No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUTC PKT 06-05-2006 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee June 5th, 2006 City Hall 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA l. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 15t\ 2006 .., PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) .,). 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Violation of Zoning Code Appeal/Hearing Examiner Decision Information 15 min / McClung B. 9th Avenue S at S 336th Street Signal Modification / Flashing Action 15 min / Perez Yellow Arrow Pilot Project C. Pacific Highway South Left Turn Pockets to S332nd St. and Action I 0 min / Roberts S316th St. D. Update on NPDES Phase II Permit Action 20 min / Bucich E. Sign Fixture Easement for Old City Hall Action 10 min / Miller 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members City Staff Jack Dovey, Chair Cary M Roe, P.E.. Public Works Director Eric Faison Marianne Lee, Administrative Assistant Dean McColgan 253-835-2701 G:\L(rrC\L{ff(" Agenda~' and Summane.f 2006106-fJ5-fJ6 LITf'(' Agenda.doc --- -- --_.~---- City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee May 15th, 2006 City Hall 4:30 pm City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Committee Member Dean McColgan; Mayor Michael Park; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Interim City Manager Derek Matheson; Community Development Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; MS Director Iwen Wang, Associate Planner Isaac Conlen; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee. 1. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 4:35 pm. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The May 151 2006, minutes were approved. The agenda was amended to move Item A, Annexation of the P AA, to the end of the agenda. The agenda was amended to remove Item B, Joe's Creek, to a future LUTC meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Annexation of Potential Annexation Areas (P AA) Kathy McClung introduced the item and said Council and Committee Members should see a memo at their places; staff have gathered information up until the last minute. Most information will be covered by Iwen Wang because the interpretation of the new legislation is being done by the Department of Revenue. Ms. Wang had a meeting with them late last week. One of the outstanding questions from the last LUTC meeting was the concern over the cost of the actual annexation itself. Questions included: What's the cost this year? What is the balance of the cost and can that be included in the budget discussion for 2007-2008? Staffwere able to determine that, if the Council decided to proceed, then the City would just need the money for preparing the legal descriptions for the resolutions and preparing the packet for the boundary review board (BRB). That's a matter of a few thousand dollars. The balance of the cost, the bulk of the money, could be included in Council discussions on the 2007-2008 budget as a new program. Before Council makes their decision, and Ms. Wang will be presenting additional information in a minute, Ms. McClung raised a couple of points. One of them is that, if the Council decides not to go through with this and not to do the studies, then there are other projects that staff could be working on and staff would rather do that then spend the time on something that is not going to go forward. Another thing Committee Members should know or think about is that King County is pushing very hard to get cities to take their PAA areas. They contributed to the legislature's adoption of the tax incentive (mentioned at the last meeting) and if the carrot doesn't work, they'll probably be back later with the stick. A third thing is that there are, most likely, going to be groups of people within the PAA that will approach the City from time to time and want to annex. It's going to be a financial deficit. Is the Council going to be willing to say 'No' to those groups? The other downside is that, that would have staff going through the annexation process a number of times instead of once. Those are a few other things to think about when making your decision. G:\LUTOLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-15-06 LlITC Minutes FINAL doc ----- --------- ---------- Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 May 15th, 2006 Chair Dovey asked, if the 0.02% sales tax is the carrot, what's the stick? Ms. McClung responded that she did not know what the stick would be, but if the carrot does not work, there's a good chance that King County be back, trying to think of a stick. Chair Dovey asked if King County can force a city government to annex something they don't want to. Ms. Wang said that one thing staff does know is that in the Growth Management Act (GMA) the State has considered putting some more "Stick" in there. For example, they can with hold your state shared revenue distribution and other state revenue. So it probably won't come from King County directly, it will come from the State. It will be State action rather than County action. Committee Member Faison said that that has, in fact, happened in jurisdictions that did not comply with the GMA. They have withheld funds. Ms. Wang said that those jurisdictions failed to plan based on the GMA. Committee Member Faison continued saying that, ultimately, the state has the authority to draw city boundaries. Ms. Wang provided the Committee with some information that staff did not have a good understanding of before on Bill 6686. Staff had a meeting with Dept. of Revenue (DoR) on May 11th. Even with that meeting, DoR has warned staff that they need to treat the current interpretation as preliminary as they are still refining it. The fmal version will be posted on their website. However, based on the discussions staff feels pretty comfortable, but knows there are some changes to the information Council was briefed with previously. One is that, if the City does decide to go to incremental annexations and does 10,000 plus annexation the fust time and a 10,000 plus annexation the second time, the 0.1 % and 0.1 % sales tax are additive so you do end up getting 0.2% sales tax by annexing two areas, each over 10,000. The law states that if you annex 10,000 you are eligible for 0.1 % sales tax and if you annex 20,000 you are eligible for 0.2%. Staff thought that was a clear incentive for cities to annex in one lump sum but DoR's interpretation is that they are additive. The second is there was great concern about the city's current population count of the P AA being too close to 20,000. Our current estimate is that there are 20,152 people in the P AA area, less than 1% difference from the allowed amount. Ifthe post-annexation census said Federal Way had only 19,500 new citizens would the City then be ineligible for the 0.2%? The answer is no. DoR's interpretation is that they can use the City's estimate at the time we initiate the annexation as a base. Even if the post- annexation census has a different number it is OK. They recognize that planning happens at one time, annexation happens at one time and populations can change. We can move forward based on the City's estimated population count and do not have to worry about being penalized. Kathy McClung said that the City fully intends to do a public process; there is some that's required but staff also see that they would have to do a lot of public information before any kind of a vote could be taken. That has not been fully developed but staffhas built it into the time plan and work program, if the Council decides to come forward. But, staff can come back to the Council with that fleshed out and then get more ideas for what Council thinks is good if Council decide to move forward. Ms. Wang's third point of clarification is how long the City will be eligible for the 0.1% or 0.2% tax. It is understood that it is for a lO-year period that the City will be eligible for a tax credit, but the ten years starts when the City fust imposes the tax. So if the City does two separate annexations and one 10,000 annexation occurs in 2007 and starts imposing the new 0.1 % tax and then two years down the road does another 10,000 person annexation and adjusts the tax rate to 0.2% at that point, the second portion (0.1%) will only have eight years left. That's why doing the annexation in one lump sum gives you the maximum ten years for the full 0.2% possibility. You can do it incrementally but you need to know that the second annexation cannot get the full ten years of financial support. Chair Dovey asked for clarification on when Ms. Wang says the City imposed the tax, is this an additional tax up and above what the people are already paying or is it offset by what the state's collecting so it's revenue neutral to the individual. Ms. Wang responded that it is revenue neutral for the consumer. Chair Dovey said that when we do this, taking in the sales tax revenue for the whole City, we are still upside down? Ms. Wang said yes, by about $200,000. Estimating the revenue is about 2.8 million dollars based on 2005's sales tax collection and our total cost is estimated at about 3 million dollars. This is based on the 2003 annexation study with recommended staffmg increase. Chair Dovey asked, at what point does it cross over where we would break even or be ahead of the game? What does our sales tax have to do? Ms. Wang replied that our expenditure growth rate is about 4% and so if our sales tax grows at the same rate then it will cross but if our sales tax does not grow then it may not cross. The projection is that it will. G\LUTOLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-15-06 LUTe Minutes FINAL doc ------- - ---------- ~---- Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 3 May 15th, 2006 Committee Member Dean McColgan asked for confirmation that the 0.2% sales tax would come from current residents. Ms. Wang agreed, saying it will also come from consumers and the new residents in the annexed areas. Mr. McColgan asked if that was taking revenue away? Ms. Wang said no, it is not. The State us putting up the money. Mayor Park noted that the current tax is 6.5%. Ms. Wang confirmed it will reduce to 6.3%. Then in 10 years, Chair Dovey said, it will switch back. The state will again get 6.5% and the City will go back to where it is now. Chair Dovey asked staff to walk through where the costs actually occur in the timeframe. Kathy McClung reviewed the handout on the PAA annexation from the last LUTC meeting (May 1 st) and the table included in it. It has the election cost at a little over $10,000. $61,000 was allocated to staff resources; however, a majority of that is already folded into the action you took on the Senior Planner position. Then there is the post-annexation census; that's where the majority of the money goes. That's a ball park figure between $118,000 and $140,000. That would depend on whether you were trying to do the whole area or a portion of the area and we would only have to pay it if the annexation area gets approved because if it doesn't, there's no reason to do a census. There were miscellaneous fees of $ 19,000 for mailings, preparing the packet for the BRB, and preparing the legal descriptions. The total is $208,000 to $230,000, however you can subtract the majority of the staff resources from that because that's already paid for. Chair Dovey asked that ifthe annexation goes to vote and it's turned down, then there's no law that says we have to do it again? Then we're only out the cost of the election and the staff time to get it to an election, which will not cost $61,000, will it? Ms. McClung responded that there is some cost to other departments; for example, if the Community Development (CD) dept. goes out to public meeting they take representatives from all departments with them. Then there is the cost of preparing information for staff reports and public flyers, etc. Committee Member McColgan asked about the negative capital needs. How do we balance... there is a l.3million dollar capital deficit here. How do we account for that? Ms. Wang replied that, unfortunately, at this time there is no additional assistance that we know of. The City Council will have quite a bit of discretion in terms of how much capital you want to put in. The majority of the capital is for parks, if you look at the detail parks capital is about 1.5 million. Then the street-related capital, which is service level, signals, widening" and those kinds of service improvements, is about $850,000/per year (annualized). So the timing is a Council choice, and the Council will need to make some service level decisions for the capital projects. She said it is no different than today's capital needs that the Council needs to prioritize. Committee Member McColgan said on of the reasons to annex is to realize some of the benefits of better infrastructure: better parks, better roads, but in looking at a 1.3 million dollar deficit Council may decide not to make those improvements. The City should be upfront with people voting for annexation that the City may not get to the same level of standards in the new area for a while because of the need to fmd the 1.3 million to do that. Council Member McColgan wants that to be part of the conversation. Ms. Wang said if you look at park's capital deficit it alone is 1.5 million. So if you do everything on the transportation side and hold off on the parks side you will about break even on the capital needs. Ms. Wang said the operating/maintenance for the parks is funded as part of the operating study. The approach the 2003 annexation study took was they didn't just take a straight line, a proportion of what current City expenditure is times the population number there. They instead looked at each area to see what there were deficient in. So some areas will have a higher factor for public safety, for example, than other areas. Some areas will have a higher public works cost than some others. So they took different information, based on population, geographic areas, the existing amount of infrastructure, etc, to come up with the direct service costs. Then for support service, it's based on the direct service increased need in proportion to the current level of service. Most of them are based on the evaluation of the area where they are needed. Committee Member Faison noted that it's important that we not lose sight here that the County still has the $ IOmillion dollar fund. Have we had any conversations with them about how much they're willing to contribute? Particularity Committee Member Faison would be interested in having them pay for all the costs of putting this on the ballot. Ms. McClung responded that the City has not had any contact with the County over the ten million dollar fund. She had talked to the Planning Director from the City of Auburn. G:\lUTC\lUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-15-06lUTC Minutes FINAldoc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 4 May 15th, 2006 They have had that conversation and were told that this legislation was supposed to take care of it Committee Member Faison asked if there was any rush to rule on this issue tonight. Ms. McClung said there was not. Committee Member Faison urged that before the Committee goes on record moving something forward they put a little pressure on the County, saying the City is not interested in moving forward unless the County is willing to pay for some of it. Committee Member McColgan said he may be wrong but he understands that that proposed $10 million dollar fund has not been approved in their last budget, he thinks. Ms. Wang replied that when they first talked about this the money was not released by the County Council. There was supposed to be a follow-up meeting in response to the County Council on how they are going to use that $10 million dollars. She does not know if that occurred and does not know ifit's ever been released or is in their budget or not. Committee Member McColgan agrees with Committee Member Faison that if there is money available they should tap into it. However, he is not sure if that $10 million dollars was not approved therefore they went to the state as another way to get money towards the annexation. Chair Dovey said he agrees with Committee Member Faison that perhaps right now they not take action and go after the question. Chair Dovey returned to the question about the parks. I know neither of you (Ms. McClung & Ms. Wang) are in charge of parks so this might be hard to answer but, if we were to annex the east side we would