may not be appropriate for this location, senior housing would be compatible with surrounding uses. Page 9 of22 E'~~-Jf~~~~ I PA~L--11--,¡o 4L Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Staff Response The proposal does not conflict with any existing state or local laws, including the Growth Management Act. However, these parcels are located within the Mirror Lake Basin, which has been experiencing flooding problems. Development of this site for any use will have to meet the requirements of the King County Water Surface Water Design Manual. Criterion No 4 In the case oftext amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. Staff Response This criterion does not apply to this, since this is a site-specific request. If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Please refer to responses under Site Specific Request # 1 for Criteria 5, 6, and 7. Criterion No 8 Order of requests received. Staff Response This was the fifth site-specific request received. Staff Recommendation: Based on information provided by the applicant, they are requesting an OP zoning so that they can build senior housing. Senior housing is also allowed in the RS (Single Family Residential) and the RM (Multi-family zone), either of which may be more appropriate zoning for this location_than an Office Park (OP) zone. Staff recommends that this request be analyzed further with the goal of allowing senior housing. SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #3 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Owner: Request: 00-104891-00 UP 082104-9138 South ofS 308th St and west of 14th Ave S (Exhibit D) 0.71 acresl31,050 sq ft John Nguyen Same Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of the Lake Apartments from Professional Office (PO) to Multifamily and RM 1800 (one unit per 1,800 square feet) Page to of22 EYP~"" r"'l"' ~~ I . P A b I::. J2....; r -4L Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Professional Office Professional Office (PO) Multi-family RM 1800 (1 unit per 1,800 sq ft) DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response This area was not studied during the last amendment process. The Lake Apartments, a IS-unit complex, was constructed in 1958. At the time of City incorporation in 1990, it was zoned Multifamily (RM 900) by King County. Federal Way adopted a zoning of Professional Office for this apartment complex and the two parcels to the north, Existing uses in this area include a dental office to the north, Southridge House, a senior housing complex to the east, the Lake Easter Estates Condominiums to the west and the Liberty Lake Condominiums to the south. Conditions in the immediate vicinity have not significantly changed in recent years. However, the Lake Apartments are an existing legal nonconforming use and changing the land use designation and zoning to RM - Multifamily and RM 1.8 (Multi-family, one unit per 1,800 square feet) would make the use consistent with the zoning, while not impacting surrounding uses. Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response Policy LUP23 of the Comprehensive Plan reads, "Support multiple family development with transportation and capital facilities improvements". The Lakes Apartments are located one block to the west of Pacific Highway and approximately half a block north of South 312th Street. - Transportation is readily accessible as both Pacific Highway and South 3 12th Street are bus routes. Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. . Staff Response The proposal does not conflict with any existing state or local laws. Criterion No 4 In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. Staff Response This criterion does not apply to this request, since it is a site-specific request. Page II of22 EY"-" " r- ~-- I PAGt:.ß-,-,I- 4l- If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Please refer to responses under Site Specific Request # I for Criteria 5, 6, and 7. Criterion No 8 Order of requests received. Staff Response This was the fourth request received. Staff Recommendation That the request goes forward for further analysis. SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #4 00-104441-00 UP 726120-0060 East of33rd PI S in East Campus (Exhibit E) 3.1 acres John Smith Harry Horan Rachel Smith Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family High Density Residential and RS 9.6 to Office Park (OP-l) File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Single Family High Density Residential RS9.6 Office Park Office Park (OP-l) DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantiy changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response This area was not studied during the last amendment process. It was annexed in 1994 as part of a much larger annexation, the East Campus Annexation. Since that time, East Campus has seen a great demand for office development. The use to the north is the Slavik Gospel Church. The use to the east and south consists of office buildings under construction for Weyerhaeuser use, uses to the northwest across 33rd PI S is residential along North Lake and uses to the southwest is part of the Weyerhaeuser Corporate headquarters. Due to all the recent office development in this area, a case can be made that conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Page 12 of22 E,VP-~ n r---- I P A G I:: l.1f V I~ 111- Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response The overall vision of the comprehensive plan is to provide an appropriate balance of services, employment, and housing. A Market Study prepared for the City in 2000 identifies that the finance, insurance, real estate, and services (FIRES) sector has the greatest demand for future built space. However, the Market Study also states that there may not be enough land zoned outright for residential uses to accommodate projected residential uses. Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Staff Response The request for an Office Park comprehensive land use designation and zoning is not inconsistent with existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Criterion No 4 In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. Staff Response This criterion does not apply to this request, since it is a site-specific request. If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Please refer to responses under Site Specific Request #1 for Criteria 5, 6, and 7. Criterion No 8 Order of requests received. Staff Response This was the second request received. Staff Recommendation That the request goes forward for further analysis SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #5 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: 00-104875-00 UP 202104-9121 North ofS 344'" St and west of Pacific Highway S (Exhibit F) 1.43 acres Chong Nam Yi Page 13 of22 EXc.LI..."