Res 95-215
RESOLUTION NO.
95-2l5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, APPROVING WITH'
CONDITIONS THE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL FOR
THE S. 336th STREET REGIONAL SURFACE WATER
STORAGE AND CONVEYANCE FACILITY, FEDERAL WAY
FILE NO. UPR94-0025.
WHEREAS, the applicant, the city of Federal Way, applied
to the City of Federal Way for approval of a project to construct
a regional surface water storage and conveyance facility in the
vicinity
of
Pacific
Highway
South
and
South
336th
Street
("Application"); and
WHEREAS,
pursuant to Federal Way City Code
("FWCC")
section
22-476
et
seq. ,
the Application
requires
Process
III
review; and
WHEREAS, a determination of non-significance (IIDNS") was
issued for this proposal on April 11, 1995, pursuant to the FWCC
and the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), and the DNS was
not appealed; and
WHEREAS, FWCC section 22-490(d) contains certain criteria
for the consideration of a Process III application; and
WHEREAS,
all
public
notice
having
duly
been
given
pursuant to FWCC section 22-480; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner held
a public hearing on July 25, 1995, concerning the Application; and
RES # 95-215
- PAGE 1
COpy
't,
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said hearing the Federal
Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued its Findings, Conclusions,
Conditions, and Recommendations on August 9, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City council of the City of Federal Way is
the governmental body now having jurisdiction and authority to pass
upon the approval, denial or modification of the conditions of said
Application pursuant to FWCC section 22-490; and
WHEREAS,
this
matter
having
been
considered
by
the
Federal Way City council Land Use/Transportation Committee at its
meeting
on
August
28,
1995,
for
the
purpose
of
issuing
its
recommendation for conditional approval of the Application to the
full city council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the written
record and the Findings,
Conclusions and Recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner, pursuant to Chapter 22 of the FWCC and all other
applicable City Codes; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON,
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
section
1.
Findinqs
of
Facts.
Conditions
and
Conclusions.
The
Findings,
Conclusions,
Conditions
and
Recommendations of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner issued
on August 9, 1995, following a hearing held on July 25, 1995, which
included a recommendation to approve the City of Federal Way's
application to construct a regional surface water storage and
conveyance facility subject to certain conditions,
are hereby
RES #
95-2l5
- PAGE 2
iih
adopted as the Findings, Conclusions and Conditions of the City
Council.
section
2.
Application
Approval.
Based
upon
the
Findings,
Conclusions,
Conditions
and
Recommendations
of
the
Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner, as adopted by reference by
the city Council set forth hereinabove, the application of the City
of Federal Way to construct a regional surface water storage and
conveyance facility, Federal Way File No. UPR94-0025,
is hereby
approved subject to the conditions contained in the Recommendation
of the Federal Way Land Use Hearing Examiner Report for this matter
dated August 9,1995, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
by this reference.
section
3.
Conditions
of
Approval
Inteqral.
The
conditions of approval of the preliminary plat are all integral to
each other with respect to the City Council finding that public use
and interest will be served by the construction of the regional
surface water storage and conveyance facility.
Should any court
having jurisdiction over the subject matter declare any of the
conditions invalid, then, in said event, the approval granted in
this resolution shall be deemed void, and the Application shall be
remanded to the Hearing Examiner for the City of Federal Way to
review
the
impacts
of
the
invalidation
of
any
condition
or
conditions and conduct such additional proceedings as are necessary
to assure that the Application makes appropriate provisions for the
public health,
safety and general welfare and other factors as
required by applicable County and/or City ordinances, rules and
RES # 95-2l5
- PAGE 3
regulations and forward such recommendation to the City Council for
further action.
section 4.
Severabilitv.
If any section,' sentence,
clause or phrase of this resolution should be held to be invalid or
unconstitutional
by
a
court
of
competent
jurisdiction,
such
invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this resolution.
section 5.
Ratification.
Any act consistent with the
authority and prior to the effective date of the resolution is
hereby ratified and affirmed.
section 6.
Effective Date.
This resolution shall be
effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way city Council.
RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,
WASHINGTON, THIS
20th DAY OF
September
, 1995.
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
~~ p &Xoo
MÀY , RY E. GATES
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/
V
K. LINDELL
RES # 95-2l5
- PAGE 4
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
K:\RESO\S336TH
RES # 95-2l5
- PAGE 5
09-l2-95
09-20-95
95-215
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
IN THE MATTER OF:
KITTS CORNER AND
S. 336TH ST.
PROCESS I, II, AND III
FWHE#: 95-10
UPR94-0025, SPR94-0031, SEP94-0036
I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION
The proposal is to construct regional surface water conveyances and detention facilities
and conduct wetland/stream restoration.
II. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
Hearing Date:
Decision Date:
July 25, 1995
August 9, 1995
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
I.
Greg Fewins, City of Federal Way, Senior Environmental Planner
2.
Craig Ward, Berger & ABAM Engineering
3.
Marivan Salloum, Project Engineer
4.
Luie Lu
At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record of these
proceedings:
I.
Staff Report with all attachments.
III. FINDINGS
I.
The Hearing Examiner has heard testimony, admitted docwnentary evidence into the
record, and taken this matter under advisement.
2.
The Community Development Department staff report sets forth general findings,
applicable policies and provisions in this matter, and is hereby marked as Exhibit I and
incorporated in this report by reference as though set forth in full herein.
7.
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 2
3.
All appropriate notices were delivered in accordance with the requirements, of the Federal
Way Zoning Code.
4.
The applicant, City of Federal Way, is requesting Process I, Process I, and Process III
review of the Kitts Corner and South 336th Street regional stormwater detention and
wetland/stream restoration project. The project site is located within the vicinity of the
intersection of S. 336th St. and SR-99. The project commences immediately north of S.
336th St., extends south for approximately two blocks, turns west and crosses beneath SR-
99, and then turns south to approximately S. 344th St. The project elements which
require review include overall site plan review; wetland intrusion; wetland setback
intrusion; stream setback intrusion; stream culvert; stream relocation; bulkhead; and
intrusion into a geologically hazardous area.
5.
A complete explanation of the project is found on pages 1-6 of the Department of
Community Development Staff Report which is incorporated herein by this reference as
if set forth in full. Briefly, the project is designed to intercept stream channel flow north
of S. 336th St. and convey said flow into Wetland 9b which is north of S. 336th St.
Flows will be then directed under S. 3361h St. into Wetland 9a by two, 42 inch culverts.
The existing stormwater detention storage within Wetlands 9a and 9b will be increased
from 16 to 27 acre feet by construction of a detention containment embankment along the
west and south sides of Wetland 9a. The boundaries of Wetland 9a are not being
expanded and therefore no additional wetland buffering is required for properties adjacent
to said wetland. From Wetland 9a water is conveyed beneath SR-99 through a 48 inch
trunk storm drain (which replaces a 24 inch pipeline). West of SR-99 the existing steep
and degraded stream channel will be replaced by a 54 inch storm. drain extending
approximately 650 feet to the west to an energy dissipator. The water will then flow
through a restored stream channel approximately 100 feet into Wetland 2. From there
water will be discharged to a restored wetland/stream corridor which flows to Wetland 2a.
Total active detention volume provided by Wetland 2a will be approximately 34 acre feet
with an additional four acre feet of dead storage. Wetlands 3 and 4 are located to the east
of Wetland 2 and are not proposed for filling as part of this project. However, it is
anticipated that filling may be requested by private property owners at the time of
development. This project includes mitigation for the filling of Wetlands 3 and 4.
6.
The City has properly elected to evaluate the entire project as a whole as opposed to each
specific aspect of the project. Were the City to have evaluated each specific aspect, more
than 100 decisional criteria would have been evaluated. The Examiner has also evaluated
the project as a whole.
Significant studies of the area provide the basis for staffs recommendation of approval
of all aspects of the project. The surface water/ground water was analyzed in a wetlands
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 3
8.
9.
D.
E.
