The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 04-17-2006 - ____n___________ ------------- . . ., .I ;. City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee April17th, 2006 City Hall 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 3rd, 2006 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 21 st Ave South Grid Road (S318th Street to S320trh Street) Project Action 5 min / Salloum Bid Award B. Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects Action 5 min / Salloum C. SR161 at SR18 Intersection Improvements Project Bid Award Action 5 min / Salloum D. Transportation Concurrency Policy Framework Action 30 min / Perez E. SW 356th Regional Detention Facility Concerns - Owen Property Action 30 min / Roe F. ST2 Light Rail Alignment Action 30 min / Perez/Roe 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN Committee Members City Staff Jack Dovey, Chair Cary M. Roe. PE, Public Works Director Eric Faison Marianne Lee, Administrative Assistant Dean McColgan 253-835-2701 G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries _~006W4-!7~06 LUTC Agemla.doc ---------- . . City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee Apri13rd, 2006 City Hall 5:30 pm City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee chair Jack Dovey; Committee member Dean McColgan; Committee member Eric Faison; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge; Council Member Linda Kochmar; Mayor Michael Park; Interim City Manager Derek Matheson; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Public Works Deputy Director Ken Miller; Community Development Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Street Systems Manager Marwan Salloum; Streets Project Engineer Al Emter; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; MIS Director Iwen Wang; Senior Planner Margaret Clark; Deputy City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick; Associate Planner Andy Bergsagel; and Administrative Assistant II Marianne Lee. A. CALL TO ORDER Councilman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm. B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The March 20th, 2006, minutes were approved. C. PUBLIC COMMENT none D. BUSINESS ITEMS A. S 333rd and 1st Way South Traffic Signal- Project Award Cary Roe provided background information on this item. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Faison Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED staff recommendation on to the AprillSt\ 2006 Council Consent Agenda. B. Triangle Project Status Rick Perez provided the background information on WSDOT's position and informed the LUTC that the DOT will be making a presentation after initial questions were asked. Committee member Faison asked how much it would cost to fix the intersection of Enchanted Pkwy and 356th? Rick responded that it would be an extra $4 million. Faison asked that, although $100 million has been invested in this project, an additional $4 million is too much to add? Rick said that yes that is a fair statement, although there are more factors involved. Committee member Faison asked if the City or DOT received the grant money. Rick responded that DOT got the state money, but the City of Federal Way got the Federal money, for the DOT, for this project. Committee member Faison noted that we need to resolve issues for the City in addition to the DOT. Jilma Jimenez, of Berger ABAM, began the presentation for DOT. The area they were looking at was from S 356th to Fife (and a proposed intersection of SR167 and 1-5) as the North and South boundaries. They looked at the purpose and needs: I. Safety; 2. Capacity; 3. Transportation Demand; 4. Roadway Deficiencies (short-weave loop interchanges on SRI8 & 1-5). DOT plans to initially replace two of the short-weave loops (with fly-over direct access ramps) at the SE and NW corners. The entire cost will be $165m - $225m; currently they have $1 13m so they will be moving forward in phases. Regarding the S 356th & SR161 intersection redesign, DOT prefers Alternative 'C', an offramp at the edge ofthe bridge section of Enchanted over 1-5, while the City feels Alternative 'F', modifying the S356th intersection, is a better solution. Councilmember Kochmar asked if the DOT's alternative will entail a new light at the new intersection at the bridge. Jilma said yes, there will be a new light. Committee member McColgan said that the Level of Service (LOS) is not getting much better; it goes from an 'F' to an 'F+' on the DOT's LOS chart. Jilma said it would be at 'E' for seven years before falling to 'F' in 2013. Councilwoman Burbidge asked why the LOS on the 1-5 loops would be an 'F'. Does the 'F' LOS incorporate the new lane? Jilma responded that it's an 'F' because of the freeway capacity at the short-weave loop interchanges and yes, the 'F' G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006104-03-06 LUTC Minutes doc ------- . Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 April yd, 2006 .. incorporates the new lane. Committee chair Dovey asked if the chart was skewed due to the assigned points (no gradient, but a top score and multiple bottom scores), Council member Mayor Park asked, given the cost estimate of $165m - $225m, what is the top estimate? Jilma said DOT cannot tell yet. Mayor Park suggested that the 4m extra could perhaps be absorbed into the range of accepted cost. Jilma said that the timeframe in which DOT receives the money will affect the final price. She said that cost is just one criterion. Committee member Faison asked if $4 million is the only difference. Chair Dovey asked that if the $4 million is the only difference, is safety really DOT's most important criterion. Is cost being chosen over safety? Jilma said that once you look at everything, Alternative C is still the best Chair Dovey stated that the City wants the safest option, over the cheapest option. Committee member Faison asked about Alternative J Is the fact that it included roundabouts the reason it was not chosen? Susan Everett responded that this alternative is not best for pedestrians, especially considering the nearby student population of Todd Beamer High School. A 3-lane roundabout has not been done "successfuUy" in the nation and with all the truck traffic and the high-school; this is not the best location to start putting them in. DOT does intend to use a 3-lane roundabout but they want the one they put in to be universally accepted as successful. Roundabouts have more accidents, although they are less severe, according to Jilma. Committee member Faison noted that reducing congestion is his top priority. Susan presented the Money & Funding side of DOT's presentation. She said DOT is grateful for all the City's work on getting the money. Of their expected price, $30m is inflation, $45m is contingency and risk. They bave tried to quantify the risk, but she feels that $180m - $270m is the more accurate final price tag. There must be a successful Phase I of this project (interchange improvement) in order to get more Federal money. The cost of Phase I is approximately $140m. Committee member Faison asked how the City can support this ifit does not meet the City's needs. Susan Everett said that Alternatives C & F both meet the City's needs. .. . The Committee discussed RTlD funding and Chair Dovey noted that they are interested in the long-term livability of Federal Way. Ifit is between Safety and Dollars, he votes for safety. It seems to be coming down to money. Moved Alternative 'F': Faison Seconded: McColgan Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED staff recommendation, Alternative 'F', on to the April 18tb, 2006 Council Consent Agenda. e. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Selection Process - Lee, Yen, & Lifeway Church Margaret Clark was available to answer questions from this item from the March 20th LUTC meeting. Committee member Faison asked if this item is tied to how the City pays for item D (Staff Position request). Chair Dovey said that if the items are separated from a comprehensive study, then Lifeway should be moved forward. The other two require a larger study before then can be decided; if voted upon now they will fail. Committee member McColgan said that he would require convincing that the larger study is not cost prohibitive. Kathy McClung gave some additional information. If these studies are done we will need an additional staff person (Sr. Planner). There is money in CD for the Planning position but this would also require additional traffic and SWM work. Moved: Faison Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED amended staff recommendation and approved items l.(b) for Lifeway Church, 2.(c) for Yen and 3.(c) for Lee. Lifeway Church will go forward to Council for a public hearing on May 16th, 2006. Lee & Yen will not be considered further at this time. D. Planning Staff Position Request Kathy McClung & Cary Roe presented the background information on this item. Ms. McClung stated that there is funding available in CD for the Senior Planner position, but these studies would also require work from the Traffic and SWM divisions of PW. Mr. Roe presented a table outlining the funding sources for the staff positions, ofthe $450,000 required, $250,000 can be funding with existing money. Moved: Faison Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Cmte PASSED parts of staff recommendation to the April 18th, 2006 Council Consent Agenda. Cmte approved the CD staff addition, the SWM work, and all of the PW work except the Rezone Traffic Analysis for SW 356th & BP to Be. Included in the PW work for additional staff resources is a Grid Road Analysis. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS The next scheduled meeting will be April 17th 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m. G:\LUTC\LUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\04-03-06 lUTe Minuresdoc . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation committ~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Cary M Roc, r.E., Direotor of Public Works ~ Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager SUBJECT: 21" Ave South Grid Road (S318th Street to S320trh Street) Project Bid Award POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the 21 st Ave South Grid Road (S318th Street to S320th Street) Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? BACKGROUND: Five bids were received and opened on April 4, 2006 for the 21 st Ave South Grid Road (S3 I 8th Street to S320th Street) Project; please see attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is R. W. Scott Construction Co. with a total bid of $692,861. The low bid received was $ 17,861 (2.6%) above the engineer estimate PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design $ 75,000 Right of Way Acquisition 500,000 Construction Cost 692,861 10% Construction Contingency 69,286 10% Construction Management 69,286 Total Project Costs $1,406,433 AVAILABLE FUNDING: REET Fund $890,000 Sound Transit 1,000,000 Total Available Budget $1,890,000 Project Balance $483,567 OPTIONS: 1. Award the 21st Ave South Grid Road (S318th Street to S320th Street) Project to R. W. Scott Construction Co. lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of$692,861 and approve a 10% contingency of $69,286, for a total of$762,]47, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. 2. Reject all bids for the 2] st Ave South Grid Road (S318th Street to S320th Street) Project and direct staff to rebid the project and return to Committee for further action. 3. Do not award the 21st Ave South Grid Road (S3]8th Street to S320th Street) Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff --- . April 17, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee 2151 Ave South Grid Road (S318th Street to S320th Street) Project Bid A ward Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option I to the May 2, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for Approval: A ward the 2151 Ave South Grid Road (S318th Street to S320th Street) Project to R. W. Scott Construction Co. lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of $692,861 and approve a 10% contingency of $69,286, for a total of $762,147, and authorize the. City Manager to execute the contract. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the May 2, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. cc: Project File 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 o~~o~ooq~oooqoq~oqooooooooo~oo~ooq~oooooqoo~~~qqq~~qq -oooooooooooocioocio~~ciciciocicioociooociooci~cici~ocicioooooooooo MOOOOONOO~OO~OOO~~~~OOOO~OO~OOOOOO~O~OONOOOOOOOOONOOO 'ooOOm~OONO~~~OW_W~OWO~ONO~~OOVoomo~~~~_~OO~oomN~MOOO ~ ~~~~ig~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~M2~~~~~g~~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~i~~ . 0 ~ ~M ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~M ~~M"~ ~W I- ~ W . 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 . O~oooooqo~qoooqooooooooooooqooooooooqoooqOOOOOOOOOOOO I ~~~~~~a*~~~~~~~a~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~a ~ ~ 2~~~i ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~w ~w~~ ~~" ~~g~~ w ... " "" ...:. w ..,...,..., Q, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOO ~ OOO~OOOOOOOO~~~~OO~~~OOOOOO~O~~~OO~~~O~~OOOOOOOOO~~OO M g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ s g ~ ~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~a!~a~~~~_~$~~~~~a~~~~~~smai~~=~~~~~~~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ 2~ ~ ~~ ~ww ;8~ ~~~ ~~~ g~~gg~gagaagg~g~~~R~ggg~gag~2a~~a~~~ga~~~~~aa~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~:ggg~a~g~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~g~~~~~ea~ ~~~ : : ~~~~S ~~ ~M ~ ~~$~~~ M ~~ ~~~ ~~~g~ ~ ii.~ c; Q. M Gl .-=- ~ OC~~ ~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 ooooo~~~qoo~o~oooooooooooooooooooo~ooooqqoooqOOOOOOOO ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~!S~5S~~~~~~~3S~~~~E~~~~~~!!~!~~~~li!~ ~ o 0 ~M~M~~~~M~ ~~~~M~~~MM ~M~ MM~M~~~ ~ ~M~~:~" ~ ~~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~~ ooww ;~~ ~~~ mc;~ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~oooooooooooo~~OOOO oI qo~qooq~o~~qoooqq~qq~q~qq~qqqqqoqo~~~qqqqqqqqq~~~qqqq ~ ~~ ~~ggggagg~g~~~g~~~~i~~~~~~~a5~~gg~~~g~~2i8ggg~~~~~~a~ ~5~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ a~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ g~~i~ ~ l:i ~ ~ - .. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~ooooooooooooo ~ ~ ~qq~oqqoooqoooo~~q~q~qoq~qq~oqqoqqqq~qq~oqqoqqqqq~qqq N ~ ~ ~ggggg~gg~gg~ggg~g~~ggg~gg~~~g~gg~e~~g~~ggggggg~~gggg ~ I ~ '~~2~:~a~~~~;ai~;~~~~~~2a~~~ai~ag~~~~~a~~~~~i~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M0 ~ ~ ~ MM~ ~ ~~~ ~ _~~ ~~ m o ~ ~,.... ~s U) tf) U'} M i~~ ooooooooo~ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo~ooooooo~~oooo ~~~ m~E qooooqoq~~ooqooooo~oooooooq~oqooo~O~OOONOOOOOO~NNOOOO ~ g~ ~g8ggg~gg~gg~~gre~g~tg~gg8g~~~~~gg~~~gg~~~gggggg~~~~~g u5g o~ ~ .~~~~~~~~ ~~" ~~W~"M~am~~~~ ~~ :b~ ~~~~~ ~~cii~ ~W~M ~~~ ~ ~ ~M~"~ ~M ~ ~ w w~ ~~ a~~ ~ i:~ ~ OCm~ ~ o~ooooo~ooo~oo~o~o~~~~~~~~ooo~~ooooo.~ooooOOOOOOONOOO moo qoqqo~o~ooooeo~o.