~.:...r'~ .L ", rfD1!. '. . '. l.. ~ PAGE-1S.v~~ Agent: Owner: Request: Harry Horan YilRoe Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park (BP) to Community Business (BC) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Business Park Business Park (BP) Community Business Community Business (BC) DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response This area was not studied during the last amendment process. However, in April 1999, the City received a request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 45.85 acres located just south of South 336th Street and west of Pacific Highway from Business Park to Community Business (please refer to Site Specific Request #9 and Exhibit G). In April 1999, the City also received a request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of 49.97 acres located just south of South 336th Street and east of Pacific Highway from Business Park to Multi-family (please refer to Site Specific Request # 1 0 and Exhibit H). The two requests received in April 1999 will be processed concurrently with those requests received in September 2000, and those received in September 2001. This will allow staff to evaluate all requests concurrently to determine the impact on the Business Park-zoned land. The existing use to the north is a tow company and mobile home. To the east is Neimen Glass. To the west are industrial office buildings and to the south is storage. However, the property to the south was recently purchased by Lloyd's Trucking. Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response The overall vision of the Comprehensive Plan is to restrict commercial development to the downtown (City Center Core and Frame), to Pacific Highway South, generally between South 272nd Street and South 348th Street, and to the areas found around South 348th Street, approximately between SR-99 and 1-5. In addition, there are a dozen nodes of Neighborhood Business located throughout the City. These nodes have traditionally provided retail and services to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The Market Study prepared for the City in 2000 identifies that the City has enough capacity designated for commercial uses to accommodate the 20-year employment forecast; therefore, there is not a demand for additional commercially zoned land. The Study also identified that there would be a demand for 11 to 13 percent of Business Park zoned land from 2000 to 2020, a 20-year planning horizon. However, in the last year since the base data for the Market Study was collected, the City has experienced increased development of BP-zoned land. EJf~--"~1' -- ,_- PAGE--1.1aur- JIL Page 14 of22 Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Staff Response The proposal does not conflict with any existing state or local laws. Criterion No 4 In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. Staff Response This criterion does not apply to this request, since it is a site-specific request. If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Please refer to responses under Site Specific Request #1 for Criteria 5,6, and 7. Criterion No 8 Order of requests received. Staff Response This was the third request received. Staff Recommendation That the request goes forward for further analysis. The additional analysis should analyze the location and amount of vacant buildable Business Park-zoned land in light of recent development taken in the context of Requests #9 and #10. SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #6 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: 00-104224-00 UP 302104-9033 South of proposed Silverwood Subdivision, west of 9th Ave SW (Exhibit G) 8.16 acres Richard Hanson De-En Lang, Subdivision Management Richard Hanson Request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Single Family Medium Density Residential/RS 15.0 to Single Family High Density Residential/RS 9.6 Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Single Family Medium Density Residential RS 15.0 Page 15 of22 EXH ~ ~~"T --~-J PAGE~~¡~ -¥1-" Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Single Family High Density Residential RS9.6 DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response This parcel was part of a larger parcel requesting a change in comprehensive plan designation and zoning of Urban Residential and RS 9.6 (Single Family, one unit per 9,600 square feet) in 1995. At that time, the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan stated that upon availability of sewers, an increase in density might be warranted. Only a portion of the total area requesting the comprehensive plan amendment was granted the request. The area granted a change from RS 15.0 (Single Family Residential, one unit per 15,000 square feet) zoning to RS 9.6 (Single Family Residential, one unit per 9,600 square feet) zoning is now under review as the Silverwood plat. The reason that "Silverwood" was granted a change in designation was that the owners committed to the City that sewer would be extended to serve the area. With the area to the north being developed as single family lots, and sewer having been extended to the north of the Hanson property, conditions in the area have changed. However, there are still single-family development on large lots to the east and south. Property to the west is the 363rd Open Space, owned by the City of Federal Way. There is wetland located on the western portion of the site. Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response The Comprehensive Plan (page 11-13) states that the Single Family Medium Density designation creates urban lots with a density range of one to three dwelling units per acre to avoid developing on or near environmentally sensitive areas. However, Federal Way Policy LUP9 states, "Designate and zone land for Federal Way's share of regionally-adopted demand forecasts for residential, commercial and industrial uses for the next 20 years." RS 9.6 zoning would allow for 4.5 units per acre, as opposed to the presently allowable density of2.9 units per acre. The Market Study prepared for the City in 2000, identifies a shortage of land zoned outright for residential development in tenDS of meeting regional forecasts, based on historical development. Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Staff Response The proposal does not conflict with any existing state or local laws. In addition, GMA goals include encouraging growth in urban areas and reducing urban sprawl, which should be furthered by development of this site. Page 16 of 22 EXH"BMT I . . PAG E-1J~ ~--ÆL Criterion No 4 In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. Staff Response This criterion does not apply to this request, since it is a site-specific request. If the request meets the criteria set forth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Please refer to responses under Site Specific Request #1 for Criteria 5, 6, and 7. Criterion No 8 Order of requests received. Staff Response This was the first request received. Staff Recommendation That the request goes forward for further analysis. The following requests were received in September 2000 and have already been through the Selection Process. SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #7 File Number: Parcel: Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owner: Request: CPA99-0011 332204-9109 North of2881h St and east of Pacific Highway (Exhibit H) 0.48 acres. . Thomas Goodwin and Carl Jacobson DMB Consulting Engineers Thomas Goodwin and Carl Jacobson (Goodwin Dental Clinic) To