The URL can be used to link to this page

LUTC PKT 10-02-2006 City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee October 2, 2006 5:30 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 18, 2006 3. PUBLIC COMMENT (3 minutes) 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. 2007 Asphalt Overlay Project List B. S 336th Street at 1st Way South Intersection Improvements Project - Project Acceptance and Retainage Release C. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance D. RTID-ST2 Action 10 minlMulkey Action 5 min / Mulkey Action 10 minlBucich Action 10 minlLevy 5. FUTURE MEETINGS/AGENDA ITEMS 6. ADJOURN City Staff Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director Tina Piety, Administrative Assistant 253-835-2601 Committee Members Jack Dovey, Chair Eric Faison Dean McColgan G:ILUTCILUTC Agendas and Summaries 20061/IJ.02-06 LUTC Agenda.doc City of Federal Way City Council Land Use/Transportation Committee September 18, 2006 5:30 pm City Hall City Council Chambers MEETING MINUTES In attendance: Committee Chair Jack Dovey and Committee Member Dean McColgan; Committee Member Eric Faison was excused; Council Member Jeanne Burbidge, Community Development Services Director Kathy McClung; Community Development Services Deputy Director Greg Fewins; Senior Planner Deb Barker; Public Works Director Cary Roe; Deputy Director Ken Miller; City Traffic Engineer Rick Perez; Assistant City Attorney AmyJo Pearsall; Administrative Assistant II Tina Piety; City Manager Neal Beets; Assistant City Manager Derek Matherson 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Dovey called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm. Chairman Dovey stated that Council Member Eric Faison is excused due to a conflict. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The September 11, 2006, minutes. were approved. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None 4. BUSINESS ITEMS A. Tuscanv - Final Plat Deb Barker provided the background information on this item. She informed the Committee that the agenda bill incorrectly states that this is a 23-lot single-family residential subdivision; the correct number oflots is 22. She provided a corrected agenda bill. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED the staff recommendation on to the October 3, 2006, City Council Consent Agenda. B. Triangle Project Status Rick Perez provided the background information on this item. Bruce Nebbitt of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) was available to answer any questions. The City Council adopted Alternative F for this project on April 18, 2006. This issue is returning to the Committee because of issues described below. Since adoption, WSDOT conducted additional analysis and concerns were raised about the impact of providing local access to adjacent property on the segment of South 356th Street between Enchanted Parkway and 1-5. City staff concurs with WSDOT's conclusion that queuing on this ramp would conflict with the provision of access to adjacent property, resulting in queues that would compromise the function and safety of the freeway G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Sunnnaries 2006\09-18-06 LUTC Minutes.doc Land Use/Transportation Committee Page 2 September ] 8, 2006 , off-ramp in the design year 2030. As a result, WSDOT will need to completely acquire these properties, totaling approximately 4.4 acres ofBC-zoned land. Development of these properties would depend on the land value exceeding the cost of developing access through adjacent parcels. It is unknown when this might occur. WSDOT has developed new cost estimates for the project. Depending on the assumptions for inflation of highway construction costs, the estimate ranges from $194 million to $234 million. Current funding is $114 million. WSDOT is proposing two alternatives for phasing the project to maximize the safety and capacity benefits within the currently available funding. Scenario 1 would construct the westbound-to-southbound flyover and the southbound off-ramp to Enchanted Parkway and South 356th Street. Scenario 2 would build the eastbound-to-northbound flyover ramp instead of the Enchanted Parkway off-ramp, bout would allow for right- of-way acquisition for the off-ramp to South 356th Street. Moved: McColgan Seconded: Dovey Passed: Unanimously Committee PASSED Option 1 on to the October 3, 2006, City Council Consent Agenda. C. LUTC Meeting Schedule Revision Cary Roe provided the background information on this item. Because Council Member Faison has a conflict on the first and third Mondays of the month, the Committee is considering moving the meetings to the second and fourth Mondays of the month. One concern with this move is that the Parks, Recreation, and Public Safety Committee (PRPSC) currently meets on the second Monday of the month. A second concern is how the change might affect the timing of development projects that go to the City Council and issues forwarded from the city commissions. Currently, there is a two week lead time between the LUTC and Council meetings. This change would cut that time to a week. Would this shortened time line have a detrimental effect on projects? Chairman Dovey commented that at times, development project issues are addressed and decisions made during those two weeks. A third concern was when this change could be implemented. If the City Council must vote on the change, then implementation would not occur until the last meeting of the year. Council Member Burbidge, who is chairperson of the PRPSC, commented that as long as the other concerns are favorably addressed, she has no objection to moving the meeting. Council Members McColgan and Burbidge commented that they believed that changing the date of a committee meeting does not require a full council vote. Staff was requested to research these concerns to determine what impact changing the meeting dates would have on the timing of development projects and coordination of issues with other committees and the city commissions. 