~~mO~~~~MW~~N~~~~~~m~q~mooo~ooOO~Nqo ONm _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~Wa~~~~~~~~aW~~~W~0~~~~aW~W~~a~~i~~aWW~W~a~ " ~ 0~ .. ~ ~ ~~:i ~~~ ~ 5 m~~ g~~~~gg~~~~ON~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~s~ ~ ~ ow. ~~ggg~~~gw~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~$R~~~~~NM~~ EO~O & ~ ~ ':~~~ci~~~ ci~~ ~WM~~~~~~~~:~WM~M~~~ W~~~W~~~ri~~ ~~"W ~~6~ ~ ) CL ;;""~W~ w"" ~ M ~ M;; ~~~~W :2=> ~ f3 r ~ m 0 L Z ~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 - ~~~q~~ooqooooo~o~oq~ooooqoo~ooooqoooqoooooooooooooooo - -ooooooooo~o~ooo~ri~ociririciocioori~~cioo6ciwoci~ci~ciciciciciciciciocici U ~OOOOON~O~~~~~OON_~ooooooooooO~O~~~O~OON~OOOOOWN~~OOO U ~ 'ci~~~~ci~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=:~~~~:;~~ci~~~~~:~::~~~~~~~~~~: ~ < ~ ~WM~~~W~~~ ~~~~W~~M~~ ~~~ MW~Ww~~ ~""~~~~~"W ~ M~~ " '5 S - ... i.ij . V) U'} ~ u ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~ ~ ~ i ~!!~!!=~~~~i~M~~;~~~~~~~~~~:~5~'~~~"~~~~~~~!~~!~WM"~~~ C.o:f iL ~"'w~:;; ~"';; W Wf:"'~ :1:;':;;:WM ; :::! ." ~"'OC ~~~ ~ z z ~ ~~~ J :~::~~~~:~~~t~~g~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ j~~ 5 ~~~~~~~--~~~~g~g~m~~~~-~--2~~~~~-~~~~~~~~---~~~~R~~&~ ~~?l l ~M - ~ ~ ~ N ; OC ~ Q. , 0 - 0 , - ~ m 1 e ~ J ~A ~! ~ ~i L -. ) l:. U'f-: 0.8. c ~.J ~~ ~ u c; } .~ g ~~~m ~'E ~ ~B~~eN..,2~~ ~ j ~~ g 8~~G ~c ~~ ~ p~ g~8 ~~E ill ~~ ~ ~ ) :" _~~ ~ -g~;;.~ 8E t%~ .gc ~~ ~€~ :~:. ~ 8~.~ .~~ ~ j ~~ r~8..~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~i~ ~~~~!~~ ~:~~-i jg ~ .~..~r_ i r z; ~~~ .8~a. ~~.g\inloV)~(/)(J}~.s; '~I> E~~<!)Q;ra:U ~~!~oE~8af .......~!!.Ci ~ i~ ~!~ ~~~ ~i~~5~~~~gi~~~~~ j~~:i~l 1~~~~~~~~~ ~~!~&i I ) ~ii 8,~~o ~E.!? ~wii~-g~E<l'o3~~~E~ogo-g~~~~g~e~.lggg~~~go ~i~"O~~ e~ ~ >~ ~ft~l~j~~~r~~~a:~~~~~I~ij:ij!~~~~~8~8:S3B8~~'o~I~.~oe~i~i ~~~ U203EltI _:2:;;~g!llIo.~"OOJ-1IlG,lalO~u~3e:-~n.Q.\I)O-Cl_ ---Ci- r::,....!;:S ~~;a~ C-oc; E i~~!~i~il~~~I~~I~~:~~II~!~~I:~r~i~~~J~~~~~I~~i~I~I~3~ ~~~ ~ ~3~~~~~a~~~~&~~oKIoo~~~8:~c~:~~o8~~ctt~~~~~~&:::K;~~I~ ~~~ ~NM~~~~rom~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gM~~~~~~~~~;~~:~~~~~g~~~ . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: April I ih, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation committe~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Acting City Manager ~ FROM: Cary M. Roe, P. E., Director of Public Works Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager\ SUBJECT: Grant Funding for Transportation Improvement Projects POLICY QUESTION: Should City Council authorize staff to accept grant funding for transportation improvement projects? BACKGROUND: This memorandum provides the Council with the current status of the grant applications submitted in 2005, grant funding received to date, and required match. GRANT REQUIRED FUNDING MATCH Pacific Hwy S HOV Phase IV (Dash Point Rd to S 312th Street) (Design and Right of Way and Construction Phase) . 2005 Regional TEA21 (Federal) $970,000 $151,387 . Regional Mobility Grant (State) $1,214.000 $ 0 $2,184,000 $151,387 21st Avenue SW & SW 356tb Street (Right of Way, and Construction) . Intersection and Corridor Safety (Federal) $500,000 $78,034 West Campus Trail-BPA Trail Spur (Design and Construction) . Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program (State Funds) $43,000 $10,400 King County Library Cross walk and Transit Stop (Design and Construction) . Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program (State Funds) $16,900 $6,400 City Center Access Phase 2 "Design Study, Preliminary Engineering, and Access Point Decision Report" (Environmental Analysis) . Intersection and Corridor Safety Program (Federal Funds) No funding was awarded OPTIONS: I. Authorize staff to accept the following State and Federal grant funding: a. 2007 Regional Mobility Grant (State) grant in the amount of $1,214,000 for the Pacific Highway S HOY Phase IV Improvement Project b. 2005 Regional TEA21 (Federal) grant in the amount of $970,000 for the Pacific Highway S HOV Phase III Improvement Project c. Intersection and Corridor Safety (Federal) grant in the amount of $500,000 for the 21 st Avenue SW & SW 356th Street Improvement Project d. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program (State) grant in the amount of $43,000 for West Campus Trail -BP A Trail Spur ------ . e. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program (State) grant in the amount of $16,900 for King County Library Cross walk and Transit Stop f. Approve the attached resolution to accept the Federal Intersection and Corridor Safety (Federal) grant in the amount of $500,000 for the 21st Avenue SW & SW 356lh Street Improvement Project 2. Do not accept grant funding and provide direction to staff STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends placing option #1 on the May 2nd, 2006 Council Consent Agenda: Authorize staff to accept the following State and Federal grant funding: a) Regional Mobility Grant (State) grant in the amount of $1,214,000 for the Pacific Highway S HOV Phase IV Improvement Project b) 2005 Regional TEA21 (Federal) grant in the amount of $970,000 for the Pacific Highway S HOV Phase III Improvement Project c) Intersection and Corridor Safety (Federal) grant in the amount of $500,000 for the 21st Avenue SW & SW 356tb Street Improvement Project d) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program (State) grant in the amount of $43,000 for West Campus Trail -BP A Trail Spur e) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program (State) grant in the amount of $16,900 for King County Library Cross walk and Transit Stop f) Approve the attached resolution to accept the Federal Intersection and Corridor Safety grant in the amount of $500,000 for the 21 st Avenue SW & SW 356tb Street Improvement Project COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the May 2nd, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda. cc: Project File Day File -------------------- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING EXTENSION OF 21sT AVENUE SW BETWEEN SW 356TH STREET AND 22ND AVENUE SW IN THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way applied for a grant from Washington State Department of Transportation for the purpose of (1) constructing a 2- lane collector street to extend 21 8t Avenue SW between SW 356th Street and 22nd Avenue SW with illumination, sidewalk and street trees; (2) modifying the traffic signal at the intersection of 218t Avenue SW and SW 356th Street to accommodate the new street; (3) construct Type C curb along the centerline ofSW 356th Street to eliminate left turns from westbound SW 356th Street to 22nd Avenue SW and from north bound 22nd Ave SW to SW 356th Street; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Transportation agrees to grant the City of Federal Way estimated federal funds in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) provided the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into the Local Agency Agreement; and WHEREAS, by accepting said grant the City of Federal Way agrees to match the federal funds in an estimated arnount of Seventy-Eight Thousand Thirty-Five Dollars ($78,035), which has been budgeted in the City's 2005-2006 budget; RES # , Page 1 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Execution of Acceptance of the Local Agency Agreement. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute the Local Agency Agreement regarding extension of21 sl Avenue SW between SW 3561h Street and 22nd Avenue SW in the City of Federal Way. Section 2. Receipt of Federal Funds. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to receive the state and federal funds estimated to be Five Hundred Thousand and 00/1 00 Dollars ($500,000.00). Section 3. Matching Funds Authorized. Pursuant to the terms of the Local Agency Agreement, the City commits approximately Seventy-Eight Thousand Thirty-Five and 00/100 Dollars ($78,035.00) in matching funds. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase oftms 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 this resolution is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the Federal Way City Council. RES # , Page 2 RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON this day of ,2006. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, MICHAEL PARK ATTEST: CITY CLERK, LAURA HATRA WAY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO.: RES # , Page 3 --------- ----- - - --------------- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation commi~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager ' ~ FROM: Cary M Roe, P.E., Director of Public Works Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager SUBJECT: SR161 at SR18 Intersection Improvements Project Bid Award POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council award the SR161 at SR18 Intersection Improvements Project Bid Award to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder? BACKGROUND: One bid was received and opened on April 5, 2006 for the SR 161 at SR 18 Intersection Improvements Project; please see attached Bid Tabulation Summary. The lowest responsive, responsible bidder is Woodworth and Company, Inc. with a total bid of $935, 178.00. The low bid received was $ 319,919.50 (52%) above the engineer estimate PROJECT ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES: Planning and Design $450,000 Right of Way Acquisition 4,000 OPUS Signal Replacement! Modification 214,000 Construction Cost 935,178 10% Construction Contingency 93,517 Construction Management 93,517 Total Project Costs $1,790,212 AVAILABLE FUNDING: REET Fund $179,000 Utility Tax 15,000 Transfer in Street CIP Fund 756,000 Mitigation 784,954 Interest 43,612 Total Available Budget $1,778.566 OPTIONS: 1. A ward the SR 161 at SR 18 Intersection Improvements Project to Woodworth and Company, Inc. lowest responsive, responsible bidder, in the amount of$935, 178 and approve a 10% contingency of $93,517, for a total of$l ,028,695, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. 2. Reject the bid for the SR 161 at SR 18 Intersection Improvements Project, and direct staff to evaluate the engineers estimate, rebid the project in late 2006 early 2007 and return to Committee for further action. 3. Do not award the SR 161 at SR 18 Intersection Improvements Project to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder and provide direction to staff. April 17,2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee SR 16 I at SR 18 Intersection Improvements Project Bid A ward Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Due to the fact that only one bid was received and the single bid was 52% above the engineering estimate. Staff recommends forwarding Option 2 to the May 2, 2006 City Council Consent Agenda for Approval: Reject the bid for the SR161 at SR18 Intersection Improvements Project and direct staff to evaluate the engineers estimate, rebid the project in late 2006 early 2007 and return to Committee for further action. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the May 2,2006 City Council Consent Agenda. cc: Project File ----- Woodworth dCo I ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING lS 1 $30000,00 $30000.00 $10,000.00 $10 000.0 AS-BUILT SURVEY AND RECORD DRAWINGS lS 1 $15000.00 $15000.00 $5,00000 $5 000,0 3 SPCC PLAN lS 1 I 500,00 $1 500.00 $1,500.00 $1 500.0 4 MOBILIZATION lS 1 $90 000.00 90 000,00 $35.000,00 $35 000.0 5 TRAffiC CONTROL SUPERVISOR lS 1 $50 000.00 50 000_00 $4,600.00 $4,800.0 6 FLAGGERS AND SPOTTERS HRS 296 $50.00 14800,00 $42,00 12 432.0 7 OTHER TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR HRS 240 $50.00 12 000.00 $42.00 10 060.0 6 OTHER TEMPROARY TRAFFIC CONTROL lS 1 $15 000.00 15 000,00 $12.000.00 H2 000.0 9 CONSTRUCITON SIGNS CLASS A SF 452 $25.00 11 300.00 $17_00 7684.0 10 OFf.DUTY UNifORMED POLICE OFFICER HRS 100 $50.00 $5 000.00 $50.00 5 000.0 11 CLEARING AND GRUBBING AC 1 $20000.00 $20 000.00 $2,500.00 2 500.0 12 ROADSIDE CLEANUP FA 1 $1 500.00 $1 500.00 $1,500.00, 1 500.0 13 CLEARING LIMIT FENCE IF 1,000 $5.00 $5 000.00 $1.50 1 500.0 14 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE AND OBSTRUCTION lS 1 $10 000.00 $10 000,00 $5,000.00 5 000,0 15 REMOVING ASPHAl T CONC. PAVEMENT SY 1.139 $15,00 $17 085.00 $9.00 $10251.0 16 REMOVING CEMENT CONC SIDEWALK SY 316 $9.00 2844,00 $7.50 2370,0 17 REMOVING CEMENT CONC. CURB IF 910 9.00 8 190.00 $7.50 6 825,0 18 REMOVING GUARDRAIL IF 528 $4.55 2 402.40 $5.50 2 904,0 19 REMOVING GUARDRAil ANCHOR EA 2 $280.00 $560.00 $225.00 $450.0 20 REMOVING MISCELlANEOUS TRAFFIC ITEM lS 1 $6,000.00 $6000,00 $5,00000 $5000.0 21 REMOVING TRAFFIC CURB IF 90 $20.00 $1 800.00 $6,00 $720.0 22 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BAStN EA 1 $2 500,00 $2 500.00 $250.00 $250.0 23 SAWCUTTING LF 2,450 $6.00 $14 700.00 $3.00 $7 350.0 24 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCl. HAUL CY 640 40,00 $25 600,00 $3100 $19840.0 25 GRAVEL BORROW INCl. HAUL TN 349 24.00 $8 376.00 $25.00 $8 725.0 26 DITCH EXCAVATION CY 148 35.00 $5 160,00 $20_00 $2 960.0 27 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILE FOR DITCH LINING SY 80 10.00 $800,00 $10.00 $600.0 26 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TN 536 30.00 $16 080.00 $22.50 $12060.0 29 HMA Cl. 1 IN. PG 64.22 TN 953 75,00 $71 475,00 $62.50 $59 562,5 30 HMA Cl. 1/2 IN. PG 64.22 TN 1,330 85.00 $113 050.00 $62.50 $83 125,0 31 HMA FOR PRELEVElING Cl. 3/8 tN. PG 64-22 TN 149 85,00 12 665.00 $62,50 $9312.5 32 PlANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SY 9.645 $6.00 $57 870.00 $3.00 $28 935,0 33 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 12 IN. DIAM LF 19 $200,00 3,800.00 $45.00 $855.0 34 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EA 4 $1 500.00 6 000.00 $1.000.00 4 000.0 35 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 IN. DlAM EA 1 $4000,00 4 000.00 $1,500.00 1 500,0 36 CONNECTION TO DRAINAGE STRUCTURE EA 2 $2 500.00 5 000,00 $1.000.00 2 000.0 37 ADJUST CATCH BASIN TO GRADE EA 6 $300.00 1 800.00 $450.00 2 700.0 36 ADJUST UTILITY VAlVE TO GRADE EA 2 $750,00 1 500.00 $350.00 $700.0 9 ADJUST UTILITY MANHOLE TO GRADE EA 11 $1 000.00 $11 000,00 $400_00 $4.400,0 ) ADJUST JUNCTION BOX EA 6 250,00 1 500,00 $350.00 $2 100,0 41 ROUND LOCKING SOLID COVER EA 3 500.00 1 500.00 $300.00 $900.0 42 THROUGH CURB INLET EA 1 500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 1 000.0 43 DUCTILE IRON SEWER PIPE, I-IN. DIAM. LF 40 200.0{ 8 000,00 $50,00 2 000.0 44 ESC lEAD DY 50 100.00 5 000.00 $100.00 5 000.0 45 INLET PROTECTION EA 21 100.00 2 100.00 $80.00 1 680.0 46 WATTLE IF 900 $6,00 5 400.00 $3,00 2.700.0 47 EROSIONlWATER POLLUTION CONTROL FA 1 1 000.00 I 000.00 $1.000.00 1 000.0 46 SEEDING. FERTILIZING, AND MULCHING AC 1 1 500,00 I 500.00 $1.50000 1 500.0 49 ROADSIDE RESTORATION LS 1 5 000,00 5 000.00 $18,500.00 $18 500,0 50 IRRIGATION SYSTEM LS 1 5 000.00 5 000.00 $3,500.00 3 500.0 51 CEMENT CONC. TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER IF 310 $29.00 8 990,00 $3000 9 300.0 52 EXTRUDED CURB IF 1,424 $5.60 7974,40 $6.50 $12 104,0 53 TYPE C PRECAST TRAFFIC CURB IF 564 16,60 9611.20 $14.50 8 468.0 54 BEAM GUARDRAIL TYPE 1 LF 584 25,00 $14600.0C $30.00 $17520.0 55 BEAM GUARDRAIL ANCHOR TYPE 1 EA 2 $910.00 $1 820,00 $75000 1 500,0 56 ADJUST MONUMENT CASE AND COVER . EA 1 $500.00 $500.00 $400.00 $400.0 57 CEMENT