10.
assessment prepared by Sheldon and Associates; an alternative stream restoration concepts
study prepared by CH2M Hill; and a wetland stream wetland impact analysis and
mitigation plan also prepared by CH2M Hill. The surface geology/topography was
evaluated in a geotechnical data report prepared by CH2M Hill. A vegetation survey and
geologically hazardous area identification study was also prepared by CH2M Hill.
Vegetation throughout the project was evaluated and a vegetation survey and geologically
hazardous area identification study was prepared by CH2M Hill for the entire project area.
Animal habitat was evaluated by using a previous study prepared by Shapiro and
Associations in 1991. The wetland assessment prepared by Sheldon and Associates
evaluated habitat in the wetland and buffer areas.
The project is subject to site plan review pursuant to Section 22-361 of the F-ederal Way
City Code (FWCC); Process I review pursuant to Section 22-386 et seq FWCC; Process
11 review pursuant to Section 22-431 et seq FWCC; and Process III review in accordance
with Section 22-476 et seq FWCc.
The criteria for site plan review are found at Section 22-364 FWCC. Findings on each
criteria are hereby made as follows:
A.
The proposal has been reviewed for compliance with the criteria for site plan
review and all applicable regulations and laws as detailed in the staff report.
B.
The proposal has been coordinated with known and anticipated development on
private properties as well as for public improvement projects. Adjacent and
anticipated owners of privale properties on which improvements will be
constructed, and abutting property owners have been consulted. Wetland mitigation
plans incorporate the elimination of wetlands three and four, and the Washington
State Department of Transportation has been consulted regarding impacts to SR-
99.
C.
The proposed development is compatible with abutting uses, is designed to be
aesthetically pleasing, and will encourage development of abutting properties. The
project is also consistent with the City's goals of protection and enhancement of
environmentally sensitive areas.
The proposed development was designed based upon the utility infrastructure and
constraints.
Access to the impacted property will utilize existing utility easements.
The criteria for Process I review (Section 22-394(b) FWCC); for Process II review
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 4
II.
12.
C.
(Section 22-443(c) FWCC); and for Process III review (Section 22-490(d) FWCC) are
identical. Findings on the criteria for Process I, II, and III are jointly made as follows:
A.
The proposal is consistent with the City of Federal Way Comprehensive Plan
which designates the site as Business and Industrial/Office Park. The Cily has
reviewed the project for conformance with all land use, circulation, and natural
environmental policy elements of the comprehensive plan and found it in
conformance.
B.
The project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Federal Way City Code
to include those adopted by reference by the comprehensive plan and the zoning
code. Zone classifications include RS-7.2 (Single Family Residential with a
minimwn lot size of 7,200 square feet), MP (Manufacturing Park), and BC
(Business/Commercial). The project must comply with all requirements of the
zoning regulations, the environment policy code, and all other development codes
and regulations. The project is a public utility and is allowed pursuant to site plan
review and Process III approval within the RS zone; site plan review within the
MP zone; and outright within the BC zone.
The proposed drainage improvements implement the 1991 Draft Hylebos Creek,
and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan; and thus furthers the public health, safety,
and welfare. Approval will serve to protect abutting properties from flooding
hazards, protect and enhance environmentally sensitive areas, prevent traffic
disruptions due to flooding, and permit development of adjacent properties
presently impacted by jurisdictional wetlands.
The site contains geologically hazardous areas as defined by Section 22-1 FWCC. These
hazards include landslide and steep slope areas associated with rapidly eroding stream
channels. In accordance with Section 22-1286(b) FWCC, development activities may not
occur on or within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area unless no reasonable
alternative exists, and then only if the proposed activity does not lead to or create any
increased slide, seismic, or erosion hazard. Alternatives to the Kitts Corner project were
considered in the 1991 Draft Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan.
Geologically hazardous areas were identified by CH2M Hill in its March 17, 1995,
memorandwn. CH2M Hill's recommendations have been incorporated into the design of
the proposed development which eliminate the existing geological hazards associated with
the rapidly eroding stream channels. Use of a drainage blanket at selected locations will
minimize the potential creation of landslide hazards.
Section 22-1306 FWCC prohibits land surface modifications or improvements within 100
feet of a major stream and 50 feet of a minor stream. However, Section 22-1312 FWCC
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 5
13.