pick up Lake Geneva, that new baseball field over there, Five Mile Lake, I think, and a few others. I picture the 20,000 people and the size of those parks and then I picture our parks over here, & where is the real deficit? Ms. Wang replied that the deficit is in two key areas. One is the trails. They don't have any trail system in the unincorporated area now that meets the City standard. Our standard is 2.2 miles per 1,000 in population. Currently, within the city limits, we are not meeting our standard. The other is neighborhood parks. They have five parks there. Two of them, Bigaman and Camelot parks, are open space oriented. They are considered 'passive' parks. Lake Geneva, Five Mile Lake and the ball field are all 'active' parks; they are all in the south side. In this budget, he continued, is there enough money to maintain those parks? Ms. Wang replied that the maintenance costs are built in to the $3 million dollar annual operating costs. Council Member Kochmar asked if it would be more realistic to revise this analysis so it's more in incremental stages. Wouldn't we want to just provide basic services initially? Look at the roads, provide police, and then add additional services at a later date when the money is available? Ms. Wang responded that there are a couple of things to consider. One is that, the amount that the City will actually get from this tax credit, or tax transfer, depends on how big the gap really is. We can reduce our costs but we will not be getting more money to offset. The maximum we can get is the amount of our operating deficit. Council Member Kochmar said that first, they have to agree, second, we have to decide on the level of service. It would appear to her that it should be structured it so that they are bearing more of the burden of the costs. In order to do that they have to have more retail. Wouldn't the City want to re-look at that zoning? Ms. McClung said that would be a Council decision. Stafflooked at it a couple of years ago and that was the whole point in looking at it as we looked it, so that people in that area would know what they could count on, one way or the other. Just like inside the City limits, we get requests every year to change the zoning. It would happen naturally anyway. Once that area is incorporated they do get the permits here. They do get the inspections here. They are going to expect the potholes to be fixed there. Code compliance. Those things... obviously police, that's on the top of the list, but those other services also have to be provided. That is not optional. Council Member Kochmar says she agrees with that, she's just thinking that we should re-look at the analysis and phase in some of the other parks and so on that might not be basic services. Council Member Faison said he thinks we should maximize the services because the state's going to pay for it. So for that ten year period it seems like we should put as many services as we can in up to whatever the State's willing to pay because, they're paying for it. Council Member Kochmar asked if the 0.2% is based on the maximum services. Is the State going to ask us if we're providing maximum services? Council Member Faison said that the 0.2% is based off of the services the City provides versus the revenue the area generates. Council Member Kochmar said she thought the 0.2% was generally, for over-all. Mayor Park said that the State will pay for the financial gap whether it's 0.2% or under 0.2%. Council Member Kochmar said that's the first she's heard of that; so you mean they could give us less than 0.2%? Ms. G:\LUTOLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-15-06 LUTC Minute< FINAL-doc --.------ - ------.------ Land UseITransportation Committee Page 5 May 15th, 2006 Wang and Mayor Park said yes. If our financing gap is less than 0.2%. Council Member Burbidge said she would also encourage some additional conversations with King County. This is going to make a big difference in their responsibilities, if we annex these areas. Mayor Park asked Ms. Wang to explain her revenue projection on the utility tax. Ms. Wang said that the City is assuming, under this analysis, half of the city's utility tax will be designated for capital purposes. So, that is part of the capital revenue. Mayor Park said that means that half of the 6% currently? Ms. Wang confmned that and said it is an assumption. Mayor Park said that, ifwe the City changes that at a future budget discussion, it will apply? Ms. Wang said yes; it is totally City policy. Mayor Park said that means it can be changed after the budget discussion? Ms. Wang confmned that it can be changed. In reality, Mayor Park asked, what's the actual accounting process? We are looking at 0.2% or 2.7 million based on our projections. So, the State is willing to pay for our revenue and the projected expenses? Ms. Wang said that the new legislation specifies that the City needs to do annual accounting to see what we actually incur as costs. How much,revenue are we actually bringing in from that area? So staff will need to annually report the gap to the state and whatever they distribute will be the gap up to 0.2% or 0.1 % ofthe,tax. So if the gap is higher they will only give us whatever our tax is and ifit's lower they will only give us the gap amoimt. Mayor Park asked about the revenue expenses projection today is pretty similar to the projection staff did a couple of years ago. Ms. Wang responded that it's pretty consistent; with the exception that staff did update the FTE ratio for the police department, for example. Staff used a more current number for the police officer per thousand ratio. The revenue is coming in pretty much as staff projected. Staffhas not seen any big surprises in the property tax area. However in Community Development, for example, the City did not add staff but are starting to do the new resident's permits, so that is something that needs to be looked at in the budget process. Ms. Wang said that as long as it continues to be a residential area staff expects it to be a deficit. What may change the equation is the streamlined sales tax. When you move to a destination based sales tax and if more and more people continue to use the online purchasing then that can balance that somewhat. But until we have that law in place, until we see some revenue generated from that, it's risky to anticipate. Chair Dovey asked if any other Council Members had any questions. He said that he has heard from two of his colleagues at least, on this committee, and thinks they will postpone making a decision until after King County has been contacted. We will bring this up and figure it out when we talk about it. Thank you. Cmte did not take action on this item. They postponed future action until after the City has more infonnation from the County. B. Joe's Creek Salmon Habitat Restoration Project - Bid Award This agenda was amended to remove it from tonight's agenda and send it to a future, unspecified, LUTC meeting. C. Setting a Public Hearing for the TIP 2007-2012 Rick Perez introduced the topic. This sets the public hearing for July 18th, 2006. This is its second LUTC appearance. Moved: Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED Option 1 on to the June 6th, 2006 City CounciL RESOLUTION 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be June 5th, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. G:\LUTOLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\05-15-06 LUTC Minutes FINAL.