CONC, SIDEWAlK SY 331 65,00 $21 515,00 $50,00 $16 550.0 58 CEMENT CONC. SIDEWALK RAMP TYPE 2A EA 4 $1 800,00 7 200.00 $1.50000 $6.000.0 59 QUARRY SPAlLS TN 15 $100.00 $1 500.00 $65.00 $975.0 60 TRAFFIC SINAL SYSTEM MODIFICATION SR 161 AT SR 18, COMPLETE LS 1 $9 000.00 $9000.00 $8.000,00 8 000.0 61 TRAFFIC SiNAl SYSTEM MODIFICATION SR 161 AT S 352ND ST. COMPLETE LS 1 $50 000,00 $50 000.00 $35,000,00 $35 000.0 62 PERMANENT SIGNING LS 1 $8 000.00 $8,000.00 $4.000.00 14 000.0 63 PROFILED PLASTIC LINE LF 7,796 2.00 $15 596.00 $2,00 $15596.0 64 PROFILED PLASTIC WIDE UNE LF 8,079 5.00 $40 395.00 $4,00 32 316.0 65 PROFILED PLASTIC DOTTED WIDE LINE LF 376 2.00 $752.00 $1.50 $564,0 66 PROFILED PLASTIC DROP LANE UNE LF 313 4.00 1 252.00 $1,50 $469.5 67 PLASTIC STOP BAR IF 335 $15,00 5 025.00 $6,00 2680,0 66 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE SF 470 $6,00 3 760,00 $6.00 2 820.0 69 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW EA 36 $135.00 4 860.00 $150.00 5400.0 70 PLASTIC HOV LANE SYMBOL EA 5 $350.0{ I 750,00 $225.00 1125.0 71 RESOLUTION OF UTll TIY CONFLICTS FA 1 $2 000.00 2 000,00 $2.000.00 2 000.0 72 ,UTILIty FA 1 $1,000.00 $1,000,00 $1.000.00 $1,000.0 TOTAL $935,178.00 ~615 258.5 Bid Signature Yes Addendum Acknowledge Yes Bid Bond Yes I ---- ------------- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation COmmitt~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director ~ Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Transportation Concurrency Policy Framework POLICY QUESTION: Should the City Council direct staff to prepare a Transportation Concurrency ordinance consistent with policy direction provided herein? BACKGROUND: Introduction The Growth Management Act requires the City to adopt a transportation concurrency ordinance. Specifically RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) reads: "After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, local jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline below the standards developed in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan, unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. These strategies may include increased public transportation service, ride sharing programs, demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies. For the purpose of this subsection (6) "concurrent with the development" shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within six years." Historically, staff has used SEPA as a tool to require construction of required improvements to meet the adopted level of service standards as a condition of approval of the development, or if the required improvements are currently listed on the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan, a developer may pay a percentage of the estimated cost of improvements commensurate with the increase in traffic generated by the proposed development. As staff undertook the task of developing a concurrency ordinance, it was originally thought that this would be a relatively simple exercise of codifying current practice. However, upon further review, it was determined that there are a significant number of policy choices to be made. Guidance is provided by the State, in the form of WAC 365-195-835 and staff has also reviewed the concurrency ordinances adopted by 20 other jurisdictions, as well as a series of reports developed by PSRC that critique a variety of such ordinances around the region to highlight what works well and potential legislative changes at the state level. Because of the complexity of the subject, staff proposes to present this topic in three separate meetings, as follows: 1. This staff report outlines a recommended policy framework used to guide the development of code language. 2. A second staff report would present the draft code language that would implement the policy framework. 3. A third staff report would present the administrative procedures and resources necessary to implement the code language. The following is an outline of the relevant policy issues inherent to the topic, options, and the staff recommendation. , Apri117th, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Transportation Concurrency Policy framework Page 2 I. Purpose Require denial of development approval if adequate transportation facilities are not available to serve the development. A. Ootions There are none. II. Monitoring A suggestion in the WAC is to identify how monitoring will take place. This would consist of updating traffic count data and the travel demand model to track new development both within and outside the City, roadway improvements, and calibrating the model to current traffic counts. A. Ovtions Only a few agencies identify this in their codes. Some say monitoring will occur. Some agencies also generate an annual report that feeds into the TIP. Intervals for updating the travel demand model may be specified, with one year being the most common. B. Recommendation Staff proposes to identify that a monitoring process occurs, that we would update the model biannually, that we would be responsible for traffic count data collection, and that part of the permit fees will fund the count program. III. Allocation of Capacity A suggestion in the WAC is to identify the how capacity determinations are made. Since the WAC is not specific to transportation, it proposes a number of options that are not always useful, such as calculating how much capacity is available. Since roadway capacity analysis includes a number of variables that change throughout the day in a non-linear fashion, most transportation capacity analyses simply compare levels of service with and without the development proposed under typical peak hour conditions. A. Ovtions Most agencies are requiring the traditional Transportation Impact Analysis format of calculating capacity with and without the development. Those with more esoteric LOS standards, such as travel time standards, are silent. B. Recommendation Staff proposes to continue using our current comparison of capacity with and without the development. IV. Reserving Capacity for favored land uses The WAC provides the option of identifying types of land uses that could be deemed in the public interest and reserving blocks of capacity for developments meeting those criteria. A. Ootions Most agencies are using first-come, first-serve treatment. Only two agencies provide a mechanism for reserving roadway capacity for particular uses, in both cases "family wage" manufacturing jobs. B. Recommendation Staff proposes a first-come, first-serve application for capacity. Problems inherent in reserving capacity are that it would require a determination of where such a land use could locate and its trip generation and distribution characteristics. Having such preferences codified would reduce flexibility in administration and potentially stifle desired development in other locations that need the same capacity improvements. V. Response to Inadequacy Clearly the RCW requires denial if adequate capacity does not exist. It also suggests that mitigation could be conditioned, construction deferred until adequate capacity exists, or the developer submits a downsized proposaL . April 17th, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Transportation Concurrency Policy framework Page 3 A. Ootions 1. Most agencies have expanded the nnmber of options provided in the WAC. Most of the orientation is around providing mitigation, many including specific language for encouraging latecomer's agreements. 