5. FUTURE MEETINGS . The next scheduled meeting will be October 2, 2006. 6. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 6:19 p.rn. G:\LUTClLUTC Agendas and Summaries 2006\09-18-06 LUTC Minutes.doc COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 17,2006 ITEM #:_ -_._--_.._._._.~--_.._----_._-----------------_._-..- CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . SUBJEcr: 2007 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to /lid POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council approve the 2007 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and' authorize staff to proceecl with the design and bid of the proposed 2007 Asphalt Overlay Program? COMMITTEE: Land Use/fnmsportation CATEGORY: . . ~ Consent '.0 City Council BusineSs MEETING DA T~: October 2, 2006 o Ordinance o Resolution o o Public Hearing (. Other STAFF REPORT By: Marwan Salloum, P;E., Str.eet Systems Manager DEPT: Public Works . Attachments: LUTCmemo.dated October 2,2006 .' Options Considered: . .~., 1. Approve the list of streets for the 2007 Asphalt Overlay Project as presented; Furthermore, autho~ze . staff to bid all or part of the 2007 Asphalt Overlay Project, returning with a request for permission 'to award the project within the available 2007 Asphalt Overlay Budget to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. '2. Direct staff.to:modifythe preliminary list and return to Committee for further action 3. Take no. action aricl provide direction to st!lff;, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option 1. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DIRECTOR APPROVAL: ~ Council . Committee - Council' COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option _ on the October 17, 2006 C01qlcil'Consent Agenda for approval . . . Eric'Paison, Member POS Co NCIL MOTION: "Approve the list of streets for the 2007 Asphalt Overlay Project as presented. Pi t mo e, uthorize staff to bid all or part of the 2007 Asphalt OverJay Project, returning with a request for permission 0 award the project within tlie available 2007 Asphalt Overlay Budget to the lowest resjJonsive, responsible bidder. " .. . (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYCITYCLERKSOFFICE) COUNCIL ACI'lON: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDE.FERREDINO ACTION o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL 1# 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE 1# RESOLUTION 1# CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: October 2, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beets, City Manager Marwan Salloum, P.E., Street Systems Manager John Mulkey, P.E., Street Systems Engineer 2007 Asphalt Overlay Program Preliminary Project List and Authorization to Bid BACKGROUND: Public Works staff has developed a list of recommended streets for the 2007 Asphalt Overlay Program. The total estimated budget for the program is $2,255,200 and is comprised ofthe following: 2007 Proposed Overlay Budget 2007 Structures Budget 2005 CarryForward (estimate) Mitigation (estimate) SR 18 at 161 Project Funds TOTAL FUNDING A V AILABLE $2,024,000 $131,200 $ 50,000 $50,000 $545,000 $2,800,200 The $131,200 from the Structures budget is for the City's annual Sidewalk Replacement Program, and will cover the costs associated with the replacement of substandard wheelchair ramps, and repairing existing curb, gutter, and sidewalks within the overlay project area. SR 18 at SR 161 intersection Improvements are being added to the 2007 Overlay Project, exclusive of improvements at S 352nd Street, which will be bid separately. The $545,000 shown above comes from the Capital Project Funding for the SR 18 at SR 161 project. The following is a preliminary list of Streets to be included in the 2007 Asphalt Overlay Program. The streets were selected using the City's Pavement Management System and were verified by field reconnaissance. The costs shown are estimated and will be refined as the design of each schedule is completed. A project vicinity map and more detailed area maps are attached for your information. . SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION A 1 st A venue South B Redondo / Marlbrook C Wildwood D West Campus E Westway F Alderdale G Crown Point H Evergreen Estate I ' SR 18 at SR161 ESTIMATED SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COSTS: 10% Construction Contingency Pavement Management System In-house Design Construction Administration City's Administrative Fee Printing and Advertising ESTIMATED TOTAL PROGRAM COST: AMOUNT $246,000 $350,000 $366,000 270,000 $217,000 $433,000 $55,000 $121,000 $545,000 $2,603,000 $260,300 $30,000 $63,000 $110,000 $72,000 $3,500 $3,141,800 October 2, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee 2007 Asphalt Overlay Program Page 2 of2 The estimated cost of $3,141,800 is a preliminary figure used for estimating purposes only and includes construction administration, ten percent construction contingency, in-house design and construction management, printing and advertising. The 2007 Asphalt Overlay Project will be awarded within the available overlay program budget. Once Council approves the list of streets for the Overlay Program, staff will begin the final design. The anticipated date for advertising is February 2007, with construction beginning in May 2007. k:\lutc\2006\1O-02-06 2007 Asphalt Overlay Iist.doc =0 ~~ ~ U I ~\ - -'::iL 21 : ~ Q ~>!- \- :=:s 1-J = J I~ 'I ~ I ~ '.~ ~ Bll..~, ~ ~ ~I t;;:: ~--c ",~-' F - 0 ~ ~ 1(_ ~ k~ 41 ~I@} 1" '/j ~ TI L ,J' -Irr~:: "' ! S J LI,~C=-'- v ~ t ( ,n V - _ I' .. ~ .