change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Multifamily (RM 1800 -- one unit per 1,800 square feet) to Community Business (BC) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Council Determination: Multifamily RM 1800 Community Business Community Business (BC) Analyze the request further based on a comprehensive plan designation and zoning of Community Business and BC Page 17 of 22 E" W " ~ M'"'I"" J "~,f'--!1 . G~-" P A G E..l! V ~c --'f1-' SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #8 Location: Size: Applicant: Agent: Owners: Parcel No. Owner Acres 092104-9139 All-American Homes 9.15 acres 092104-9316 All-American Homes 0.33 acres 092104-9187 Larry Weigel 1.15 acres 092104-9140 Donald 1. Henderson 2.28 acres 092104-9206 Arthur Henderson 0.33 acres 092104-9028 William Pruett 5.25 acres 092104-9310 Winchester Investment Corporation 4.6 acres 092104-9318 Youngyul Na 4.1 acres Total 27.19 acres CP A99-00 14 092104-9139;092104-9316;092104-9187;092104-9140;092104-9206; 0921049028;092104-9310&092104-9318 North ofSW 320tb St and east ofI-5 (Exhibit l) 27.19 acres Jerry Jackson Jerry Jackson Please refer to following table File Number: Parcels: Request: To change the comprehensive plan and zoning from King County Comprehensive Plan Designation of Commercial Outside of Office and Urban Residential (4-12 dwelling units per acre) to Community Business with a Development Agreement Existing Comprehensive Plan: King County Comprehensive Plan Designation of Commercial Outside of Office and Urban Residential (4-12 dwelling units per acre) Existing Zoning: King County Office and R-4 (Residential, four units per acre) Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Council Determination: Community Business with a Development Agreement Analyze the request further based on a comprehensive plan designation and zoning of Office Park and OP. The two following requests were originally submitted in April 1999. Based on traffic-related questions, and questions pertaining to supply and demand of variously zoned land in the Òty, the applicants requested that work be deferred on their requests until a citywide market analysis and transportation model had been completed. The market analysis has been completed. The transportation model has been built, but is undergoingfurther analysis. SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #9 Applicant: Owner: CP A99-0008 202104-9069,202104-9070,202104-9001, 202104-9090, 202104-9086, 202104-9080,202104-9072,202104-9004,202104-9051, & 202104-9100 South of S 336tb St and west of Pacific Highway S (Exhibit J) 45.85 acres Richard Borsini on behalf of Campus Gateway Associates, Gene Merlino, and Chase WN Trust Please refer to following table Please refer to following table File Number: Parcels: Location: Size: Agent: Page 18 of22 E"~~pM-r.- I P AGE ~ ...J ¡ <:-41- Number Parcel No. Owner Acres I 202104-9069 Johal Rajhinder, Kulwinder 1.15 acres 2 202104-9070 Campus Gateway Associates 16.75 acres 3 202104-900 I Gene Merlino 8.9 acres 4 202104-9090 Richard Lyons 0.2 acres 5 202104-9086 Richard Carson 4.93 acres 6 202104-9080 Ralph Jones 1.5 acres 7 202104-9072 Chase WN Trust 7.75 acres 8 202104-9004 Slisco/KnightlDagmar 4.44 acres 9 202104-9051 Bob Wright 8.28 acres 10 202104-9100 Orville & Victoria Cohen 0.85 acres Total 45.85 acres Request: To change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park (BP) to Community Business (Be) for areas east of the wetlands and Multifamily and RM 2400 for the northern three parcels west of the wetlands (numbers 2,3, and 7 in the above table) Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Business Park Business Park (BP) Council Determination: Community Business for the areas east of the wetlands and Multifamily for the northern three parcels west of the wetlands (numbers 2, 3, and 7 in the above table) Community Business (Be) Business for the areas east of the wetlands and Multifamily (RM 2400) for the northern three parcels west of the wetlands (numbers 2, 3, and 7 in the above table) Analyze the request further based on a comprehensive plan designation and zoning of Community Business (BC) for areas east of the wetlands and Multifamily and RM 2400 for the northern three parcels west of the wetlands (numbers 2,3, and 7 in the above table) Proposed Zoning: SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST #10 File Number: Parcels: CP A99-0004 212104-9003,212194-9004,212104-9016,212104-9051,21~104-9063, 212104-9064,212104-9065,212104-9066,212104-9067,212104-9069, 212104-9083, & 212104-9084 South of S 336th St and east of Pacific Highway S (Exhibit K) 49.97 acres Wayne Rankin, Christian Faith Center The Weyerhaeuser Company G. Wayne Potter, Barghausen Consulting Engineers To change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning from Business Park (BP) to Multifamily and RM 3600 zoning (one unit per 3,600 square feet) Location: Size: Applicant: Owner: Agent: Request: E¡~~-"n~""'-' 1- PAGE.-21vf -41-' Page 19 of 22 Parcel No. Acres 212104-9003 5 acres 212194-9004 4.91 acres 212104-9016 5 acres 212104-9051 5 acres 212104-9063 5 acres 212104-9064 4.94 acres 212104-9065 4.92 acres 212104-9066 4.91 acres 212104-9067 2.32 acres 212104-9069 5.01 acres 212104-9083 1.62 acres 212104-9084 1.34 acres Total 49.97 acres Existing Comprehensive Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Comprehensive Plan: Proposed Zoning: Council Determination: Business Park Business Park Multifamily Multifamily - RM 3600 zoning (one unit per 3,600 square feet) Analyze the request further based on a comprehensive plan designation and zoning of Multi-family and RM 3600 zoning (one unit per 3,600 square feet) REQUEST FOR TEXT AMENDMENT A request was received from Rhys Sterling on behalf of Jean Suh to change the text of the comprehensive plan as follows (Exhibit L): 1. On Page IV-4, under Residential Areas, delete the last eight words of the sentence as follows: The City of Federal Way encourages integration of high-density housing with retail and other uses, especially along SR 99 and iR the City Center. 2. On page IV -13, under Economic Development Goals, add the following goal: EDG4 The City will encourage the integration of high-density single-family and multi-family housing with compatible retail and other non-residential uses. 3. On Page IV-14, under Economic Development Goals, add the following goal: EDP23 The City will actively permit retail and other non~residential commercial uses within existing high density single-family and multi-family residential zoned areas. subject to minimum conditions imposed under Process III to ensure such integrated uses are compatible. and public health. safety. and welfare are protected. EY~"B"'" .