A.
B.
C.
D.
14.
allows the Director of Community Development to permit the placement of essential
public facilities or utilities in a setback from a stream if it is determined that no feasible
alternative locations exist. The specific location and extent of the intrusion into the
setback must be the minimum necessary to meet the requirements of the public tàcility
or utility. Portions of the drainage improvements will occur within stream setback areas,
but will be consistent with the criteria for minor improvements and intrusions set forth
in Section 22-1312(b)(c)FWCC. The proposed development is an essential public utility
and the specific location and extent of the intrusion is the minimum necessary to allow
the project to proceed.
The stream channel connecting Wetland 2 to the project outfall at Wetland 2A is being
relocated to change the channel gradient, enhance the habitat characteristics for fisheries,
reduce stream bank erosion, and reduce downstream sedimentation and turbidity. Section
22"1307 FWCC allows the Hearing Examiner to recommend approval of stream relocation
if the applicant can establish that the decisional criteria set forth in subsections Co D, E,
and F are met. Findings on each criteria are hereby made as follows:
An impact analysis and mitigation plan was prepared by CH2M Hill which
includes the design necessary to create the natural stream meander pattern; the
formation of gentle side slopes; the installation of erosion control features; the
creation of a narrow subchannel where feasible along the west bank; utilization of
natural materials whereever possible; utilization of native, riparian, vegetation; the
creation of spawning and nesting areas; the reestablishment of fish populations
wherever feasible; the restoration of water flow characteristics compatible wi th fish
habitat areas; and the filling and revegetating of the prior stream channel. The
design also includes installation of a culvert to provide for future fish passage
from the existing stream to Wetland 2a.
The project will significantly improve water quality, will improve habitat and
storm water retention by regulating flood waters, will reduce stream bank erosion
and sedimentation, and will improve the wildlife and fisheries habitat.
The City will secure a qualified professional to inspect the stream channel
following its completion and ensure that the channel complies with the
requirements of the FWCC.
The mean annual flow and average velocity of the stream will not be increased or
decreased for the portion of the stream being relocated.
A bulkhead is proposed on the headwall north of S. 336 St. to prevent stream bank
erosion. Section 22-1308(c)(d) FWCC authorizes the Examiner to recommend approval
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 6
of a bulkhead if it satisfies the criteria set forth therein. Findings on each critcria are
hereby made as follows:
A.
15.
16.
A.
The headwall is experiencing stream erosion due to the high velocity flow of flood
waters entering the culvert at S. 336th St. A bulkhead is needed 10 prevent
continued significant erosion. Vegetation alone will not sufficiently stabilize the
bank to prevent erosion due to the high flow rates.
B.
The bulkhead (or headwall) has been designed to minimize the transmittal of water
current to other properties. Changes to the vertical configuration are necessary to
accomplish the purpose of flood control, and no horizontal configuration changes
are proposed.
The applicant is proposing culverts under roads and within the drainage channel
connecting Wetland 9a and Wetland 2. Culverts are pennitted in streams only if the
criteria set forth in Section 22-1309 FWCC are satisfied. Findings on each critcria are
hereby made as follows:
A.
CH2M Hill studied allernatives to culverting the stream between Wetbnd 9a and
Wetland 2. Any alternative to culverting would necessitate the removal of
significant trees which would destroy existing habitat. The proposed culvert
would have the least impact on habitat areas and would enhance dc\'clopment
potential of abutting properties. No significant habitats are associated with the
present drainage channel which is creating a severe erosion problem.
B.
No fish currently inhabit the stream segment, nor are fish anticipated to inhabit the
area above Wetland 2. The applicant has provided alternative plans showing that
no other reasonable site design exists which would allow the passage of fish above
Wetland 2.
C.
The maintenance of the culverts and the balance of the project is the responsibility
of the City, and thus not subject to the standard bonding requiremenls, Routine
maintenance will be performed by the City's Surface Water Division,
Section 22-1313 FWCC sets forth three additional requirements for land surface
modifications within a stream or stream setback area. Findings on each criteria arc hereby
made as follows:
Excavated organic materials will be mixed with fill material and used on-site for
vegetation management purposes. Fill materials will not contain organic or
inorganic material detrimental to water quality or habitat.