~~ H ~ _ ~!j ~) I .l !l:1 - \ -'i. 1/ I l--. = I, Ft-. Y. ~~h ~ i"-,'i.lEl-rl I- ~I ~ 6- ." \ T / r I 1... I f-3' 2th S . ~ I ~ ,),0 ,~ lLIL~Y' ~ I kZ I Iff- ) -1 _ r '" --" ~ 1 =4 'II;!. .=- -r;rl- ~ I h >-- ~ I It:! ~ 0", (- io lV'v fY!-4lfr ... .."'~..- -- / "" J y; ,,<0~~~ (~~J'~ ~ U fL ~ --<.- ti ." ~W . ~ 17 - ~ / ~ ~ - r= - I UT T .' ~ t:Dt E ,~ ~ .-::J , 1 ~..:-z- bUT n ,.J ~1A'~.m.. ~T ~ ~'U:.h I" 'I ) ~ ..... :y/J_~ ~- L1 I,) ~. ",,1 I' ~ 3" l cl =r 'I I = '\t~JI\ ~,-i~ lIi ~ ~ -!" ~~ """\ 1 I...J ~( ~ rr~~~~ ~=L' \ ~ ~....l..J. ( Y 10_ m:;"-V dN '(j)~- ~;f ~ \J- -i I f_ '\ ~r/:l'1 l / '1:1" +- w ~ ~ J I~~ j \ "I--r--.. ~ I . rJ ~ ---., 7ii / ~ '. .---..... /- I I I I'" " ..... , I I -j /;/ I I [-r- / - A-1stAveS - B - Redondo Marlbrook VICINITY MAP - C - Wildwood POTENTIAL 2007 - o - West Campus OVERLAY PROJECTS - E - Westway - F - Alderdale - G - Crown Point - H - Evergreen Estates - 1- SR 18 @ SR 161 Map byKCM Sept21,2006 '. $: .~ ~~ Map made by -KCM $: en z -I ('t') en --l a.. -c- 8319 LN ~ N 3$: Nen 8 320 8T CJ) ~ ~ $: en ~ N SW 324 CT S 324 PL 1ST AVE S POTENTIAL 2007 OVERLAY PROJECT ~ () N --l a.. ('t') ~ 10 S 318 PL S 321 PL 323 8T en -I a.. ('t') ...J a. -.:::t 8 325 LN Q\ ~ <<%>$ ;:g -t Cf) N W-+. s Map Prlnled-Sept 19, 2006 Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. '. CI) ~ <0;( c ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ <.P ~ =s 28 ~ .~ 8T Cf> en ~ 293 PL ~ ~ -0 .. Map made by -k T en -J a.. l() ~ en ~ l() ~ U) ~ '" ~ -.;;tt- ~() U) 8 289 PL 8 290 :c 8 283 8T <.) - u.. - <.) <( a.. 8 U) 284 LN ~ GO ~ ~ 0'> ~ U) en ~ 8 286 GO LN ~ S 288 T 289 ST 290 8T U) .-J 0.. LO ...- 291 ST Redondo Marlbrook North Potential 2007 Overlay Project 2898 ~C:J ~~ C)) N w+. s Map Prlnled-Sept 19, 2006 Federal Way CityMap Note: ThIs map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no wan-anty as to its accuracy. SIR GAR~ 8 296 PL w C/) C/) C/) 0 C/) ~ --.J .:> ~ ~ a.. ~ C/) ...- ...- ~ ~ en '" '" 0 '" 8 298 8T ~ 8 298 8T '" C/) C/) L{) --.J '" a.. 8299 ~ --.J a.. S 299 ST ...- ~ 8299 8T '" '" 8T ~ 8 300 8T <.0 8300 8T ~ '" ~ 301 :-\ 8 301 8T ST ~ 302 =-< ~ 8 301 PL 302 ST 8T en 302 PL 8 301 8T .:> <( o '" C/) > <( M '" C/) --.J a.. ~ '" C/) --.J a.. L{) '" C/) --.J a.. c.o '" C/) ~ 8304 ~ 8T en Wildwood Potential 2007 Overlay Project N w+. s . Map PrInted. Sepl21, 2006 Federal Way CityMap Map made by -KCM Note' This map is intended for use as a graphical ~presentation only. The City of Federal Way makes no waffBntyas to Its accuracy. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~$ Co C\J N en en ~ 5: SW327 PL en l"'- S en k ~ ~ 328 <J "t C\J (0 8T L()~ ~~ West Campus Potential 2007 Overlay Project N w-+. s Map Prlnted-8ept 19,2006 Federal Way CityMap Map made by -KCM t. only hical representa lOll . NotfJ' This map is in~nde~:re~: ~ac:J~: as to its accuracy. The City of Federal ay SW 333 ST ~~ SW 334 T K1 SW 334 PL Map made by -KCM F:J JJ< It ~t; Westway Potential 2007 Overlay Project S en ~ " N N w+. s Map Prlnted-8ept 19, 2006 Federal Way CityMap Note' This map is inteFideO for use as a graphical ~sentation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to Its accuracy. S' ~r,}S\ 3: CI) > <( """" ('f) SW341 CT SW 341 ST ~ SW 342 ST g SW342PL :5: CI) --2:::5: ('f)__Cf) SW 343 PL SW344 ST Alderdale Potential 2007 Overlay Project Map made by -KCM -0 r SW 334 PL N W*E S Map Prlnted-Sept 19. 2006 Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical ~presentation only. The City of Federal Way makes no watT8Jltyas to its acCUf8{;y. " 96 PL 81" S 295 ST --I --I N a... ~ a.. 97 PL Map made by -KCM en ~ . ("I") en ~ ""=T 297 ST CROWN POINT POTENTIAL 2007 OVERLAY PROJECT N w+. s Map PrInled.sep 20. 2006 Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. -I (L 8 308 8T ~ t98r Map made by .KCM -I (L Lt") ~ 8 309 8T (L ~ EVERGREEN ESTATES . POTENTIAL 2007 OVERLAY PROJECT en en -I (L Lt") > <( Lt") 8 312 8T en en N w+. s Map Prlnted-8ep 19 2006 Federal Way CityMap Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. .- ~ <0 ~ SR18 Ct: C/) SR 18 @ SR 161 Potential 2007 Overlay Project N w+. s Mep Prlnt8d-Sep 20 2006 Federal Way CityMap Map made by -KCM Note: This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. The City of Federal Way makes no wamJnty as to its accuracy. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October.!?, 2006 ITEM#:~ CITY OF FEDERALW A Y CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: S336th Street at 111 Way South IntersectiolrImprovements Project-: Final A...cceptance POLICY QUES'l'ION: Should the Council accept the S336th Street at 1st Way South Intersection Improvements Project constructed by Vetch Construction LLCas complete? COMMITTEE: Land Use/fransportation MEETING DATE: October 2,2006 CATEGO~Y: 181 Consent o City Co~nciI Business o Ordinance o .' Resolution o o . Public .Uearing Other STAFF REpORT By: Marwan Salloum,P.E., Street Systems Manager DEPT: Public Works Attachments: LUTCmemo dated October 2, 2006 .' Options. Considered: 1. Authorize final acceptance of the S336th Street at 1st Way South Intersection Improvements Project constructed by Vetch Construction LLC, in the amount of $215,430.38 as complete. 2. Do not authorize final acceptance of the completed S336th Street at 1st Way South Intersection Improvements Project constructed by Vetch Construction LLC as complete and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: StaffreCOinri1ends Option L CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: . Council DIRECTOR APPROVAL: t>JIII{ Conunittee- Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Place Option 1 on the October 17, 2006 Council Consent Agenda for approval Eric Faison, Member PiA.' "/1 . Ut/t PRO OS C UNCIL MOTION: "I move approval of final acceptance of the S336th. Street at ]" Way South Inter, ction Improvements Project constructed by Vetch Construction LLC, in the amount of $215,430.38 as complete. " . . . (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) . - , . COUNCIL ACfION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLED/DEFERRED/NO ACfION o MOVED TO SECOND READ'ING (ordinanc(!