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation commi~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manag FROM: Kathy McClung, Community Development Services Director lavtG SUBJECT: Castellar Hearing Examiner Appeal Chronology The following is a chronology of events leading to the Hearing Examiner appeal hearing for Ms. Castellar. Since this issue was raised at the last Council meeting, the LUTC chair invited Ms. Castellar to the June 5th LUTC rneeting to discuss her land use issue. October 5, 2005: Citizen complaint received that portion ofCastellars' property had been paved over with asphalt. October 14, 2005: Letter sent by the City to the Castellars notifying them of possible code violations. October 19,2005: Evelyn Castellar called and spoke with Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby. Mrs. Castellar indicated that someone from City Hall had told her that no permits were required to pave her property. She requested a face-to-face meeting during the following week to discuss the matter in more detail. October 25,2005: Evelyn Castellar called and asked Compliance Officer Nordby ifhe had identified the person she had previously spoken with regarding permits needed for paving. Officer Nordby indicated that he had asked those people most likely to have spoken with her, but none of them remembered speaking to her. October 25,2005: Deputy Director Fewins learned that Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Sean Wells did remember speaking with a woman about a 5 acre property and paving a portion of the property. Mr. Wells indicated that the had told her that 1) paving under 5,000 square feet would not require surface water drainage review, 2) paving from the property line to the edge of the highway would require a right-of-way permit, and 3) that there may be other issues involving land use requirements and she should verify those with the Department of Community Development. November 1,2005: Meeting held between Mrs. Castellar, Martin Nordby, Greg Fewins, Sean Wells, Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller, and Public Works Director Cary Roe. Purpose ofthe meeting was to discuss code requirements and to understand what may have transpired in the communication process that led Mrs. Castellar to believe that she did not need to go through land use approval to pave her undeveloped parcel. During this meeting, Mrs. Castellar was emphatic that she was not going to remove the asphalt. November 4,2005: Deadline for the Castellars to remove asphalt. ~._.._----_.- ----- ----------- --------------- ---- --- November 14,2005: Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby issues Notice of Violations and Order to Correct Violations (Notice and Order). November 28,2005: The Castellars appeal the Notice and Order and indicated they would be out of the country until February 11, 2006. March 7, 2006: Appeal hearing held. March 8, 2006: Deputy Hearing Examiner Terrance McCarthy sent letter indicating the record in the Caste lIar appeal hearing was to be left open to provide Mrs. Castellar the opportunity to submit applications for two permits. March 15,2006: Motion for Reconsideration sent by the City asking the Hearing Examiner to, reconsider his decision to leave the hearing open. March 17,2006: Letter from Castellars to Hearing Examiner (Received by the City on March 20, 2006) indicating they believed they were now incompliance with the code. March 20,2006: Letter received from Hearing Examiner denying City's motion for reconsideration. March 23, 2006: Letter from City to Hearing Examiner responding to Castellars' March 17 letter and Hearing Examiner's March 20 letter, clarifying issues brought up in Castellars' letter"and requesting that the record be closed and a decision issued by the Hearing Examiner. April 25, 2006: Hearing Examiner issues his decision. The Hearing Examiner determined that: (1) the City and the Castellar had reached an agreement concerning the shipping containers on the property, and therefore, there was no violation; (2) the act of asphalting the entire property did not trigger the need for a land use modification permit, and therefore, there was no violation; and (3) Castellars subsequently applied for and received a permit to extend their access into the right-of-way, and therefore, there was no violation. This issue is informational only and requires no action from the LUTC or Council. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: 9'h Avenue S at S 336th Street Signal Modification Project / Flashing Yellow Arrow Pilot POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council authorize staff to proceed with implementation of the 9th Avenue S at S 336th Street Signal Modification Project and implement a pilot project to experiment with Flashing Yellow Arrow traffic signal displays? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: June 5,2006 CATEGORY: 0 Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: Rick Perez, P. E., City Traffic Engineer ~ DEPT: Public Works "'~M_..___.m_.....__......m.._._.............__.............................................__......_.....................mmm......._._..._......._....._..................._m............._......................__.n..... ......_....... ....._.__.....___ ...._..__......................_.........__.._........._._......._m..._..............__._.....__m..__.___..__..............___.__ Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memo Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to modify the traffic signal at 9th Avenue Sand S 336th Street to provide protected/permitted left-turn phasing using Flashing Yellow Arrow, and reserve any remaining budget for similar installations upon Council approval; 2. Authorize staff to modify the traffic signal using conventional protected/permitted signal displays. 3. Do not authorize staff to modify the traffic signal and provide direction to staff. m.._.............._............___......__..................._ ................_...__.........._____~._......_...._....._......_.__._.._.._.........................___........_........._............ ..............._............_._.............._.___...._..._..._._.__......._........._._..........__ ....................__._ .....___..___..........__......._..__._._..._..._._.__._.._..._......__....._ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 to the June 20th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for approval: Authorize staff to modify the traffic signal at 9th Avenue Sand S 336th Street to provide protected/permitted left-turn phasing using Flashing Yellow Arrow, and reserve any remaining budget for similar installations upon Council approval. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the June 20th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Mernber PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of Option 1, to modifY the traffic signal at 9'h Ave S. and S. 336th Street to provide protected/permitted left-turn phasing using Flashing Yellow Arrow, and reserve any remaining budget for similar installations upon Council approval. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED I ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation commi~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manag FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director ~ Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer fI? SUBJECT: cJ" Avenue S at S 336th Street Signal Modification Project I Flashing Yellow Arrow Pilot BACKGROUND: This project would modify the traffic signal phasing to improve the level of service, and reduce delays and queuing. The extent of queuing during the midday and evening peak hours is such that driveways near the intersection are blocked and storage lengths for left turn lanes on S 336th Street are exceeded, contributing to a reduction in safety. The traffic signal phasing on S 336th Street would be changed from protected left-turn phasing (where left-turns are allowed only during a green arrow indication) to protected/permitted (where Ieft- turns are provided a green arrow and also allowed during a green ball but yielding to oncoming traffic). The phasing would also be changed on 9th Avenue S frorn permitted (where no separate left-turn phase is provided) to protected/permitted. These changes will better accommodate traffic generated by Celebration Park, the new City Hall, and the new Community Center. In addition, staff is proposing a pilot project for a new type of signal display for protected/permitted left-turn phasing, called Flashing Yellow Arrow. This type of display has been undergoing experirnentation nationally for about 5 years and has undergone extensive study. Preliminary results from agencies experimenting with this display have been so promising that Federal Highways Administration has given a blanketinterim approval to agencies wishing to experiment further, and it is expected that this will become a new standard in the next update of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in 2008. One study conducted on a similar signal display