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 7
17.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
B.
No dredging is proposed.
C.
The wetland mitigation plan includes a planting plan to stabilize all areas left
exposed with native vegetation normally associated with the stream or selback
areas.
Portions of the project require land surface modifications and improvemenls within
regulated wetlands. Section 22-l358(d) FWCC authorizes the Examiner to recommend
approval of activities within wetlands to the City Council if the criteria set forth in said
section are met. Findings on each criteria are hereby made as follows:
A.
The proposal will improve water quality within the wetlands by reduC-ing erosion
of stream banks and sedimentation.
B.
The proposed development will improve habitat areas by improving water quality;
and enhancing the size, function, and value of the existing wetlands. Restoration
and replacement of habitat areas destroyed are consistent with the criteria of the
FWCC.
C.
The proposed development will improve drainage and storm water detention
capabilities.
The proposed development will eliminate erosion hazards and reduce existing
unstable earth conditions.
The proposed development will enhance other properties in the immediate area and
the City as a whole. No open spaces or scenic vistas are lost.
The proposal will result in an increase in wetland function and value.
As previously found, the project is in the best interest of the public heallh. safety,
and welfare. Approval will protect adjacent properties from flooding hazards,
protect and enhance sensitive areas, prevent traffic disruptions due to flooding
across 8. 336th 8t. and SR-99, and pennit development of adjacent properties.
The City has sufficient scientific expertise and supervisory capability to
successfully complete the project.
The City will monitor the project and make corrections if the project fails to meet
projected goals.
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 8
18.
The project requires improvements and land surface modifications within selback areas
ITom regulated wellands. Section 22-1359(b) FWCC authorizes the Examiner to
recommend approval of the such activities to the City Council if no feasible alternatives
exist. As previously found, alternatives to this proposal were considered in the 1991 Draft
Hylebos Creek and Lower Puget Sound Basin Plan. Furthennore, a wetland/stream impact
analysis and mitigation plan was prepared by CH2M Hill. These analyses establish that
no feasible alternative exits, and that the intrusion into the setback constitulcs the
minimum necessary to meet project requirements.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
From the foregoing findings the Hearing Examiner makes the following conclusions:
2.
3.
1.
The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented by this
request.
The proposed Kitts Corner and S. 336th St. Regional Storm Water Detenlion and
Wetland/Stream Resloration project is consistent with the Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan, the Federal Way City Code, and meets all criteria for site plan review and Process
I, 11, and III review.
The project meets all requirements for development within sensitive areas and for stream
relocation as set forth in the Ündings above. Therefore, the proposed project should be
approved by the Federal Way City Council subject to the following conditions:
A.
A maintenance plan shall be submitted by the City's Surface Water Division at the
time of final site design which provides a list of activities and schedule for
maintaining the effective operation of the project as approved.
B.
Prior to starting construction, the Surface Water Division of the City of Federal
Way shall pay for the services of a qualified professional selected and rclained by
the Department of Community Development Services to review plans, inspect, and
issue written reports to the Director of Community Development spccific to
protection of sensitive areas stating that the project complies with the requirements
of sections 22-364, 22-394(b), 22-443(c), 22-490(d), 22-1286(b), 22-1306(a), 22-
B07(c,d,e & f), 22-1308(c & d), 22-1309 (c, d &e), 22-1312(a), 22-1313, 22-
1358( d) and 22-1359(b) of the FWZC.
KITTS CORNER AND S. 336TH ST.
AUGUST 8, 1995
PAGE 9
RECOMMENDATION:
It is hereby recommended to the Federal Way City Council th~t the Kitts Corner and S.
336th St. Regional Storm Water Detention and wetland/stream restoration project be
approved subject to the conditions contained in the conclusions above.
DATED THIS ~A Y OF August,
~
Ø!~ l/.