$ only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 COUNCIL BILL # 1ST reading Enactment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # . A Federal Way DATE: October 2, 2006 TO: Land Use and Transportation Committee VIA: Neal Beets, City Manager FROM: Marwan Salloum, P. E., Street Systems Manager SUBJECT: S336th Street at 1 sl Way South Intersection Improvements Project - Project Acceptance and Retainage Release BACKGROUND: Prior to release of retainage on a Public Works construction project, the City Council must accept the work as complete to meet State Department of Revenue and State Department of Labor and Industries requirements. The above-referenced contract with Vetch Construction, LLC is complete. The final construction contract amount is $215,430.38. This is $62,899.62 below the $278,330.00 (including contingency) budget that was approved by the City Council on March 21, 2006. Staff will be present at the October 2nd Land Use & Transportation meeting to answer any questions the Committee might have. k:\Iutc\2006\IO-02-06 S336th Street at I" Way South- Project acceptance.doc cc: Project File Central File COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 17, 2006 ITEM #: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance POLICY QUESTION: Should the Council adopt a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance amending FederalWay City Code Chapter 21 by adding a new Article V, Flood Damage Prevention that brings Federal Way into compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program? COMMITTEE: tUTC MEETING DATE: October 2, 2006 CATEGORY: . D Consent D City Councll Business [8] Ordinance D ResolutiOIi D Public Hearing D Other DEPT: Public Works STAFF REpORT.By: Paul A~ Bucich; P.E., Surface Water Manager Attachments: Memorandum to the Land Use and Transportation Committee dated October 2, 2006. Options Considered: . . . 1. Amend Federal Way City Cod~ (FWCC) Chapter 21 by adding a. new Article v, Flood Damage Prevention by adoptiol'l'ofthe attached Ordinance and Exhibit A. 2. Do not amend FWCCChaptet 21 and provide direction to staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends forwarding Option 1 above to the October 17, 2006 Council Agenda for a first reading. of the Ordinance. CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:. ~ Council DIRECTOR APPROVAL: fJ1tt\. Committee Council Eric Faison, Member PR P D UNCIL MOTION: <II move we forward the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance to the fUll . Co cil on October I1h for a fUll reading and recommend the Council. Amend Federal Way City Code Chapter 21 by adding a new Article V; Flood Damage Prevention. " . (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BYCITYCLERKS OFFICE) COUNcn. ACfION: o APPROVED o DENIED o TABLEDIDEFERREDINO ACflON o MOVED TO SECOND READING (ordinances only) REVISED - 02/06/2006 . COUNCIL BILL # 1ST reading Enadment reading ORDINANCE # RESOLUTION # CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: October 2, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beets, City Manager Paul A. Bucich, P.E., Surface Water Manager Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance BACKGROUND: In April of 1996, Federal Way Council passed resolution No. 96-229 that provided for cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and adopted policies for minimizing public and private losses due to flood conditions. In the spring of 2006, the Department of Ecology conducted a Community Assistance Visit (CA V) and informed city staff that adoption of a resolution does not meet the minimum standards for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). With the exception of this one issue, Federal Way is compliant with the NFIP. FEMA provided city staff with a template ordinance and exhibit which have been used to create the attached ordinance and exhibit. Adoption of this ordinance amending Chapter 21 by adding a new Article V, Flood Damage Prevention, in City Code will allow the residents of Federal Way to continue to participate in the NFIP and obtain flood and landslide insurance on their residential and commercial properties. At this time, there are seventeen policy holders within Federal Way that would be affected if Council should chose not to adopt this ordinance and would lose their ability to participate in the NFIP. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE (FWCC) CHAPTER 21 BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE V, FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Washington has delegated the responsibility to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry; and WHEREAS, previously the City passed Resolution No. 96-229 (April 16, 1996), a resolution providing for cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and adopting policies for minimizing public and private losses due to flood co~ditions. WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way desires to continue participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) designed to provide insurance to property owners for flood hazards through insurance companies and the Federal Government; and WHEREAS, the City of Federal Way finds that adoption of an ordinance providing clear direction to citizens living in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplains or flood ways for construction of new buildings or remodeling of existing buildings is required to participate in the NFIP; and WHEREAS, the City desires to comply with Section 60.