2. One option provided in the WAC that is rarely used is an opportunity to revise the LOS standard; an exception is from a city that uses travel time on specific corridors as its LOS standard. Since revising the LOS standard requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment, this doesn't seem very practical. 3. One idea used by a couple cities is a waiting list option, whereby developments could be on a waiting list for capacity when it becomes available for improvements. One problem with this concept is that one would also have to reserve existing capacity at non-failing intersections in order to assure that it would still be available when the constraint that made a development fail is resolved. Other developments could be blocked from proceeding when adequate capacity exists for them because of a larger project. Conversely, a larger project could be held up indefinitely by subsequent failures at other locations if the capacity is not reserved. 4. Another idea was to allow "deferred review" for multi-phase projects that promised to bring themselves into compliance at a later date. This might be of short-term benefit for economic development when a capacity constraint beyond the agency's ability to resolve (like widening a bridge in another jurisdiction), but enforcement after a development is constructed could be problematic, particularly if the development is not performing financially to expectations. 5. Most agencies describe appeal procedures in this part of their codes. Most of these have an administrative appeal to resolve differences of opinion on how the analyses were conducted. If that is exhausted, the next appeal level is before a Hearings Examiner. Of note, following a challenge to King County's concurrency process on the Sammamish plateau, King County's code now limits the ability to appeal the procedural aspects of a concurrency decision to the public hearing adopting the County's annual concurrency report. B. Recommendation Staff proposes to offer the following options: 1. Acceptance of staff's proposed mitigation; 2. Modification of the proposal to within available capacity; 3. Denial; 4. Appeal. The appeal would first be administrative (essentially an applicant- provided traffic analysis that contests the staff determination), and then, if necessary, before the Hearings Examiner in conjunction with the larger land use process. VI. Form, Timing, and Duration This involves the process of applying for a concurrency permit. A. OfJ/ions 1. Most agencies describe in their code that a concurrency application form will be developed by the director. Some codes specify the information necessary for the permit application. 2. How long a concurrency permit is good for varies significantly. The most common treatment is that a permit is good for as long as the underlying development permit application is alive. Some agencies specify that they are good for a limited -------------- . . April 17th, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Transportation Concurrency Policy Framework Page 4 amount of time (typically 1 year) and can be extended once or twice for 6 months each. The disadvantage to indefinite timeframes is that it doesn't penalize those that take extended periods of time to respond to comments, at the expense of those that applied after but respond to comments more expeditiously. On the other hand, some delays can be outside of the applicant's control, such as when permits are necessary from outside agencies such as WSDOT, Fish & Wildlife, etc. Secondly, tracking permit durations, extensions, and notice of permit expirations would add to the administrative workload. B. Recommendation In the interest of not having to make applicants reapply if their project is delayed and minimize administrative workload, the staff proposal is that a concurrency permit would remain valid for the duration of the development review process. This is consistent with current practice and does not create a new "timeclock" to be monitored. VIL Interagency Coordination This is an issue that PSRC criticized extensively. Little data is shared, and few interlocals agreements have been negotiated to address this. A. Options About half the codes authorize interlocal agreements to address development impacts outside of the reviewing jurisdiction. A couple codes state that they will honor concnrrency determinations on annexed property, although one took the opposite approach on annexations and stated that the city's concurrency determinations would be expected to be supported by the County. B. Recommendation Staff proposes that interlocal agreements be allowed and add the provision that mitigation payments to other agencies would not reduce mitigation payments to the City. VIIL Integration with SEP A A. Options Some agencies don't address this at all; some merely mention that concurrency decisions are categorically exempt from SEP A. Only a couple attempt to address how their concurrency process is coordinated with SEP A. B. Recommendation Since we have Comprehensive Plan language that addresses the issue, this language is proposed for inclusion. From Pages 111-103 and 104: "While concurrency requirements are similar in many ways to the requirements of the State Environmental Protection Act (SEP A), there are some important differences, as follows: . Concurrency requirements are more demanding; if they are not met, denial of the project is mandated. . Concurrency is based on a Level-of Service (LOS) standard; SEP A has no specific standard as its basis. . Concurrency requirements only apply to capacity issues; SEP A requirements apply to all environmental impacts of a project, including transportation safety. . Concurrency has timing rights related to development; SEP A does not. 'Therefore, concurrency does not replace SEP A, but rather becomes an integral part of a comprehensive program that relates private and public commitments to improving the entire transportation system. SEP A will focus primarily on site impacts that could result in additional transportation requirements in specific instances (particularly access to the site or impacts in the immediate vicinity that could not have been anticipated in the overall transportation investment ------------------------------------ . April 17th, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Transportation Concurrency Policy Framework Page 5 strategy for the system). Concurrency conclusions in the FWCP do not excuse projects from SEP A review. However, they do address major system infrastructure issues that must be properly administered under both SEP A and the GMA." IX. Peak Hours Used Which peak hours should be used in a concurrency analysis? A. Options Most agencies use the evening peak hour only. Some base concurrency decisions on daily traffic volumes. A couple agencies also look at morning peak hours. In aU cases, mitigation needs for other peak hours are addressed in SEP A. Although it may be possible to apply our LOS standard outside of merely the evening peak hour, to apply concurrency to other peaks may require the ability and resources to model them in the travel demand model, essentially doubling the modeling workload for every additional peak hour analyzed. Compounding the modeling effort, trip generation data is not available for all land uses for all peak hours. B. Recommendation Staff proposes to apply concurrency to only the evening peak hour. However, since staff would also have the majority of the data and tools necessary to conduct impact analyses for other peak hours, staff also proposes to provide these services to address capacity- related SEP A impacts during other peak hours. This would reduce development costs for most types of developments. X. Trip Threshold At what level of trip generation should a development be required to apply for a concurrency permit? A. Omions 1. A few agencies use a minimum size of development to trigger concurrency review and have a lower threshold for number of trips impacting a link or intersection. Most merely use size of development. Thresholds vary from 1 to 20 trips, although a couple agencies also use a threshold of percent increase in traffic on a link. Almost all add the trips of developments that do not need a concurrency permit to the pipeline. 