~. , P A Cd:. -2.1.,---, u -4L' Page 20 of22 DECISIONAL CRITERIA Criterion No 1 Whether the same area or issue was studied during the last amendment process and conditions in the immediate vicinity have significantly changed so as to make the requested change within the public interest. Staff Response This issue has never been studied before. There have been no changes in the City to make the requested change to allow retail and other non-residential uses, not presently allowed, in areas designated as Single Family High Density Residential and Multi-family, in the public interest. Approving such a text amendment may allow these uses in the RS 9600, RS 7200, RS 5000, RM 3600, RM 2400, and RM 1800 zones. Criterion No 2 Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall vision of the comprehensive plan. Staff Response As stated on page II-I of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Concept is the preservation and enhancement of existing residential neighborhoods; therefore, the proposed amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Criterion No 3 Whether the proposed amendment meets existing state and local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Staff Response The proposal does not conflict with any existing state or local laws, including the Growth Management Act. Criterion No 4 In the case of text amendments or other amendments to goals or policies, whether the request benefits the city as a whole versus a selected group. - Staff Response This text amendment would serve to benefit only the applicant. Presently, home occupations are allowed in residential neighborhoods as long as they meet the criteria stated in the code. If the request meets the criteria setforth in 1-4 above, it shall be further evaluated according to the following criteria: Please refer to responses under Site Specific Request #1 for Criteria 5, 6, and 7. Criterion No 8 Order of requests received ---- Staff Response .' This was the third request received. EXJi ~ B ~T ---' PI J~ ~ i,-' ') ~ F- lL' ¡-:",\ui ~ ~ -::¡...L- Page 21 of22 Staff Recommendation: That the request not goes forward for further analysis because it does not meet Criterion No 2. v COUNCIL ACTION Pursuant to FWCC Section 22-523(D), based on its review of requests according to the criteria in Section IV of this staff report, the City Council shall detennine which requests shall be further considered for adoption, and shall forward those requests to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation. The Council's decision to consider a proposed amendment shall not constitute a decision or recommendation that the proposed amendment should be adopted, nor does it preclude later Council action to add or delete an amendment for consideration. VI LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F - Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Composite Map of Site Specific Requests Site Specific Request #1 Site Specific Request #2 Site Specific Request #3 Site Specific-Request #4 Site Specific Request #5 Site Specific Request #6 Site Specific Request #7 Site Specific Request #8 Site Specific Request #9 Site Specific Request #10 Request for a Text Amendment EXHuanrr -1-. - P P\ G E ~:;' F Jf..L- 1:\OOcmpamnlStafT Repon 01\ Selec:lÎon Process 10 &2100 LUTC Meeling.docI2I281O1 I :39 PM Page 22 of22 ~~ G)~ m:=:::ll Q 1- '-:J r ~.~ Oì II IJI! '" , 't: :S' """""'R","A ',P':",I'I"",,,',',m,",'.'.o~,',', i,"" <",.", :I!!"í,;i:',',",II,,"", 1,"'" :\11, .. '" ';~t~;~ ,"':'~;fWI"~"" ..' :1J- :Þ ~';,-~ ' r\\ .;r Y:" '.::I fT. :,:11 I! I ~ ~l t - V J .... , 10 1 ':.4 Mit&$: ,I: h,:,:~':¡',"", "',: ,':,','~,','F'-",' ',~'~A,"","",""""'I;. \';A:l",,';/~ :",'" '," ~l~V'::Ø1I:; 'I~:era:, ,ý:¡v.:ay comp¡~~~iVé Plán SIJE,$P EQIFICRpQ.U EST S FOR,:þ'E>JylPR;EHENS{ME,' P~N. D'f:SfGNÄTfØNCHANGE'$ , , Compo'si te Map .,Site Requests -:l;::(:,City of Fe de ral,Wa y N City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan 20'01 SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR' COM PREHEN SJVE, PLAN DESIGNATION CHANGES R~gÙë$fNurnbe rOné D,P.,c.." - ,^,..II.~d.~ . (I~g CQ~ ~\y ^/S\"'.'"~ 1&1..'4t~(A) 8Sk..$ ...cificA ,"4Ì~d,"" ~\~ 200 1 1ZZI.£;¡¡~b~¡IÍ':n1d 1¡"',<ICky Qrred~ ..TW.y '. " .' .. "'" ..,.' .'. '."'.'.'. 1 0 '0.:1 ~O.'2; Mj{È!s: "".,,~. .":" ","',',.:"... "'<;..;.";' '::'.,'""',,. A. , . f.,J'" City,~()f Fêâera [Way CömþrehcC~~siVEfPlar1 2001 SITE SPECIFIC REQUEST$ FQR ,,'COM PRE:; HEN SIVE PLAN DESIGNATION CHANGES . RëqÙesfN.UrnPerTwó -,. C:::f,:,;tïéc:¡¡; _;W~\I.;'èh' oCl~gCO'O~\y ~S\¡.. ;,,~ .."'. "~'.'c~(AII) _$lc$ pce;l;e A ..c~d..c ~\~ 200 1 I2ZIt~~Ia~ "'8ulll ' H<;",I'¡Ü:/ol rcd~",IW.y :9;" (Q;i;Q~~;'"" . ~;qM;~X~Jw~~ ~,. . ' . :.. ..,'. ",.,- :' ..,'" ,," ')': N 0.Ö4 Q.O4 OJ18, Miles '6-,' "',, 0 = City ofFs:d era (Wa y comprehensive Plan 2001 SITE,SPECIFIC.REOUESTS, FOR CÇ)MÞREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION,'CHANGES R e quest Three ........ D PltO'" ~W.tllndS .",KingCounty N, ,":,:.$",11","" S,' l_LUkes (AIO , " -':SIt.S.p.oltIoA",e~d",enls 100~ [§[I.cay ,ofFede "I-W IY A N O::Ø4: I ~ d Q.O4 ,ä]mr :MìJ~s City of ,F 'ads ratWa y CoJrrprehensive" Plan 20CJ1 SITE"SPECIFIC .REOqESTS ~OR. êØMÞFfE.HENSIVEPLAN DESIGNATION. CHANGES, Reque.st F;öur I' 01".'0811 ~W.tl.nd..Klna County N.s"...ìn. '. llirbkes (AIO ' ."SIt.Sp.ollIoAm.ndm.nts 1QQCI GI:E]CftYOfF .du.1 w.y A' " , " ;. N' O.Q4 0 O~O4 ,O~O8,' J,,1i1e,s, 'r " ..~ I I City of Fe,deral Way Comprehensive. Plan 2001 S ITESPECIFIC REOUEST$" FOR COMÞREMENSlVE' PIAN D ESIGNATIONCHANGES Request Five í D P.tò.,1s ~;w etiands.Klno ,County ~~k.~mJ.IO " , ' _,'SlteSp8òltlo.Amudments"1QQQ ,'lTIIill3",ëayó"Fe'¡eÙI Wiy J 1 ^ W N "'NE :-em . »~ r')y- !J ¿I .. :-.. m~ ~.~.~ (; w :2:;.. W ;~14th>t"FCT:NÊ ' .:$ . '~ -- ! Cï\ .O~Ø4/ P o-~Q4 Q.'~qß.;MH~~ [. City of Federa. Way Comþrehønsive' Plan 2001 SITE' SPECIFI CREQUEST$. FOR.. CØMP.REHENSlVEPtAN' DESIGNATION CHANGES Request Six c:J P.th.1s ~'Wetl.ndl . KIng County /S;/:$ttUttlS _i'~k~li(AIO, . '.., .,Slte Spioltlo'AttI.nclttlents 1OQQ 1lÐ.:ill',ëitYofF.cI.t~1 W.y \. /j'. .' ;'.'. .., .,'."... .',.'". "'" . " ('1 City .ofFederal.,"Way ConiþrehØhsivePlan 2001 SITE" SPE,CIFIÖltEQU EST$, F,OH" c9M,pg'EJ1e N'SJ\fËp.LAN D ESIGNAr(ON,CHANGEËS Request Seven ( c::J P.tnls ml ,,"~.,',',:,W,.,tll,'nds'Klno ,County ~~~tt.Stb~IO ~,;', , ' -""".""", ',",SIt~,~Pto'tío'Am,',t.n(\,,' mtnts1OQO ? ,1JJ:].CItyOfFtd".'W., .::.::. ' :::=::2 ' "-";1', 1~3 1 ] r~l~ r- A N 'O~Ö4' o,ö.ô~ìt:ða IV1Hes , ","'" "'",,,', ," ,'::"'i'" '" ,,", ',,' Ø;íty 'p;f:F'edaratWl/àY/: ',Q:Q4~ ö; O:Q4 O~Q8:'Mîle$ ~- " C...'.' '.,'.'.'...".'."':.,"..i;"...',"","."'" '."'PI' ." "9rn'pre'.':,Ø-h$lvè< ' an ,2001 SITE':: SPEC I FIORE QLJ EST$\: FOR ", pgMÞR'E.MENS:I\lE..Pt:AN ,DESIGNAtiON.: CHANGfËS;' Request Eight' {. 'OP.tII.k ~Wttl.ncìs.(ng County ~~~~t~rn;"IO _Sltt Sp nltio Arntnd rnt nls 1000 DCfty of rtd.,,1 W,V \.. ~ A N 0.08 ~... 0 0;-08 ;Ø';:j(Et::'jfV1m~$;; f;: '""ßm ~ "~ ."',:::::11 "J ] 1 ,4 ¡ " I i ¡ I City of '..FecIeral"'tAI?:y' Comprehensive Plan 2001 SITE SPECifiC REQUESTS FORCqMPREHENSIVE. PLAN DES1GNA TIONCHANG E8 Request Nine 0 ">,, rc:. I.: W4:'~.\i:'1\d,,:"(1~~Co~~~y i")i~"""'I~: ' " ,La~n(AiO , 'Slè ,9Ì1.é:Uc~AÌ.~d,,;.~l~f9 GEI;Clyot l':.ètc..IW8'1 ð N ,0 0.1 :Q::2'Mjlð:Sr m " ,? , c;'~ '~ ') -~1 ~ 'j .;:J , '--J J oj " " '" l1\;'1 :' Øi.tY"",:q("_.'F:eQ:~rb.._".-, ',-v,ý.gy. 'C,om.nrehen:siv.e Plan' . ' ',', "r',-, '2Ô'df' .H~' ,'H F~~~~E::~~~~~~~ DES1GNA TIO NCHANG ES Request Number Ten :~'oIrcels ' ~"We~fol:nds. King County . <.