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) for participation in the NFIP; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ORD# , PAGE 1 Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. After full and careful consideration, the City Council of the City ofF ederal Way finds that the proposed Ordinance and new Article V, Chapter 21, Flood Damage Prevention, will protect and benefit the public health, safety and welfare. Further, the Council finds 1. The flood hazard areas of Federal Way are subject to periodic inundation which results in loss oflife and property, health, and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 2. These flood losses are caused by the cumulative effect of obstructions in areas of special flood hazards which increase flood heights and velocities, and when inadequately anchored, damage uses in other areas. Uses that are inadequately flood proofed, elevated, or otherwise protected from flood damage also contribute to the flood loss. . Section 2. Amendment FWCC Chapter 21 is hereby amended to add Article V, Flood Damage Prevention, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 3. Severabilitv. The provisions of this ordinance are declared separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or portion of this ordinance or the invalidity of the application thereofto any person or circumstance, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Ratification. Any act consistent with the authority and prior to the effective date of this ordinance is hereby ratified and affirmed. Section 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective five days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law. ORD# , PAGE 2 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Federal Way this , 2006. day of CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MAYOR, MICHAEL PARK ATTEST: CITY CLERK, LAURA HATHAWAY, CMC APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY, PATRICIA A. RICHARDSON FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO.: ORD# , PAGE 3 EXHIBIT A FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE CHAPTER 21. ARTICLE V. FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION Sections: Division 1. Generally 21-100 Purpose. 21-101 Adoption of State and Federal Statues and Regulations. 21-102 Methods of Reducing Flood Losses. 21-103 Definitions. Division 2. Provisions 21-104 General Provisions. 21-105 Permits. 21-106 Use of other Base Flood Data (In A and V Zones). 21-107 Information to be Obtained and Maintained. 21-108 Alteration of Watercourses. 21-109 Conditions for Variances. 21-110 Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction. 21-111 Subdivision Proposals. 21-112 Review of Building Permits. 21-113 Specific Standards. 21-114 AE and Al-30 Zones with Base Flood Elevations But No Floodways. 21-115 Floodways. 21-116 Critical Facility. Division 1. Generally 21-100 Purpose. It is the purpose of this article to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed: (1) To protect human life and health; (2) To minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects; (3) To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; (4) To minimize prolonged business interruptions; 1 (5) To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard; (6) To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas; (7) To ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in an area of special flood hazard; (8) To ensure that those who occupy the areas of special flood hazard assume responsibility for their actions. 21-101 Adoption of State and Federal Statues and Regulations. The following state statues and administrative regulations as currently existing and hereafter amended, are hereby adopted by this reference as if set forth in full: (1) Chapter 86.16 RCW, Floodplain Management. (2) 44 CPR 59.22 (a). (3) 44 CFR 60.3 (c) (1)(d)(2). (4) 44 CFR 60.3 (b) (1). (5) 44 CFR 59.22 (b)(l). (6) 44 CFR 60.3 (a) (2). 21..102 Methods of Reducing Flood Losses In order to accomplish its purposes, this article includes methods and provisions for: (1) Restricting or prohibiting uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities; (2) Requiring that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood darnage at the time of initial construction; (3) Controlling the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters; (4) Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and (5) Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers that unnaturally divert floodwaters or may increase flood hazards in other areas. 21-103 Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this article, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Unless specifically defined below, terms or phrases used in this article shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this article its most reasonable application. Appeal means a request for a review of the interpretation of any provision of this article or a request for a variance. Area of shallow flooding means designated as AD, or AH Zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). AD zones have base flood depths that range from one to three feet above the natural ground; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and 2 indeterminate; and, velocity flow may be evident. AD is characterized as sheet flow; AH indicates ponding, and is shown with standard base flood elevations. Area of special flood hazard means the land in the flood plain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Designation on maps always includes the letters A or V; Base flood means the flood having a 1 % chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also referred to as the "lOO-year flood"). Designated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps by the letters A or V. Basement