2. The cost to track developments that would fall under the need to analyze intersections off-site could be significant. A nominal fee may be appropriate to provide this tracking. B. Recommendation Staff proposes to exempt only developments that generate no net new trips for concurrency analysis. "Net new trips" is the difference between trips generated by the existing development and the proposed development. XI. Vesting of Existing Trips Should trips generated by existing land uses be credited against trips generated by redevelopment? A. Options Most agencies give credit for existing trips, but some do not. The city's past practice has been to provide credit only on those properties that have undergone SEP A analysis with the expectation that, prior to the implementation of SEP A (about 1973), no analysis of mitigation needs would have occurred, whereas at least some SEP A determination would have concluded either that there was no impact from the development, or mitigation conditions would have been implemented. . April 17th, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Transportation Concurrency Policy framework Page 6 B. Recommendation Staff proposes to provide credit only on those properties that have undergone SEP A analysis. XII. LOS Standard The City's adopted LOS standard is contained in Comprehensive Plan Policy TP16: "The City's LOS standard shall be E. This is defined herein as a volume/capacity ratio less than 1.00 in accordance with Highway Capacity Manual (2000) operational analysis procedures. At signalized intersections, the analysis shall be conducted using a 120-second cycle length and level of service E is defined as less than 80 seconds of delay per vehicle. Where transit or HOV facilities are provided, the LOS shall be measured by average delay and volume/capacity ratio per person rather than per vehicle. This standard shall be used to identify concurrency needs and mitigation of development impacts. For long-range transportation planning and concurrency analysis, a volume/capacity ratio of 0.90 or greater will be used to identify locations for the more detailed operational analysis." A. Ovtions About half the agencies include their LOS standard in their code. B. Recommendation Staff recommends to refer to the Comprehensive Plan rather than state the LOS standard in the code, since this would require a code revision in the event that the LOS standard was amended in the Comprehensive Plan. XIII. Road system definition A. Options The few agencies that identify this are typically applying concurrency only to agency- owned arterials. The PSRC was critical of the lack of definition of whether state-owned facilities are covered by concurrency ordinances. RCW clearly exempts Highways of Statewide Significance, but the status of the remainder of the state highway system is left undefined. B. Recommendation Staff proposes that any intersection that could eventually warrant a traffic signal be monitored for concurrency, which could potentially include minor collectors where they intersect any higher classification street. Given the state's inability to provide significant funding for anything beyond the freeway mainlines, concurrency should also apply to all state highway intersections, including freeway ramp terminals, but not to freeway mainline. XlV. Testing without land use application A. Options Several agencies explicitly allow an applicant to run a concurrency test without submitting a land use application. In all cases, the results are not binding and the trips are not reserved, so it becomes a sort offeasibility study. B. Recommendation Staff proposes to allow this. However, we should charge a lesser amount for concurrency review for any subsequent submittal that reflects the ability to use any information previously generated. In trying to think through this, it would appear that this may be feasible for smaller projects that would not alter trip assignment of other developments that submitted between a first and second round, as long as the remaining background data do not change (new volume data or new base year in EMME/2). Rather than specify this in code, we can discuss this in conjunction with the fee structure. Staff invites the Committee to provide any policy direction before staff finalizes a draft ordinance. __________ ___n . April 17th, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Transportation Concurrency Policy framework Page 7 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON: Prepare a draft ordinance consistent with the above staff recommendation to the May 1, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee meeting. cc: Project Fi Ie Day File . . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation connni~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manage FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director W- Paul Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manag~ SUBJECT: SW 356th Regional Detention Facility Concerns - Owen Property POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council direct staff to perform work on private property to resolve a private drainage problem? BACKGROUND: On March 21 st 2006, Mrs. Owen attended the regularly scheduled City Council meeting and spoke during the Citizen Comment portion of the meeting regarding a drainage problem she has been dealing with for the last ten years or more. In response to Mrs. Owen, the Council requested that the Public Works department provide a report regarding the problem at the April 4th 2006 City Council meeting. At the April 4th 2006 City Council meeting, during the emerging issues portion of the meeting, Public Works Director Roe provided the Council with the following report; . Over the last five (5) years SWM staff have met with Mrs. Owen on at least three, if not four, different occasions to address her drainage concerns. . As a result of these meetings, it was determined that the problem was primarily a private drainage issue involving a pond/wetland behind Mrs. Owen's home and a driveway catch basin connected to the pond/wetland. . The water surface elevation in the pond/wetland rises during the winter months due to rainfall. When this occurs the pipe connected to the driveway catch basin and pond/wetland flows in a reverse direction than it was intended to, thus introducing water from the pond/wetland to the driveway catch basin and causing flooding in the driveway area. . The flooding in the driveway would then approach the finished floor elevation of the daylight basement. SUf!f!ested Alternatives: In an effort to gain an independent evaluation of the problem, on March 28th 2006, Paul Bucich, SWM Manager, and Public Works Director Roe met with Mrs. Owen on-site. After walking the property and discussing the problem with Mrs. Owen we identified four potential alternatives that could be implemented to solve the drainage problem. Several of the alternatives had been suggested to Mrs. Owen during past visits and discussions. 1. Slightly raise the berm between the pond/wetland and the residence. 