~~ke:~ms' - " , , :;::Slte,SpecI1Jc,Amen dmerits2000 ¡IÈt6s1önHnård , ',', ' 'èityo{F'edérolIWoI ~, .;f\J RHYS A. STERLING, P . E. , Attorney at Law J.D. M\b',+ L- P.O. Box 218 Hobart, Washington 98025-0218 (425) 432-9348 (voice message) E-mail: RhysHobart@aol.com 1495 N.W. Gilman Blvd. Suite 4-G Issaquah, Washington 98027 (425) 391-6650 (daytime) Facsimile (425) 391-6689 September 19, 2000 HAND DELIVERED H[CL' ~:~- -- COMMUNlïY DE'lF--C ~ :(" -: . : Stephen Clifton, Director Community Development Services 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, Washington 98063 .; ¡::c -,,--.\. Re: Jean J. Sub Applications for Amendments to Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to Accommodate Retail and Other Commercial Uses in High Density Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential Zones Dear Mr. Clifton: I represent Jean J. Suh as the owner/resident of the single- family residence at 2011 South 330~ Street, Federal Way, Washing- ton, and the owner as sole proprietor of the Korean Broadcasting Station Radio Hankook (KSUH AM 1450 Puyallup / KWYZ AM 1230 Ever- et t) . . Mrs. Suh respectfully submits the attached two (2) applica- tions to the City of Federal Way for its consideration in amending (a) the Comprehensive Plan and (b) the Development Regulations to generally accommodate retail and other uses in high density resi- dential areas consistent with the "vision" statement as expressed, but as yet unimplemented, under the current Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Suh's suggested amendments initially address the location of radio broadcast stations within appropriate residential zones as one such compatible use. Please phone me at 425-391-6650 if you have any questions re- garding this matter. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, cc: Jean J. Suh RHYS A. STERLING, P.E., J.D. ~-- Rhys A. Sterling Attorney at Law E /\H~~~iT"' I PAGE~F ~ EXH~D~~ 4 PAGEiOF'-' Enclosures . - """'--'-"""-""'" . . _.. ....- ---.-..---.. ...... "'------------'--'--- .-.. ';O!~¡',::!,:-;"~;¡".¡:::".,'.;' .:,Y';:/;{ .. ...------------ CnYi:~ ~~~ERFIL . "..: ..,.,; MASTER LAND USE APPLICATIO~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERViêEs 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA'~'åóo3 (253) 661-4000- Fax(2S3) 661:.4ì29 www.ci.federal-way.WLus September 18,2000 ;", ':: ,. .' . ApPLICATION No 00 - /tJ4&tJ1 -00 - UP Date Project Name Application for Non-Site Specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment Property AddresslLocation Parcel Number(s) Applicant Agent {If Different than Applicant) Name: Jean J. Sub Name: ~ Address: 2011 South 330th st. Address: 'P. o. \$"" JC 218 Federal Way, WA 98003 /(tJLð.r t J W4 9'<:I'O2-S' Phone: (253) 815-1212 Fax:( 251 815-1913 Email: Phone: (Li2S") 39/-(,(,:>0 Fax: (t(2$") "3'i/- &6¡:'7 Email: 'Rl.y.r IftltCt... f i2 Q"I. Cð ~ Signature: Signature: 'Comp Plan Designation Owner' 'Name: Jean J. Sub Address: 2011 South 330th st. Federal Way, WA 98003 Phone:(253) 815-1212 Fax:(253) 815-1913 Email: Signature: :>ject Description Non-site specific amendment to Comprehensive Plan to implement with aoals and policies the current vision statement that the City encourage integra- tion of high-density housing with retail and other uses. Uniform Building Code (UBC) Construction Type Type of Permit Required: ~.A.FItM ~M<lilIV12I'I9 N/¡.. (UBC) Occupancy Type ~/~ SEP A Checklist Notice Mailed Sign Board (Refer to Development Submittal Requirements Handout) R R R R R R R R R R R ~E}!H~B~T ,.L Required ...- 'Pti. I b , . R R R R R R R ... R R"'- R R R ... - Annexation - Binding Site Plan - Boundary Line Adjustment. - Comp PlanlRezone - Land Surface Modification - Lot Line Elimination - Preapplication C<>nference - Process I (Director's Approval) - Process II (Site Plan Review) R ... - Process III (project Approval) R - Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) R - Process V (Quasi-Judicial Rezone) L Process VI - SEPA Only - Shoreline Variance C<>nditional Use - Short Subdivision - Subdivision Variance R R Rx2 R R EXH~BJT - PAp'=-31 R ... _OF .c==.. . ED~ ~~AY DErARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOrMENT SERVICES 33530 First Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 (253) 661-4000 - Fax (253) 661-4129 www.ci.federal-way.wa.us APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 1. SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for a decision regarding property he or she owns. b) How to apply. The applicant shall file the following infonnation with the Department of Community Development Services: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) A completed Master Land Use Application. A vicinity map showing the subject property with enough infonnation to locate the property within the larger area. A copy of the underlying plat or the King County Assessor's parcel map. The following site data: a) b) Tax Parcel No. Lot Size/Acreage c) Existing Comprehensive Plan Designation d) e) Existing Zoning Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation f) Requested Zoning Services. Please provide the following infonnation regarding the availability of services: a) The site is currently served by sewer -'septic - (check one). Sewer Provider: The site is currently served by a public water system -,well_!~~ p, ~T I Water Provider: . P' :2 ~. ~ .~ Fire Oistrict#:. A ~...... ~ . -..-I.'='-R School Oistrict#: EXHIBRT l. ~ t:bE~ b) c) d) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page I File # 6) A set of stamped envelopes, and a list of the same, labeled with the name and address of all current owners of real property, as shown in the records of the county assessor for the subject property, within 300 feet of each boundary of the subject property, with the return address of the City of Federal Way, Department of Community Development Services, 33530 First Way South, P.O. Box 9718, Federal Way, WA 98063-9718. 7) A copy of the county assessor's map identifying the properties specified in subsection 6 of this section. 8) Any additional information or material that the Director of Community Development Services determines is reasonably necessary for a decision on the matter. 2. OTHER REQUESTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS a) Who may apply. Any person may, personally or through an agent, apply for an amendment to policies of the comprehensive plan. b) How to apply. The applicant shall file a completed Master Land Use application with the Department of Community Development Services. c) Proposed Amendment. A proposed amendment can be either conceptual or specific amendatory language. Please be as specific as possible so that your proposal can be adequately considered. If specific wording changes are proposed, this should be shown in strike ðttt/underline format (please attach additional pages if necessary). The City of Federal Way encourages inteqration of hiqh- density housing with retail and other uses, capccially nlnng ~R 9q ~n~ in th~ ~i~y ~~n~~r Section 4.1, pg. IV-4 (Residential Areas). SEE ATTACHED PAGES FOR ADDITIONAL CHANGES. d) Rèference. Please reference the Element of the Comprehensive Plan (e.g., Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Capital Facilities) and page number where located. Economic Development Goals and Policies. pp. IV-12 - IV-14. Page 2 EXH~B~1i ..