RIGHTS TO RECONSIDERATION AND CHALLENGE
THE BELOW STATED RIGHTS TO RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL AND DESIGNED
TO
PROVIDE
NOTICE
OF TIME
LIMITS AND A GENERAL
°YTLINE
OF
PROCEDURES.
THE
SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS
FOR
REQUEST
FOR
RECONSIDERATION ARE FOUND IN SECTION 22-488 OF THE FEDERAL WAY CITY
CODE.
THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR CHALLENGES TO THE HEARING
EXAMINER'S RECOMMENDATION ARE FOUND IN SECTION 22-489 OF THE
FEDERAL
WAY
CITY
CODE.
CLARIFICATION
OF
THE
RIGHTS
TO
RECONSIDERATION AND CHALLENGE AND THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF
PERSONS WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE CITY
CLERK OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY.
RECONSIDERATION
Any person who has a right to challenge a recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner under the Federal Way City Code may request the
Hearing
Examiner
to
reconsider
any
aspect
of
his
or
her
recommendation by delivering a written request for reconsideration
to
the
Department
of
Community Development
within
seven
(7)
calendar days after the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation.
The person requesting the reconsideration shall
specify in the request what aspect of the recommendation he or she
wishes to have reconsidered and the reason for the request.
The person requesting the reconsideration shall within seven (7)
calendar days following issuance of the recommendation, mail or
personally deliver a copy of the request for reconsideration along
with a notice of the right to file a written response to the
request to those persons who have a right to challenge under
Federal Way City Code. Proof of such mailing or personal delivery
shall
be
made
by
an
affidavit
attached
to
the
request
for
reconsideration at the time of delivering the request to the
Department of Community Development. The notice shall state that
such response must be received by the Department of Community
Development within seven (7) calendar days following the filing of
the request with the department.
Any person filing a response to a response to the reconsideration
request must distribute that response by mail or personal delivery
to those persons having a right to challenge under the Federal Way
City Code.
Proof of such distribution by mail or personal delivery
shall be made by affidavit attached to the response delivered to
the Department of Community Development.
Within
ten
(10)
working
days
after
expiration
of
the
reconsideration period,
the Hearing Examiner shall notify the
persons who have a right to chállenge under the Federal Way Zoning
Code, whether or not the recommendation will be reconsidered.
The
Hearing Examiner may reconsider the recommendation only if he or
she concludes that there is substantial merit in the request.
The
process of reconsideration will be in accordance with Section 22-
488 of the Federal Way City Code.
CHALLENGE
The recommendation of the Hearing Examiner may be challenged by any
person who is to receive a copy of that recommendation.
The
challenge, in the form of a letter of challenge, must be delivered
to the Department of Community Development within fourteen (14)
calendar
days
after
the
issuance
of
the
Hearing
Examiner's
recommendation or, if a request for reconsideration is filed, then
within fourteen (l4) calendar days of either the recommendation of
the Hearing Examiner denying the request for reconsideration or the
reconsidered recommendation.
The letter of challenge must contain
a clear reference to the matter being challenged and a statement of
the
specific
factual
findings
and conclusions
of
the
Hearing
Examiner disputed by the person filing the challenge.
The person
filing the challenge shall include, with the letter of challenge,
the
fee established by the City.
The challenge will not be
accepted unless it is accompanied by the required fee.
The
person
challenging
the
recommendation
shall
within
said
fourteen (14) calendar day period mail or personally deliver a copy
of the letter of challenge along with a notice of the right to file
a written response to the challenge to those persons who have the
right to file a challenge under Section 22-489 of the Federal Way
City Code.
The notice shall state that such response must be
received by the Department of Community Development within five (5)
working days following the filing of the written challenge with the
department.
Any person filing a response to the reconsideration request must
distribute that response by mail or personal delivery to those
persons having a right to challenge under Section 22-489 of the
Federal Way City Code.
Proof of such distribution by mail or
personal
delivery shall be made by affidavit
attached to
the
response delivered to the Department of Community Development.
The
recommendation of
the Hearing Examiner may be
challenged
whether or not there was a request to reconsider th-e Hearing
Examiner's recommendation.
Any challenge of the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation will be heard by the Federal Way City Council.