2. Install a larger catch basin in the driveway near the home to better accommodate a sump pump and direct discharge from the pump to the pond/wetland. 3. Install a pipe plug in the existing four inch pipe connecting the catch basin in the driveway to the pond/wetland, thus preventing water from the pond/wetland from flowing in a reverse direction. 4. Regularly maintain the natural pond/wetland outlet channel to allow water to overflow to the existing storm drainage pipe stubbed out in conjunction with the SW 356th Street project constructed in 1992. -~---- . . . April17th,2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee SW 356th Regional Detention Facility Concerns - Owen Property Page 2 As noted earlier in this memorandum, the problem is primarily a private drainage problem and as a result the City would not typically spend public funds to solve a private property drainage problem such as this. The policy is in place to guard against the gift of public funds and taking on liability that otherwise the City would not have. The approximate costs to implement suggested alternatives 2 & 3 would be $1500 to $2000. Follow Up: In a phone conversation with Mrs. Owen on April 11, 2006, I confirmed that she had hired several individuals to reestablish the natural pond/wetland outlet channel by hand with coordination and cooperation with her neighbor to the east, Mr. Kenny. In addition, Mrs. Owen indicated that she would prefer to take a measured approach and not necessarily implement all of the suggested alternatives, but would be supportive of the installation of the larger catch basin and having an adequate pipe plug on hand. She also stated she would be OK with city crews installing the larger catch basin and providing the pipe plug. OPTIONS: 1. Direct staffto perform work on private property to resolve a private drainage problem. 2. Do not direct staff to perform work on private property to resolve a private drainage problem. Direct staff to continue to provide technical expertise to property owner on problem resolution. 3. Provide other direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is seeking direction from the Committee on how to proceed on implementing the suggested alternatives. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA nON: Forward Option _ to the April 18th, 2006, City Council Consent Agenda. cc: Project File Day File . - . . ; . CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: April I 7th, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation committ~ VIA: Derek Matheson, Interim City Manager FROM: Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Directo~~ Rick Perez, P.E., City Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Sound Transit Phase 2 - Light Rail Alignment POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council provide policy direction to staff to submit comments to Sound Transit on the alignment of light rail in Federal Way for Phase 2 of Sound Transit's Long Range Plan? BACKGROUND: Sound Transit requested that affected agencies comment on proposed projects for Phase 2 of Sound Transit's implementation of its Long Range Plan ("ST2") by March 23, 2006. Sound Transit hoped that this would help resolve what projects should be included, and also their respective scopes, so that costs may be estimated more accurately. Sound Transit hopes to present a package of projects to voters in November 2007 with RTID. The City Council approved a comment letter on March 21 s., 2006, that supported light rail but did not specify a preferred light rail alignment. Projects Sound Transit began this process with a list of 85 potential projects and has now narrowed that list to 63. The following is a list of light rail projects in and/or proposed to be funded at least in part by South King County: 1. Extension from SeaTac Airport to S 200th Street 2. Extension from S 200th Street to Kent-Des Moines Road 3. Extension from Kent-Des Moines Road to Tacoma Dome 4. Planning Study of New Routes (Burien to Renton) For the purposes of estimating costs, ST staff assumed that light rail through Federal Way would use an elevated alignment primarily along SR 99. This does not suggest that Sound Transit has selected a preferred alternative - in fact, it is this type of issue that generates Sound Transit's request for comment from the City. To wit: Does the City have a preference for a light rail alignment through Federal Way? Also, should it be elevated or at-grade? These questions have significant implications for the City and Sound Transit, in terms of cost, . ridership, and ability to accommodate and influence land use for decades. Alignment of Light Rail through Federal Way There are two basic alternatives for alignment: SR 99 and 1-5. Variations on an 1-5 alignment may include segments where Military Road could be used, particularly between Star Lake Road and S 304tb Street, with a potential station at S 288tb Street, which would also encourage redevelopment at this commercial retail node. Sound Transit has, in the proposed scope, stations being located at Redondo Heights Park and Ride, Federal Way Transit Center, and South Federal Way Park and Ride. An SR 99 alignment would suggest more opportunities for additional stations and transit-oriented development near those stations. If entirely at grade, it may cost less to construct, but the more it becomes elevated to mitigate traffic impacts on SR 99, any cost-advantage would likely turn into a disadvantage. Because of the lower speeds and number of stations, ridership would consist of shorter trips. An 1-5 alignment would suggest a higher-speed facility with fewer opportunities for additional stations and transit-oriented development. It may cost slightly less to construct, and may also impact the ability ofWSDOT to widen 1-5 in the future or provide additional access points to 1-5. Because ofthe higher speeds, an 1-5 alignment would be more supportive of regional trip-making. ------- . , . -. , " . Apri1171h, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Sound Transit Phase 2 Page 2 Elevated vs. at-grade It should be noted that Sound Transit does not have a set policy on when grade separation is necessary - this would likely be negotiated with Sound Transit. As a starting point, staff would raise concerns about the traffic impacts of at-grade crossings of key intersections on SR 99 including: S 288th Street, Dash Point Road, S 31th Street, S 316th Street, S 3201h Street, S 324th Street, S 336th Street, S 348th Street, and S 3561h Street. In addition to aesthetic issues, elevated trackage also allows the noise from trains to propagate further, thus potentially impacting more residences. On the other hand, at-grade alignments would require more right-of-way and fewer median breaks on SR 99. The median of SR 99 is 12-16 feet wide, whereas a double-track light rail alignment would require 28-36 feet, thus impacting right-of-way on one or both sides of SR 99. Alternatively, one or two lanes could be removed from SR 99, although this would have severe implications for meeting transportation concurrency standards. Summary Policy questions include: . Does the City have a preferred alignment for light rail? . Where should stations be located? . Should alignments be at-grade or elevated? . If at-grade, should the alignment be placed in existing right-of-way at the expense of roadway capacity, or should additional right-of-way be acquired? STAFF RECOMMENDA nON: Staff seeks Council recommendation. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward the above staff recommendation to the May 2nd, 2006, City Council Business Agenda. cc: Project File Day File