means any area of the building having its floor sub-grade (below ground level) on all sides. Breakaway wall means a wall that is not part of the structural support of the building and is intended through its design and construction to collapse under specific lateral loading forces, without causing damage to the elevated portion of the building or supporting foundation system. Coastal high hazard area means an area of special flood hazard extending from offshore to the inland limit of a primary frontal dune along an open coast and any other area subject to high velocity wave action from storms or seismic sources. The area is designated on the FIRM as Zone VI-30, VE or V. Critical facility means a facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical facilities include (but are not limited to) schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, and installations which produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Development means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials located within the area of special flood hazard. Director means the director of the city of Federal Way community development department or his or her designee. Elevation certificate means the official form (FEMA Form 81-31) used to track development, provide elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with community floodplain management ordinances, and determine the proper insurance premium rate with . Section B completed by Federal Way. Elevated building means, for insurance purposes, a non-basement building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns. Existing manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the effective date of the adopted floodplain management regulations. Expansion to an existing manufactured home park or subdivision means the preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). 3 Flood or flooding means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: (a) The overflow of inland or tidal waters and/or (b) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood insurance rate map (FIRM) means the official map on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special. flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Flood insurance study (FIS) means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. Floodway means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation ofthe applicable non-elevation design requirements of this article found at FWCC 21-113 (a) (2), (i.e. provided there are adequate flood ventilation openings). Manufactured home means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." Manufactured home park or subdivision means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale. New construction means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date ofthis article. New manufactured home park or subdivision means a manufactured home park or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the effective date of adopted floodplain management regulations. Recreational vehicle means a vehicle, (a) Built on a single chassis; (b) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection; (c) Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (d) Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. Start of construction includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or 4 footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part ofthe main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. Structure means a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground. Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage 'occurred. Substantial improvement means any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure either: (a) Before the improvement or repair is started; or (b) If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term can exclude: (c) Any proj ect for improvement of a structure to correct pre-cited existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been previously identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or (d) Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. Variance means a grant of relief from the requirements of this article that permits construction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this article. Water dependent means a structure for commerce or industry that cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operations. Division 2. Provisions 21-104 General Provisions. (a) Application of Article. This article shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of Federal Way. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for Federal Way" dated May 16, 1995, and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and any revisi<ms thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this article. The Flood Insurance Study and . the FIRM are on file at Federal Way City Hall. The best available information for flood hazard area 5 identification as outlined in FWCC 21-106 shall be the basis for regulation until a new FIRM is issued that incorporates data utilized under FWCC 21-106. (b) Penalties for Noncompliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted, or altered without full compliance with the terms of this Chapter and other applicable regulations. Violations of the provisions of this Chapter by failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with conditions), shall be enforced by the Director pursuant to Chapter 1 FWCC Article ill Civil Enforcement of Code. Civil enforcement is in addition to, and does not limit, any other forms of enforcement available to the city including, but not limited to, criminal sanctions or other remedies as specified herein or in Chapter 1 FWCC, Articles IT and IT, Nuisance and Injunction actions, or other civil or equitable actions to abate, discontinue, correct