used in Dallas, Texas suggests that this will operate more safely than any other type of signal phasing. Other benefits of Flashing Yellow Arrow include greater flexibility in signal coordination and the ability to vary between protected only, protected/permitted, and permitted only phasing by time of day. Other installations in the Northwest include Everett, Kennewick and Vancouver, Washington, and Beaverton, Woodburn, Bend, Redmond, and Medford, Oregon. Studies have shown that the current standard display for protected/permitted left-turn phasing has a relatively low level of driver understanding. Many agencies have attempted to improve this by including the explanatory sign, "Left Turn Yield on Green e", but more recent studies have ironically concluded that this sign actually reduces driver understanding. Locally, Seattle has experimented with a flashing yellow ball display, but studies indicate that driver understanding is better with an arrow display. FHW A insists that the Flashing Yellow Arrow is so intuitive that no explanatory signing is allowed, although agencies are free to develop their own public education materials. Attached is an example developed by Oregon Department of Transportation. The project account balance is currently $112,281, consisting of $ 100,000 in REET funds and the remainder in developer mitigation funds. Because of the limited scale of the project, staff proposes to implement the project using King County forces. King County estimates the project cost at $19,702. Based on the experience of other agencies experimenting with Flashing Yellow Arrow, staff anticipates that the Flashing Yellow Arrow display will prove to be popular and effective at reducing collision rates, and therefore recommends that any remaining budget be reserved for similar signal modifications at other locations within the City subject to Council approval. However, the project could be implemented with either Flashing Yellow Arrow or conventional protected/permitted left-turn phasing. Communications Understanding the Flashing Yellow Left-Turn Arrow Page 10[2 - Text-Only Site State Directory Agencies A-I Accessibility . ORE(j()N 8usiness Education Human Services Natural Resources Public Safety Recreation ComlTIunications ,rr g~~~~' ti; of Tra Departments Divisions Understanding the Flashing Yellow left-Turn Arrow Do you know what to do if you are waiting to turn left and you see a flashing yellow left-turn arrow? It's simple: be cautious, and after yielding to oncoming traffic and pedestrians, make your left turn. After it flashes, the flashing yellow left-turn arrow then becomes the better-known steady yellow left-turn arrow, The steady yellow left- turn arrow means what it has always meant: stop, if you can do so safely. A solid red arrow means STOP, Drivers turning left must stop, * A solid yellow arrow means stop if it is safe to do so, A flashing yellow arrow means turns are permitted, but you must first yield to oncoming traffic and pedestrians and then proceed with caution. A solid green arrow means turn left, Oncoming traffic must stop. Do not go straight. In Oregon, flashing yellow left-turn arrows are becoming more and more common. Currently, there are several flashing yellow left-turn arrows in the west side Portland Metro area, in Woodburn, in Bend, and throughout Jackson County in Southern Oregon. Based on national research, the flashing yellow arrow is expected to improve intersection safety in certain locations. h eg g [ h g e h ------------- --~..--_.__._- ---------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20th, 2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South - Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 332nd and S 316th Streets POLICY QUESTION: Should the median on Pacific Highway South be revised to permit a northbound left turn to westbound South 3320d Street? Also, should the median on Pacific Highway South be revised to increase the storage length of the existing northbound left turn pocket to westbound South 316th Street? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: June 5,2006 CATEGORY: ~ Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: Bria ~~~!.!~:...~!!l::l::~_~y~_t~~~_I!~te.<.:~...~~gi_~e._~~. DEPT: Public Works ......._.....H_...._.__.__._._.__.._...H__...___.........._......_........~. . ......._...__._.._........._....~.~.~. ....-.--..........-..........-.... .- .-.....__._..~._~._~ ....~...._..........~---_...-_.. Attachments: City of Federal Way Mernorandum; Pacific Highway South - Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 3320d and S 3 16th Streets. June 5, 2006. Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to design and bid a new northbound to westbound left turn pocket on Pacific Highway South at South 3320d Street. Authorize staff to also design and bid an additional 180 feet of storage for the existing northbound to westbound left turn pocket on Pacific Highway South at South 3 16th Street. Use unexpended funds from the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II for project funding. 2. Do not authorize staff to Provide staff with direction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize staff to proceed with the design and construction of both left turn pockets. Use unex ended funds from Paci ighway South HOV Lanes Phase II for project funding. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: {?/110-..., Council Conuniltee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward Option 1 to the June 20th, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for approval. Authorize staff to design and bid a new northbound to westbound left turn pocket on Pacific Highway South at South 3320d Street. Authorize staff to design and bid an additional 180 feet of storage for the existing northbound to westbound left turn pocket on Pacific Highway South at South 316th Street. Use unexpended funds frorn the Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II for project funding. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of the design and bidding of a new northbound to westbound left turn pocket on Pacific Highway South at South 332nd Street, and the design and bidding of an additional 180 feet of storage for the existing northbound to westbound left turn pocket on Pacific Highway South at South 316th Street. Use unexpended funds from the Pacific Highway South HO V Lanes Phase II for project funding. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED 1ST reading ---.--------- 0 T ABLEDffiEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE 1# REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION 1# K:\COUNCIL\AGDBILLS\2006\06-20-06 S332nd & S316th LT Pockets,doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation committ~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manage FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director ~ Brian H. Roberts, P.E., Street Systems Project Engineer I SUBJECT: Pacific Highway South - Northbound Left Turn Lanes at S 332"d and S 31fJh Streets BACKGROUND: The Pacific Highway South HOV Lanes Phase II project (between South 324th Street and South 340th Street) was originally designed with no median breaks between the signalized intersections. Mr. Kim, a business owner on Pacific Highway South at South 333rd Street, requested a rnedian break at South 333rd Street, and submitted a traffic analysis in January 2004 to support it. Subsequent Council action resulted in the median break being provided until such time that more pressing needs developed to require left turn access at South 33200 Street. In particular, Federal Way School District was considering relocating its bus barn and other district facilities to a site on South 3320d Street between Pacific Highway South and Celebration Park. Several City Council members also expressed an interest in revising the median to permit a left turn from northbound Pacific Highway South to westbound South 3320d Street. This would provide access to both Pacific Coast Ford and Ernie's Fuel Stop, as well as facilitating a future east-west road connection between Pacific Highway South and 1st Avenue South.. Council requested staff to subrnit a revised channelization plan to WSDOT for approval, and to investigate and secure a source of funding. WSDOT approved