~._L PAGE-4-0F ~ " EXH~eMT"-.r PA .eo",' Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Add New Section to Economic Development Goals (pg. IV-13): EDG4 The City will encouraqe the inteqration of hiqh density sinqle-family and multi-family housinq with compatible retail and other non-residential uses. Add New Section to Economic Development policies (pg. IV-14): EDP23 The City will actively permit retail and other non- residential commercial uses within existinq hiqh density sinqle-family and multi-family residential zoned areas, subíect to minimum conditions imposed under Process III to ensure such inteqrated uses are compatible and public health, safety and wel- fare are protected. E)fHIBIT I PAGE~F --tL EX]i~BnT' L PAGE~OF -' 3. SUPPORT FOR THE AMENDMENT (Please fill out for all amendments, whether site specific or otherwise) Please explain the need for the amendment (why is it being proposed). Include any data, research, or reasoning that supports the proposed amendment (please attach additional pages if necessary). Although stated as a Comprehensive Plan "vision" state- ment, no specific goals or pulÜ;i~:s hé1v~ bt:t:u ð.JopLed to actively jmplemE'nt ;:mð ~(""1ÍpvP ~t1("h vi~ion. Home occupa- tions have historically been found compatible with other- wise resident~a.l usage. 'I'here ~s no sound reason to find that the integration of retail and other commerci~l n~p~ with high density single-family and multi-family housing is not likewise compatible and should thus be encouraged subject to conditions imposed by a Process III approval. 4. FEE There is no fee for the initial application. If after a public hearing, the City Council detennines that the request shall be further considered for adoption, site specific requests must be submitted for a preapplication conference with a $310 fee (non-refundable, but credited to the fonnal application fee). If after the preapplication conference, the applicant decides to pursue the request, the remaining portion of the comprehensive plan amendment fee of$582, plus $58 per acre will be required. In the case of a non-site specific amendment, the fee will be $582. 5. SIGNATURE s¡g4 Ie- .~ V Jean J. Suh Print Name September 18, 2000 Date If you have any questions about filling out this application fonn or the amendment process, please . contact the Department of Community Development Services at (253) 661-4000. Please be advised that an application for a comprehensive plan amendment lacking the required infonnation will not be accepted. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Page 3 EXHftBr'ff~ I.- PAGE-'-OF ~ EJ(H"~~~ I ~ -- . FilDllG'.' 1'-' r I " 110-. ---- Ii .!!J.I.- K.~ HANOOOTS\PLANNING\APPS\AMNDAPP.WPD REviSED JUt Y 31, 2000 P , '," "t' S" " "'Ed' , ,", :LJi,Q,e, ."",Q"ilJ!flc>' ~n, 1- ì ( ~, .kJ 1 0,1 ,;2 MUe$ .'~""; , "'L C!ftY.'Ø:f:Feø:ê>~1 way C(¡J~\le: Pfàr1 $tJE.$;p'~<¿rftc :,: ~ßQUE$'TS FØR>,~,Q'f\ì1'p,;~[:;HJ3N$IMê' PLAN ôSŠ 1iCStN ÄTIG>JN GHA tSJ.GE.Š C,Q:rn~Pio~s.ile l\t1ep /' ,......" 8;;$ite Ráque$ts .iç.ity'oJ.'¡=,edèr~t.Wa y \. t\J '--I ", '" ' ."<.' :~~~:'1 Ogi~a:, (q~~~I~~§: I Q.Ît~.'ol F eèJ:êrd' r' WaM ,.Qôm;ptte'.~~'mšiv.e::PIa:n , 2:Ø:Ø~ , S,118:$,PEC1F'lC,REQU ESTeS ,"r;:Q'R ';'6:ø..1~itPIRE!H.EN Š[V,E, ;'pl AN ,[3)Ê~J~Nþi. "ITION'CHANGES ", ~:.ø.~qe$f.'.,"f'-Jl.Jm'~~r::9ñØ: ( "' D,pir¡~.b -;W~tI.~d'P([lIOCC"',"\Y .M$ì...;,¡',. , , -"'II~'«~iP;IIJ _::9);.:9 ,cc:ltlc:Þ, !'I.~d!'l. .\~2001 :~~i~~~~~;.~~~m~# ' "J IA N '"""';,,':',.,, ".<. '<""'~1'.';" '¡;;"'("'"';'S""'.<' '¡Ø~'O6:;O'(};;1¡)61 !Q?~:~1.:,Mllssr .,\~\;~'~' ">'.i"'" ':";f""';"'<"""\7<""cÍ Qity'.of F è Ctl' era r' Way Compren-en:sivePlart 2:001 SITE SPECtFIGREQUESTS FORGOMPREHENSIVE PLAN ,DESIGNATION CHANGES Req.uêstNumlpe rTwb I:'"-'~~¡,~.,,, _:WJIIU."d,.' <1~OCOìl~\y XXl:St",'¡ ..~ '_....~~~i'ÅII} -;St.S,.êjll<:A i¡I...d,"'.~~':2Qoj 1¿.I;¡;Ê;""b~iI~;z.td ,. t~";WI:(::ly' <I(r#,oI,r81WIlY å; t\J ,~~ ~~ ~ ,:q1 -~' :~I~:~ LLl. ,(!) ::jW~ 'ø.::>: '«;( III i::L :~i~Z 'êJ5'.O;W. ~í~i 'lL; œ (l) ¡,;;¡;;' ..c ~ "Ø: m :;$ . Cl :(1) ~ @. ÇL, :~ Iii ."", :t' (¡). o' ... {; '.! ~ c .~ Ë .. "'.'" Q ;¡.. ... e:,a: 2"¡¡;;~ ".. ø~':: t!l~l~ i',;'~,;,¡; ~':'í~ .... '~.. m, '~ I: ~, ,e), ~ +i" '~~. <9. it) G.): ~> ~"'" ,,',' ' 0 "=t' a ci a ..q- a d ,o~o~' ClO4 'AQjg~' !Ñ1Î1~\S 0 City' .of:¡¡:'sydsralWay¡ G PtBpreh ØpSlv-è.. Plat) -2001 SITE.SPËCU=lCREOUESTS.. FOR. CQM:PJ~;EH'ENSIVEPtAN' DESIGNATION ..CH:A.NGE.S' Râ:<3tu~;stFou. r ^ ~ K. IN 0.04 0 O,~Ó8: Miles: f'" ..', ',..' ,"' , 0:04 Cityøf.Fe:ôera tWa y G()t'T'Ipreh~l"1$ Îvè Plan, 2Ø01 S ITESPËCIFICREQUESTS, FOR CÔMÞJ1E,HENSIVE PLAN' D.'ESIGNA110N.."CHANGES ' Request Five A' "c'.", :;,,':" ,".' N ~~c~~. '~~~;.&.' :~ """'\NÊ: :-em ~')( ( ~ r ,-=- ~'~.,. ~ ~ ( o=c w. z ,W .> ,> ..' )::"'>. :,..".: .,~ 1t4ttì;\$ijriØ¡¡:;'N:Ê -;$' 'co: ,1,(') ~..., ; ...- Jtå4' Ö' ,Ö:O4' o:,Qa,'Mifes, ,",'" " ,,',," ,;:""."""".",'.". I, .~~: City' .of.redaral'Wa Y CøffiprèhØ'r'l$lvø Plart 20Ð'1 SITE:SPECIF1C,,"REC1UESTS r.OR... cøMÞJ~.'eHENsr\JEPtAN 'Ð'Êšf(áN~t ìÔN 00H'Âf.J'SE:S Req;û,ast ,Six /!\ ~ (Xl 'O~Ö4;OO.Ô~1 ltõa MI~e$ , " ",.. " "d'", ," ':", ,;",.. ',.. ," .. , ,,' ". " L,.." "',' , C,ity'.o,fFadarQI"Wa'Vj Gøn);þrênø.h$, ¡\le','.R! an 2001 SITE'SPEC1FIÚiREQUESTS ROR CPMþt{,E,HENSIVE PIAN ß!3S1GNA1rÖN "CHANGES ReqU~st $ even í ,Plloels, " , 'Wetl, n,ds.d<ing ,CO1Jnty kiì âtbs , , I, ,e..(AI~" ' . <, _:SlteSpeO'ltlo'Amendmenls 19Q9 ~'.CIIY'Øf¡:'.d'UI W~y \. A' .! ; "" ,-:; " '~. ~=---- ~J {L .'" ."... .' I L . (f. 0.04 0 0.04 0.08 Miles ~ I Ii ~I' ... . ,'., City of FederalVVay .j>j~I . r fR \1 1 L ColT\preh~n~ive.Plan 2001 SITE SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN D ESTGNATIONCHANG E S Request Eight 0 P~rot.1s ~Wetl~nds ...KingCounty J\.7Strllms lIi!JL~k" (AIO _SlteSpecitioAmendments 1999 DC~yofFede"l W~y .;) ~ N 0.08 0 0.0.8 :O':J6f~JMHes , ",', ",'., , ,", ' r, CIty of' .Reder uj 'Wa.\I C()rr1preh~nsiY e PI an 2001 SITESPECIFIC REQUESTS FORCOMPR,EHENSIVE, PLAN" DESlG'NATION'CHANGES Request Nine c:::JP;, "'G Is: WM:,WG~"'.d,,'."i.9 CG".~Y ¡,"So".".",.., ,',:,: ,,~'G..(AIO . 'SlG SPGelc,o,."G.d"'G.!..19~ EEJCly <If f"Gdt...1 W"y ~ N ø/~;, 0 Q,'t J),i2'¡lV1il~$~' ¡:~ , ' 'GltyofFederal "Way Conlprèþ~nsiye Plan 2001' S IrE'SPEcr FIC: R~ au E STS ,F.ORGOMPREHENSIVE PLAN [J E glG-NA T~IONG ffAN G E S Request'Number'Ten fA W :f\t ~ , I ~ Q.) ;> .~ rn ~ Q.) ~ Q.) ~ ~ 0 u .... .- CJ = = 0 u s £ ~ u ..... ~ t' .: ~ .... .... 0 .- .... .. ~ < ~ 0 0 N = 0 .- .... ~ .... = ~ ~ ~ .. ~ Puget SQunci , , 10 1 ,~MiI~S ~ ~ Qttyøf Fêdêrel Way C""""',.,.".,' ".'.PI"""" . ,', ornprell~~'~:lve '. ::an 2001 $IJE~PEQIFIÇ:8EQUE$TS FORCOMPRE HENSIVË. PLAN DESIGNÂT ¡ÖNCHANGES Co'mpositeMap .", _Site Re:qLJest~ ., . , f:):.IÇ¡~y QfFø<JerørWay , ß" . . , . . .'Ni, 2:~ ~ I .... First Four Selection Criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. WHETHER THE SAME AREA OR ISSUE WAS STUDIED DURING THE LAST AMENDMENT PROCESS AND CONDITIONS IN THE IMMEDIA TE VICINITY HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED SO AS TO MAKE THE REQUESTED CHANGE WITHIN THE PUBLIC INTERS T . WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL VISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MEETS EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, INCLUDING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT. IN THE CASE OF TEXT AMENDMENTS OR OTHER AMENDMENTS TO GOALS OR POLICIES, WHETHER THE REQUEST BENEFITS THE CITY AS A WHOLE VERSUS A SELECTED GROUP. 