or discourage unlawful acts in violation of this chapter. (c) Summary Abatement. In addition to the remedies specified by Chapter 1 FWCC, Article ill, Civil Enforcement of Code, whenever any violation of this article causes or creates a condition, the continued existence of which constitutes or contributes to an immediate and emergent threat to the public health, safety or welfare or to the environment, the director may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement, including the reason for it, shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably possible after abatement. The costs of such summary abatement shall be recoverable via procedures for recovery of abatement costs as set forth in Chapter 1 FWCC, Article ill, Civil Enforcement of Code. (d) Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. This article is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this article and another ordinance, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. (e) Interpretation: In the interpretation and application of this article, all provisions shall be: (1) Considered as minimum requirements; (2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and, (3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under State statutes. (f) Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. The degree of flood protection required by this article is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This article does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This article shall not create liability on the part of Federal Way, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this article or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 21-105 Permits. (a) Development Permit Required. A development permit shall be obtained before construction or development begins within any area of special flood hazard established in FWCC 21-104 (a). The permit shall be for all structures including manufactured homes, as set forth in the "Definitions," and for all development including fill and other activities, also as set forth in the "Definitions." 6 (b) Application for Development Permit. Application for a development permit shall be made and will include, but not be limited to, plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required: (1) Elevation in relation to mean sea level, ofthe lowest floor (including basement) of all structures recorded on a current elevation certificate (FF 81-31) with Section B completed by the City of Federal Way Building Official; (2) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed; (3) Certification by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing methods for any nonresidential structure meet floodproofing criteria in FWCC 21-113 (b); (4) Description of the extent to which a watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. (c) Designation of the Administrator. The Director or designee is hereby appointed to administer and implement this article by granting or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provisions. The Director shall: (1) Review all development applications to determine that the requirements of this article have been satisfied; (2) Review all development applications to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from those Federal, State, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required; and (3) Review all development applications to determine if the proposed development is located in the floodway. If located in the floodway, assure that the encroachment provisions of FWCC 21-115 (a) are met. 21-106 Use of Other Base Flood Data (In A and V Zones). When base flood elevation data has not been provided (in A or V Zones) in accordance with FWCC 21-104 (a), the Director shall obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State or other source, in order to administer FWCC 21-113, Specific Standards, and FWCC 21-115 Floodways. 21-107 Information to be Obtained and Maintained. (a) Where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or required as in FWCC 21-106, the applicant shall obtain and record the actual (as-built) elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures, and whether or not the structure contains a basement and provide such information to the Director or designee on a current FEMA elevation certificate (FF 81-31). Section B will be completed by the City. (b) For all new or substantially improved flood proofed nonresidential structures where base flood elevation data is provided through the FIS, FIRM, or as required in FWCC 21-106, the applicant shall obtain and record the elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was flood proofed and provide such information to the City. The City shall maintain the flood proofing certifications required in FWCC 21-105 (b)(3); (c) The City shall maintain for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this article. 21-108 Alteration of Watercourses. 7 (a) The City shall notify adjacent communities and the Department of Ecology prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administration; and (b) shall require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated portion of said watercourse so that the flood carrying capacity is not diminished. 