the revised channelization plan on May 8th of this year. Project funding will come from unexpended funds from the Pacific Highway South Phase II project. Providing a left-turn lane frorn northbound SR 99 to S 3320d Street is estirnated to cost $81,760, including a 10% City contingency. Project design is estimated to cost $16,000, for a total project cost of $97,760. Phase I ofSR 99 (between S 310th Street and S 324th Street) was originally designed with 210 feet of storage for the northbound to westbound left turn at S 3 16th Street. After Phase I was complete, the Pavilions I retail development was completed, increasing traffic in the area. Today, the left turn queues routinely back up onto the inside northbound through lane at mid-day and the afternoon peak. In response to numerous citizen requests, staff evaluated increasing left turn storage to alleviate the congestion. Staff concluded that the left turn pocket can be lengthened to 390 feet without compromising the length of the southbound to eastbound left turn pocket serving S 318th Street. No channelization plan revision is required to increase the northbound left turn pocket at South 3 16th Street. Providing the additional 180 feet of left turn storage to westbound S 316th Street is estimated to cost $81,480, including a 10% City contingency. Project design is estimated to cost $16,000, for a total project cost of $97,480. Project funding will come from unexpended funds from the Pacific Highway South Phase II project. K::Lc~-r('-'2(!!;(;'..i)f)J}5..06 S ~~32ND A.\iD S :<, f ;.d-}-1 L PCi(,'KL:-rS.i)()C '. !t ~~ ~~ ~~ I~ .- " ~ No' 0 ~ ~~ ~ i ::ll ~'i )00 U -4 ~~ - ~ ~ ~ SS ... ... VI ~~ (I) (I) ~ i l f ~~ I.. ii ~ !, . I. ~ .. i' I l'll'l I I . , ' I iii I II I I I ,1 .',~, II " M 2 I ~ ''', co .. I .: I I ~. I : en m I , S I : m I () !!' i 8 . !l !! ~ E! , m Ii" 0 II i .11' G @ElElElEl8 i -I II; I: . I\.) :< i"l i ~i i ij ~ I ~ ~ ~ II ~ II i i ! · i i ~ z ; ~ .. fi ::l II i I I ~ ~ . .' al ;0 II i I ~ I. . it 0 ~ il ,m . ~. F c e ~ I f!J f!] rID rID liJ @ @ I n~Hq 3: I, iil . I I; I Ihnil i i i It t i I I I ., ;~ \ , ( ! n , .~:X:'" ;~~ ...... ,:'~ti:,:.~t-. "- ~r-n ~. g~i , -l '-l -l ~' Oi:< " f!'> ~ S 832+40 MATCH TO DRAVv1NG CH-4 ~ .....;:2 N~ u. .... I;l i ~ ~ ~ N "" 0 ~ :: I l'l I CII I > . ~-_._- 8 Os .. .. .. Z l- i w S. 316TH ST. ro w u. J: u. tn 0 ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I g I I ~ I I i I .. I :~ I I rt I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I ,\:t I ,II I ,~I ,~I ,II I ,II ,\: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..... I I ~ I I I I I ~ I ,.,--... I I 1 OJ I I I OJ I I I cr:: I I I 01 (f) I I .q- I '--'" I ~I I I I I I I 3 I I I- a I I I ::::> l- I I l- I I <C I a.. 0 I I a.. <( (f) 3 ' I I Q) , I I I- zl I I >- >- <( I I I S n I I ..-- I I ~ I v - c I I I 0\ Vi I z; I - a.. U Q) I J ii: ......, u LL 0 () I I - a - U Q) I I <( D::: I CL I I I I f I I I " ( I Iii I ex: I <- I ) I I I ~ ! ~ I I '. . I ~ il p~1 I I ,( I I ,II I ,~I '0 " I 'D /;:!I ~m I I I <~:~I I,II.\:I Q) Q) 0... > 0: ; 0 !~~ I I .- a I I b E I I Vi Q) ) l- I I I ~ '0 ~ Q) N C I I I ..D..D U II I l- I- '_ :g I ~ ::J a ..:;,. Ct: a:: I I u""'" ~ ':J ~ i3 ~ '" I ~ 13 "," ., I ~ ~ -e (/) " S [3 I I I Q) ::J @~~~B~ zu :r; coo I ..D l- I ::J / , U ~ " ) I Q) > / 3: a I E - Q) / ~ I er:: / CU ~ ...-a I I ~ICP I ~ 8 ~ ~ I .. ------------ ------- COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 ITEM #: ~-------_._.._------_.__._-_._--_...._.__..__.._._-----_.-----.----.-...---.----.-.--.------...-.......-..---.- ....--..-...-..-.---.......-..--.......--..-..-.- ....-.-.....-.-.-.-.-..----- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: NPDES Phase II Permit status update POLICY QUESTION: Does Council support staff comments on Draft NPDES permit language as expressed in the May 19th comment letter sent to the Departrnent of Ecology? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Committee MEETING DATE: June 5, 2006 CATEGORY: [gJ Consent 0 Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manag~ DEPT: Public Works -----.-.----...------..-..--..-...---.-------..-------------.. .. ... .....--..-.----.------.----...-------.---.-..---...- Attachments: LUTC Mernorandurn dated June 5, 2006. Options Considered: I) Support staff comment letter as submitted on May 19,2006 to DOE in accordance with Draft NPDES permit comment period. Staff are to continue negotiations/discussions with DOE staff and participate in Legislative hearings and meetings with environmental groups and other interested parties on these issues. 2) Request staff to modify position on selected topics when continuing negotiations/discussions with DOE staff, Legislative hearings, environmental groups, and other interested parties. 3) Do not support staff comment letter and provide direction to staff. ...._._.__..__.____.._..._.~._.__H__.__.____.....______.__...._..____...__.H_..____.__.._.____.....__.._._._.______._..___.____._._.__._M___.__.__.__...__.__...____._..H__.__._.__. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends option 1. Forward this option to the June 20th, 2006 City Council consent agenda. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: {:M~ COWlCiI Committee COWlCil COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Member Dean McColgan,"Mernber PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: HI move approval of " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED I ST reading 0 T ABLEDIDEFERREDINO AcrION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # -- ---------_.._-~ - - -- ----- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: June 5th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation COnnni~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manag i 'Il.. FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director fJ//;1' Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager~ SUBJECT: NPDES Phase II Permit status update BACKGROUND: The federal Clean Water Act of 1972 with later modifications (1977, 1981, and 1987) established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United States. One of the mechanisms for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program (NPDES Permits), which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many years ago the EP A delegated responsibility to administer the NPDES permit program to the State of Washington under Chapter 90.48 RCW, which defines the Department of Ecology's (DOE) authority and obligations in administering the state wastewater discharge permit program. Through this process, the DOE agreed to be responsible for issuing all NPDES permits in the state and to issue them through existing permitting processes. In 1987 Congress amended the federal Clean Water Act (CW A) to address stormwater discharges based on a lawsuit from environmental interests. The CW A amendments established two phases for a stormwater permit program that required controls to reduce stormwater pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Phase I of the permit program covered large and medium sized municipalities (over 100,000 populations) with Phase II to cover smaller jurisdictions. Snohomish County, King County, Pierce County, Clark County, Seattle, Tacoma and WSDOT are the only Phase I permittees in Washington State. There are over 85 Phase II jurisdictions subject to the impending permit. In 2000, EP A finalized the NPDES Phase II rules regulating municipally-owned separate storm sewer systems (MS4's) within census-defined urban areas. The Phase II rule extends coverage of the NPDES program to small municipal separate stormwater sewer systems and requires Ecology to expand its stormwater program by issuing permits to additional operators ofMS4's that discharge to surface waters. The federal Register outlining the intention of the Phase II Stormwater Rules requires that a jurisdiction create a Stormwater Management Program that contains the following six minimum measures: 1. Public education and outreach 2. Public involvement and participation 3. lllicit discharge, detection and elimination 4. Construction site storm water runoff and control 5. Post-construction storm water management in new development and re-development 6. Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations. ---~_.