7~ ~ IÆJVL. Second Four Selection Criteria: 1. 2. 3. 4. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO PLANNED OR ACTIVE PROJECTS. AMOUNT OF ANALYSIS NECESSARY TO REACH A RECOMMENDATION ON THE REQUEST. IF A LARGE- SCALE STUDY IS REQUIRED, A REQUEST MAY HAVE TO BED ELA YED UNTIL THE FO LLO WIN G YEAR DUE TO WORK LOADS, STAFFING LEVELS, ETC. VOLUME OF REQUESTS RECEIVED. A LARGE VOLUME OF REQUESTS MAY NECESSITATE THAT SOME REQUESTS BE REVIEWED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ORDER OF REQUESTS RECEIVED. .-=rv:n.... Site Specific Request Owner: Richard Senn Parcel: 122103-9029 City of Fe<íeraIWay. q.~.... i""" :.-:-:. "'" <,..... '.'.' "'H.O~ .... ..",............ .' ,..:.. <""""""""". ß N Comment Letters on Site Specific Request" 1 r;o~,!~~, r"'IïV >-, V:=O EY ,~C-"~ \¡- '}:CDAC'-'-',It::V' ~ ~ I r',", fI-" ',¡JI~' 1) .¿; 200'1 Quail Run Village Swimming & Tennis Club 31901 31st PL S. W. Federal Way, WA 98023 March 30, 200 I Margaret H. Clark, Senior Planner City of Federal Way Community Development Services Department 33530 1st Way South P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Dear Ms Clark: This morning a Public Notice announcing a public hearing on File No. 00-104941 was posted at the comer of our townhouse community. The Notice of the hearing said it was based on a request to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of the area presently known as Forest Village Apartments from RS 7.2 to RM 3,600. The hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on April 17, 2001. I attempted to obtain additional information at City Hall about the implications of such a request and the young man was only able to give me some general information about the difference between the two designations. Unfortunately, you were not available. I suspect this matter will generate some interest among the owners in the two divisions in Quail Run. My wife and I will be travelling for this coming week but, upon our return, I will be in touch to try to obtain additional information for the Boards of Directors. Sincerely, QUAIL RUN VILLAGE SWIMMING & TENNIS CLUB ~ C?j ~ zJ~ Francis L. DeVoll Secretary-Treasurer cc: Board of Directors: Village Association, Division I, Division n April 15,2001 City of Federal Way City Council 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Subject: Change of Comprehensive Plan; Rezoning Request from Richard Senn Honorable City Council Members: As residents of the existing Lakehaven properties that abut the proposed rezoning/developments, we are naturally concerned about possible impacts to our quality oflife and environment. It is with those concerns in mind that we submit this letter for your consideration. . In October 1999 we had attended meetings at Decatur High School infonning us and our neighbors of the proposed Colella Estates to the north of the rezoning area. In that meeting, many objections were raised to the future increased level of traffic that the area would have to absorb from that development, mainly on 30th Avenue SW and adjoining streets. 30th Avenue SW will undoubtedly become the main arterial for the combined developments. This street ends at 320th with a single stop sign (no signal lights) on a 35 mph roadway. The flow of cars makes entering and exiting 320th with some difficulty even at the present time. And the speed limit is, as you may well know, often ignored. The west end of Decatur High School runs along 30th Avenue SW. This avenue is used by students and participants of sports events for parking, further narrowing the roadway. Chances for accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians crossing the street is thereby increased. Traffic would follow SW 3 14th to Dash Point Road which is can't handle the influx. Daily traffic is complicated further when Decatur High students come and go throughout the day. . . . The land is zoned presently for single family homes RS 7.2. Ifit is rezoned to RM 3600 there will be a doubling or more in future traffic. This area cannot absorb that level of traffic, - especially if the Colella Estates plan is to go through. Please keep these properties at RS 7.2. Respectfu. lly yours, ~... .....t .~...;; _---L--u.~.¿ .// {t,lz~ ~~é~~ C' ( ~ '»1C! ~ ~~~ Michael J. Raabe Laura L. Conner 3018 SW 3 17th Place Federal Way, WA 98023-2217 (253) 838-5036 Tom & Elizabeth Nolan 31410 36th Avenue SW Federal Way, W A 98023 April 15,2001 Dear Council Members: We oppose the request from Richard Senn to change the comprehensive plan designation and the zoning of28.79 acres from single family high density residential (one unit/7,200sf) to multi family high density (one unit/3,600sf). We oppose the request because of the certain or probable negative impact in several areas: 1. Additional traffic congestion near a school; 2. Additional traffic congestion on S. 320th St. and, probably, S. 312th St. Unless or until, the city adds another major east/west thoroughfare that connects directly with 1-5, we oppose any additional development in the West end of Federal Way and/or NE Tacoma. The major arterials that currently serve this end of town are too congested during peak weekday periods and during most of every Saturday. 3. Potential negative environmental impact (flora, fauna and potentially, the Joe's Creek ravine; also additional noise generated by more people and more automobiles in an already densely populated area) 4. It is our understanding that the Comprehensive Plan approved by the Council stipulates that additional high-density development should be located within or near the city "core" area, which is significantly further East than the area for which Mr. Senn is requesting this zoning change. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, &ac~ Beth Nolan (253) 838-2101 ~" ~I ~~~~ ~~'JJ r~....,--u '--U;:>IU,~"" o...UI'I I Ho... , LJ,... Õ.~C:: April 17,2001 To: Margaret Clark, Senior Planner City of Federal Way City Hall 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 From: Dave Lorenz Resident 31411 31st Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Re: City Council Notice of Hearing 2001 Comprehensive Plan Update Request from Richard Senn to change the comprehensive plan... As a resident of the neighborhood in question, I am concerned about the proposal. I prefer that the city council NOT consider the proposed change. The neighborhood is already mixed with different types of housing and the residential areas with small children already feel the pinch of traffic that uses 30th Ave. SW. and SW 314th. There are often sounds of drivers using 30th Ave. SW like a drag strip. It is not uncommon to have vehicles speeding as fast as they can. We are already under a land use action that is going to bring 108 residential units to the land in RS 15.8. I can accept more single family homes with less density with road improvements. Having higher density housing in an area with very limited access will create a host of problems - environmental impact, unacceptable street traffic, people moving in and out more frequently, the possibility of increased crime and police calls, etc. The city was wise in the plan to zone the area single family residential RS7.2 and should keep that status. Thank you. ~~ c¡¡ 11 I (U)D I 04/17/01 TUE 09:44 [TX/RX NO 8126] -PETITION- We the undersigned, having given careful consideration to the request fÌ'om Richard SenD to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning ofhis 28.79 acres, on which the Forest Village apartment complex is situated, fÌ'om RS 7.2 to RM 3600, believe that said change and expansion would be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood in traffic and utilities, and cause serious damaging effects to the environmentally sensitive area. As such we oppose the submitted request: NAME (pRINT) ADDRESS ~w ¡¡::;r ~~~ ~ Mr. Morel O. Guyot I ,~ :;'1228 36th Ave. SW . . F9d~r!>.1 Way. WA 98023 2. . =:!;?:8023-4007 3 . iiiii8 4. 'Jo\-\~ 4 bs~Nté' 1?\~'P 1 , 1.'\ 'to -s,.~ ß- 1t'J~ \ ~ W 5. "'-' ~.-V\V\ ~ ç:Q.~~* e;, \i~~ 6. 3~\~ ~~<:fv.à,~ 7. Æ#L c¡d JqlL lJ1 C<L{r¡,-!Z 8. ~~ 3b(1 ~:~ Fw 9g".23 , ~~ ~~C, k 31127-b4-f~s;w 9. 1'1 ~ v(? d!t-...L- ., t1JJ q'iš 0 ~ 3 .>1309 Jt.-,I1//E 10. 'Ze.W\ 4 for; W oer(~~c;fío)"3 .3 1'2..2-0 ~",'õ.. ~CL <;, t.ù . t «p . ()) p.. 11. V'lc..tot' 1\1. M~qfvw -uI tt~:~ ~h..")..7 ~~-11. Nt.. . ~.LV. rp / 12. A¡q#(/~ 7. reL 2QV~æ-C 13. ~l3t"ß! ~(, ~ 4¡/~ s: ~ ¡t=:1U. '9ðð23.. ~~ 313/0 36711/h't"vV<?bZ) 14'~A:lAI ¡¿ /kA.J;tfD ß. _ß ?I'II¿ 7~ AtJ[ .f./IV. 1Bd4.~ 15. / ~ J! ~ ,]tI¿,2.. )4.." /~ .£v 16. NAME (pRINT) ADDRESS 17. f\~~"R. ~ ~\Me~ 6l2()l{ 3b't4 f....-.{è. &,lO A ~<;C~O t:b~~ ~'f, (,J{\.~rOl3 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Comment Letter on Site Specific Request 116 To Whom It May Concern, I don't understand why you are even considering changing the code to allow the lots to be 9,600 square feet instead of 15,000 square feet. If anything, you should change the code to require the minimum size lot on this property to be increased. My reason for this, is the fact that 9th avenue S. W. is a dead end, one way private street that the smallest existing lot is 1 acre and the majority of the lots are 2 Y2 acres. It does not make sense that you would even consider allowing the lots to be smaller that the existing code allows. You don't need to allow this in our neighborhood. You have allowed cluster housing in the Silverwood development. You have allowed the Rosewood development and there is already a proposal for a development to the west of Silverwood. You also need to consider our small one way private roadway. A stream that feeds into Hylebos flows under our road on 9th S.W. andjust around the comer on 368th. The additional traffic could cause real problems. Even if a road is put through from Silverwood to this new development, there will be many people taking a shortcut down the back way to 1 s1 avenue. Our small private road can't handle the extra wear and tear Federal Way improved the west end of 356th street and an area right by Highway 99 on 356th and also 348th street. But it only amounted to a band-aid. As a matter of fact, the traffic problems are 10 times worse because you have permitted contractors to build thousands of homes in our area. You need to be working on the traffic problems, not working on adding to the traffic problems. Please, this one time, think of the people and the quality of life in our neighborhood and not the tax dollars the extra homes and people in our neighborhood will generate. The teachers in the Federal Way school district teach our children how important it is to preserve our wetlands because they control flooding and to save our trees because they create oxygen. Then the City of Federal Way lets the contractors cut down all the trees and build all around the wetlands. What does this teach our children??? Does Federal Way really care about the wetlands and Hylebos and the trees??? Think about it!!!! Thank You, Darlene VanMeerten 36510 9th Avenue S. W. Federal Way, W A 98023 ,..., P E TITI 0 N ,..., We the undersigned, having given careful consideration to the request ttom Richard Senn to change the comprehensive plan designation and zoning of his 28.79 acres, on which the Forest Village apartment complex is situated, ttom RS 7.2 to RM 3600, believe that said change and expansion would be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood in traffic and utilities, and cause serious damaging effects to the environmentally sensitive area. As such we oppose the submitted request: SIGNATURE /VcJk~A; a ' ~.tJ~~t2~ &,~,):1.. ~>'~~ Ci~-Y\i"~~ ~~ <-..- ~, l ~, ~- .,"\ " . .. . - ¡ . <. /; ~ \ (~)P- "11L t~1 ~ f! I }1ú/;1;5 - :~. ~::~\I'~':~\CAI I ~ '::~ "~lJjl:I'~,-;~~~ ::: ~ :~6~~¡ 7~~ ~f\~ ~ ~f:1idf!c:;L~ '- 14.1)l~O~Vtk. ~'-I~\ b \\.? ,0 ,Ji~ ¡). 5.j,-{ (I 't' \, '~. r~ r v' ~Lr'L , (~'1?-t~ -;"Llth. S 41'. 1 \ . 15 \) '&\ a;.,. .") . c: . ~"C' '?\ ~~ '. \ ~\~ ' à""\ô ~ ",:,\...0 ,::j. \'4.. .,,'" ~. ~ ; ;::1"", ,-,,<,-,d. ,"- -':-::::::h'Vv---"') O'{viff~¡t NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS 1.1 \ .., 'd e- 1. J).,...;~d. f'+/).>N\. :-1.. ,-~iò-).... ç,{J...!' .:i/., ì l-I 1C.~:)? 5, v;). ~]It¡-' 2. j)('-:IJ ýS'};:/, i;,~/./.5 '-"'I.'\,':> -.¡,-\,., 3. ê ('d'\ðAú l'v\tl2~~i '11., \ ç ~ ¡;J '5' I.{ - r¿q ~() 5LJ 3 jL(f\ J ~ ( ~ 5. :. ( - L \L~ ,( ð J (; Ö S w "? I LA . 'h' .J..- --:'/ ""7,,) rr.' ~/4fi"¿r 6. ..v111J It ('"~ /l!'K:JI}ur.; ,,' /- I",. ( ....' '.f.) .... . ,. ~~T 7. !'f'r-c.o,/, /"i,l!¿/, ,2..7sl S. vJ ':'\/"';- 8. ~Icl \f( Y\ ~i\\\if\ 9. CO/fJ,¡) é /7ILTDAJ 4. 1:::k."'N -s Trc¡\Jc 'c.~ 1..:7hl Cj \f\/ ;)Iplî < Jt- 7 ;2..7&1 S{J 3/~Sr 16. D A\l\ð \1 1'~íc: t~j' IJ ")J):Uff . ~ '4 1/"/ .:' ~ ~iJ ~I NAME (pRINT) ADDRESS SIGNATURE 17. 4~'ef=Þi1Jc- ~~, 7ikì7 ?-'7"'A"..,.:;.I) At). ['rf;?) 7 )Y- 18. 5Jt115¡ L-"ð\rrj ~ 1'~=:L su) 314~ . p/~J'"<¡I)"¿...} ~,/ UIA , ",.,' 19 :Þ - Ie-. ~ . /' / - 1, / '-Î ) , ... ..2; ~'/-t-"( Y>Cd f (..At:J .',O<~h :/) c:J)INS ;.5/5--::'L)-_33"-JF..... ~<)k."" f-j/ j¿l .c../ ", - 20. C. W {;<\! \-( í!.lX, [rl ¡'j í] Il{ yJ 3I'{-r Ii F 0 i.v'ej '1 ~3 ~,k')jl~ 2\. ¿'HI' J Ie J::FUJ"'o" .2 7/'1 J tJ ,"u '('1/" /I C7~7¡¡;f!:-;~ 22. A "Ja,<.oJ'" ';e.. -I '7 17ùi so 7!1't r'j /. ,¡ j j I/J ) ~ ' /')// '. " 23. r 't,'V~,4v: ¿fL.! ;2;1 ~¿ 5t",: 3/r . " 24. D I ¿"'.ð-- ¡'-It t; I ¿ ,[,0)" ;i",¡J Z. Wi S lLl ,/ Mil . \ t- Û'¿:;/L 7'Jd4 ~.¡fffJ; 25 -:J (; '~lt~j):C ~c~~£~ ' '2ìS-; :sw ~_\'\"'~. ~ 26. "I ~ :7¡t. \JlA.\':)(J,-1 1--' I)? <; \,..) . ~ ('(VL 9í ;;;;:- : ',~ -"", 27. j\,~. ,I., J ,mol";7 310.3. :n-A'" J,~~ ;C.,..' ~/4C:"'7 28. BY'- î-{~~ In? $,lJJ ?'IL{ ",[ ruJ r2cs.. B-w>iL 29. ~~ 'L.l~Ð C;';w '314-~Sìr-/W ~~ 30.;\ "~Th\)'e- (JP,£lA' ¿r~D~ Svv Bf4~f.4ff r;;ÆrV (2). G(~ 31. f{ 6.1,' ,:7r;" t,/.". ') 711 5 fA) IN I!-- '> f F/ w þ:j ¿ 32. \ftV,~ 11 ~:UìLfì ~;)1 Sw ~\(¡-I.h ;')-j -::,.c,.) ,~~ 33. J',q,LJIU 1{ìchqrJ¡o" ~q3 J 5tu 11'/~~ 51.5 ~(y,;d~ 34. E.J1). !<O.'JENÞ/N '/9IY <;W ft/l/7I"r- ~V~,c£!~ S 71(j~A>r 1--f} vr1 /J.. 35. £Jr¡-j~/¿ 'KðS€AJþ/AJ ól9/V Vt' ~ ~ 36. (\ ~ ~tL t3 dYl4 .3 J,- 1/ .1 h 71f Av. !Jot;.}. ~ 37. Lou..;./J L-;'LI.-- ~ flit) 3t..f.i.. 4v Ç'W 38. lc1c2-'Y"v1 V1 ¿!. Gl {eye :31~1l JCo t3 ÅJeC).w t