- ___u_ _____ _________u________ 6/6/2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Draft NPDES Phase II Permit Update Page 2 The Phase II Rules also contain specific requirements for waterbodies that are subject to a Total Maximum Daily Lmid ("TMDL") due to pollutant loadings violating numeric water quality criterion. Federal Way does not have a TMDL established for any waterbodies at this time but it is anticipated that ones will be developed based on already having waterbodies or segments of waterbodies on the State 303(d) list (Joe's Creek, Redondo Creek, Steel Lake, and Hylebos Creek - all for Fecal Coliform). The DOE issued a preliminary draft permit in early 2005 with the express intent of gauging the reaction from all interested parties. This was not a broadly distributed document and did not follow the normal procedures for Ecology. Based on the comments received (thousands of pages), DOE went back to the drawing board and worked on a new draft permit which was issued on February 15th of this year. While the new permit draft was improved, there was still much within it to concern municipalities, environmental interests, federal agencies, and engineers. The DOE has only issued drafts of the permit language. There is a concern that significant issues remain to be addressed before the final permit can be completed. We are encouraging DOE to work with the effected parties closely as well as the State Legislature in resolving the issues prior to release of the final permit. A copy of a comment letter along with specific comments sent to Ecology on the draft permit has been forwarded to Council under separate cover. The purpose of this memorandum and LUTC presentation is to go over the bigger issues with the council on the draft permit. Maior Issues: Re-Development requirements - The current draft permit refers to Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Manual) in multiple places. Of great concern is the manner in which the Manual addresses redevelopment on a site. Applicants would need to treat the site as an undeveloped, forested parcel when addressing stormwater quantity and quality. No longer would applicants be allowed credit for facilities installed legally in accordance with State vesting laws. This would lead to significantly increased re-development costs potentially dampening the redevelopment market. Additionally, there is a strong question as to the legal ability of municipalities to do so in light of state law and court decisions. Monitoring - We have joined with multiple other municipalities, both Phase I and Phase II, in requesting that Ecology form a Stormwater Partnership to coordinate monitoring of stormwater with salmon recovery, Puget Sound Recovery efforts, Water Resource Inventory Area Plans, along with other efforts dedicated to improving the quality of water in our streams, lakes, rivers, and Puget Sound. As currently structured, the draft Permit language has been structured to lead to "wet chemistry" water quality monitoring within the next permit cycle. Based on ten plus years of similar intensive monitoring efforts by the Phase I jurisdictions, little benefit will be derived from this effort but at a great deal of cost. Stormwater professionals are interested in seeing and participating in an effort to develop a state wide monitoring program that would provide meaningful management information for improving Best Management Practices (BMP) selection and making other stormwater management decisions. Further, since the Permit language states that monitoring results are to be used as a metric for determining if program actions are making reasonable progress towards desired outcomes, it is desirable that the indicators are reliable, reasonable, and scientifically defensible. -~ ~- 5/31/2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Draft NPDES Phase II Permit Update Page 3 Use of Ecology's 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington - The permit requires municipalities to adopt the Ecology Manual in part or in total depending on interpretation of the permit language. The Ecology Manual was not intended to be used as a rule oflaw but instead was developed as a guidance docurnent. Inclusion of the Manual in the Permit language as a standard to be achieved gives the Manual the force of law allowing Ecology to violate State rule making provisions. Federal Way currently uses the 1998 King County Stormwater Manual as modified for our jurisdiction. The Permit language ~ould allow us to adopt the 2005 King County Manual once Ecology has deemed it equivalent to their manual. There are likely provisions in the King County Manual Federal Way would like to modify at the time of adoption however, the Permit language does not provide for individual jurisdiction's rnodifications. Ecology staff have indicated they are not prepared to review or comment on any alternative manuals submitted by Phase II jurisdictions. . Annual Cost Tracking and Reporting - The current permit language will require all municipalities to report on expenditures down to a level of detail well in excess of that required by the adopted budgeting practices from the State Auditors Office. The concern is that this level of detail tracking will require ~ either a reworking of our cost accounting practices or, at a rninirnum, an extensive effort to provide the details required by December 31 st of each year. Weare also concerned that our expenditures will be compared against other jurisdictions whose focus is on different aspects of stormwater management based on their community needs. Testing of Ecology BMP's - As currently written, Ecology is requiring municipalities to test and verify the effectiveness ofBMP's already approved of in their Manual. It is our opinion that if the State has approved of and required the use of these BMP's, verification of their effectiveness rests on the DOE. Fiscal, liability, and DOE staffing concerns - The new permit will require Federal Way to submit an annual permit fee of approximately $34,000 with an inflationary factor increasing the permit fee annually. Ecology has already stated that it will not have staffing necessary to review our Phase II permit, manual submittals, nor annual reports. This leaves us wondering what we are paying for and whether the permit issuance will provide Phase II jurisdictions any coverage from third party lawsuits. It has been our understanding that once the final permit is issued, compliance with the permit affords us a legal "shield" to some extent from third party lawsuits. Without annual certifications from Ecology of permit compliance, we are wondering what level of legal protection the permit will give us. Next Steps - The DOE will be reviewing the comments received and preparing responses to groupings of comments. The stated intend is to issue a final permit in September of this year. Due to the significant issues in the draft permit, we have requested they not issue the permit based upon an arbitrary deadline to the detrirnent of resolving the issues or that they issue a second draft permit for further discussion. Further, based on the nature and scope of these issues, many municipalities are requesting the State Legislature get involved to help find an equitable and defensible permit. cc: Project File Day File ------ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 20, 2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Old City Hall Fixture Easement (NW comer of S.336th St. & 1 st Way S.) POLICY QUESTION: Should the City allow the old city hall building sign to rernain in City Right of Way (ROW) and grant a fixture easement? COMMITTEE: Land Use and Transportation Cornmittee MEETING DATE: June 5, 2006 CATEGORY: r8l Consent D Ordinance 0 Public Hearing 0 City Council Business 0 Resolution 0 Other STAFF REpORT By: Ken Miller, Deputy Director ~ DEPT: Public Works _"<<__",_"~___,_",___,,,,,,_,.,__,.,__.,_,,_,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,............_m..__..._..._.._....m _.._..._...___...._.._..._mmm._....___..........._. .. .._.._._m _...___......._.._.__......._ ......._..._..._._m.__.__......._m_m.._.._.__.__._.........._.'_''''m'__'''..___.,_ .m_m_......._...._._._...__.__..__.___.__... Attachments: Land Use and Transportation Committee memo Options Considered: 1. Approve the fixture easement to allow the building sign to remain in City Right of Way (ROW). 2. Provide staff with direction regarding the existing sign location. ....._._...._.____.____________...._.._m.._._.m_.__._.._.__._.._...._m....m.._.__.._......_.._....__.._.............._.m...._m._....__.._.._.....__._..._.._...._._mm..........__...______.__.~._...__.._.........._.._.__....m.._.._._._m.._....._......._.__..........._......_..........__.__.__._._..........................._..._...___......_m_._ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Placing Option 1 on the June 20, 2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval and to authorize the City Manager to e ute the fixture easement. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: tJw\ Council Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: I move to place Option 1 on the June 20, 2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval and to authorize the City Manager to execute the fixture easement. Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison, Mernber Dean McColgan, Member PROPOSED COUNCIL MOTION: "1 move to approve Option 1 and to authorize the City Manager to execute the fixture easement. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: 0 APPROVED COUNCIL BILL # 0 DENIED I ST reading 0 T ABLED/DEFERREDINO ACTION Enactment reading 0 MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) ORDINANCE # REVISED - 02/06/2006 RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: June 51h, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation commi~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager V1H\. ~~ FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director Ken Miller, P.E., Deputy Public Works Director SUBJECT: Old City Hall Fixture Easement (northwest corner S 336th Street and zst Way South) BACKGROUND: In February 2005 the City sold the "Old City Hall" on the comer of S 3361h Street and 1st Way South to Acrobat Financial Services LLC. At that time the right of way necessary for the future S 336th Street Right Hand Turn Lane Project was deeded prior to the sale of the building. Construction on the project is now well under way and it has come to our attention that the existing building sign on the comer is approximately 5.5 feet into the new right of way. The building owner wishes to leave the sign in its current location to allow for optimal visibility. It does not conflict with any currently planned improvements. When the building was sold and the property deeded for right of way the existing sign location in the new right of way was missed. Staff has researched how the sign can remain in its current location and a fixture easement (attached) has been prepared which will allow the sign to remain and also addresses the sign in the future. cc: Project File Day File --------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------------- Recording Requested By: DRAft When Recorded Mail To: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH PO Box 9718 FEDERAL WAY, W A 98063 ATTN: John Mulkey, Public Works FIXTURE EASEMENT Grantor (s): CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, a Washington Municipal Corporation Grantee (s): ACROBAT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company Property Legal Description: Complete Legal Description indicated below. Easement Legal Description: Complete Easement Legal Description indicated below. For and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, The City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation, ("Grantor") grants, conveys and warrants to the ACROBAT FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company ("Grantee") for the purposes hereinafter set forth a fixture easement legally described as follows (the "Easement Area"): Legal Description of Fixture Easement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 1. Purpose. Grantee and its agents, designees and/or assigns shall have the right at such times as deemed necessary by Grantee, to enter upon the Easement Area to inspect, maintain and repair a pre-existing monument located partially within the City Right-of-way as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Access. Grantee shall have the right of access to the Easement Area over and across the Right-of-way to enable Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder. 1 ---- ------- ...~.... , r t " ~. ~, , f 3. Landscaping. Grantee may from time to time remove vegetation, trees, or other obstructions within the Easement Area, and may level and grade the Easement Area to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 hereof; provided, however, that following any such work, Grantee shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, restore the Easement Area and Grantor's property to a condition similar to its condition prior to such work. 4. Grantor's Use of Right-of-Way. This Easement shall be exclusive to Grantee; provided, however, Grantor reserves the right to use the Easement Area for any purpose not inconsistent with Grantee's rights. 5. Indemnification. Grantee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Grantor, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, actions and liabilities (induding costs and all attorney fees) to or by any and all persons or entities, including, without limitation, their respective agents, licensees, or representatives, arising from, resulting from, or connected with this Easement. 6. Successors and Assigns. The rights and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon their respective successors in interest, heirs and assigns. 7. Termination. This easement shall automatically terminate upon the removal, relocation, replacement or abandonment of the existing monument. DATED THIS day of , 2006. GRANTOR GRANTEE City of Federal Way Acrobat Financial Services, LLC By By Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager Patrick Rhodes 33325 8th Ave South, PO BOX 9718 31620 23rd Avenue South Federal Way, W A 98063 Federal Way, W A 98003 ATTEST: City Clerk, Laura Hathaway, CMC 2 ----- STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day personally appeared before me , to me known to be the of Acrobat Financial Services, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed, if any, is the corporate seal of said corporation. GIVEN my hand and official seal this day of , 2006. (typed/printed name of notary) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires K:\PW\easement-Acrobat financial 3 ~----~ EXHIBIT A FIXTURE EASEMENT THA T PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF SHORT PLA T NUMBER 878144, ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLA T RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7812081138, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING A T THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERL Y LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 WITH THE NORTHWESTERL Y MARGIN OF SOUTH 3361H STREET AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDER'S NUMBER 20050131002591, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 760 15'05w WEST ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERL Y MARGIN OF SOUTH 3361H STREET, 195.69 FEET; THENCE NOR THWES TERL Y ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WHOSE RADIAL CENTER BEARS NORTH 130 44' 55w WEST, 30.00 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 20.94 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 8.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35051 '25" WEST, 9.18 FEET,' THENCE SOUTH 54008'35w EAST, 8.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35051 '25" EAST, 9.45 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 73 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. 0636B KPG 336TH FIXTURE EASEMENT. doc - 1 - KPG ~ / / /\ / 15' ROAD & / UTILITY EASEMENT , / / K.C.S.P. 878144 - REC. NO. 7812081138 N. T.S. P ARCa 1 \~\ ~ \to cp. ~ \.f) -\ PARCEL 2 \Z EX/STING ~ ROW \.f) \~ SIGN EASEMENT \ . AREA = 7J~ S.F. 03. . --~ -- 195~ ---- ____ (J\ ---- ~. \ ------- \ - R=JO.OO: . .. E ~ L=20.94 761505 - S1 ~ 3361H . _______ - S. \ - 1"'- rnSRNG ROW Cjt May 2J. 2006 ACAO No. 06368 KPG FIXTURE EASEMENT.OWG KI?G- EXHIBIT B -- ~- PARCEL 9265000360 FIXTURE EASEMENT a..a ~ - -...