21-109 Conditions for Variances. (a) Generally, the only condition under which a variance from the elevation standard may be issued is for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a small or irregularly shaped lot contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level. As the lot size increases the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. (b) Variances shall not be issued within a designated floodway if any increase in flood. levels during the base flood discharge would result. (c) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. (d) Variances shall only be issued upon: (1) A showing of good and sufficient cause; (2) A determination that failure to grant the vanance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and (3) A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with other existing laws or ordinances. (e) Variances as interpreted in the National Flood Insurance Program are based on the general zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods. As such, variances from flood elevations should be quite rare. (f) Variances may be issued for nonresidential buildings in very limited circumstances to allow a lesser degree of flood proofing than watertight or dry-flood proofing, where it can be determined that such action will have low damage potential, complies with all other variance criteria except FWCC 21- 109(a) and otherwise complies with FWCC 21-11O(a), 21-11O(c), and 21-111. (g) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the permitted structure will be built with its lowest floor below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk. 21-110 Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction In all areas of special flood hazards, the following standards are required: ( a) Anchoring. (1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure; (2) All manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. (b) Construction Materials and Methods. 8 (1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. (2) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. (3) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. Locating such equipment below the base flood elevation may cause annual flood insurance premiums to be increased. (c) Utilities. (1) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems; (2) Water wells shall be located on high ground that is not in the floodway; (3) New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters; (4) Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. 21-111 Subdivision Proposals. (a) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; (b) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; (c) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage; (d) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authoritative source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain at least 50 lots or 5 acres (whichever is less). 21-112 Review of Building Permits. Where elevation data is not available either through the FIS, FIRM, or from another authoritative source (FWCC 21-106), applications for building permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding as determined by the Director. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc., where available. 21-113 Specific Standards. The following provisions are required in all areas of special flood hazards where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in FWCC 21-104 (a), or FWCC 21-106. (a) Residential Construction. (1) New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation (BFE). (2) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are prohibited, or shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following 9 minimum criteria: (i) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. (ii) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. (iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Foundation vent standards required by the mClIRc outside the floodplain do not meet this standard and are often inadvertently permitted. Insurance rates reflect an "all or nothing" standard. Partially ventilated crawlspaces may be subject to an additional loading fee of 20-25% attached to the annual insurance prenuum. (b) Nonresidential Construction. New construction and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall: (1) Be flood proofed so that below one foot or more above the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water; (2) Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; (3) Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this subsection based on their development and/or review of the structural design, specifications and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the official as set forth in FWCC 21-105 (b); (4) Nonresidential structures that are elevated, not floodproofed, must meet the same standards for space below the lowest floor as described in FWCC 21-113 (a) (2); Applicants who are floodproofing nonresidential buildings should be ware that flood insurance premiums will be based on rates that are one foot below the floodproofed level (e.g. a building floodproofed to the base flood level will be rated as one foot below). Floodproofing the building an additional foot will reduce insurance premiums significantly. (c) Manufactured Homes. (1) All manufactured homes in the floodplain to be placed or substantially improved on sites shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured home is elevated one foot or more above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement. (d) Recreational Vehicles. Recreational vehicles placed on sites are required to either: (1) Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days; or (2) Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on wheels or jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently attached additions; or (3) Meet the requirements of (c) above and the elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured homes. 10 21-114 AE and AI-30 Zones with Base Flood Elevations but No Floodways. In areas with base flood elevations (but a regulatory floodway has not been designated), no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall be permitted within Zones AI-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. 21-115 Floodways. Located within areas of special flood hazard established in FWCC 21-104 (a) are areas designated as floodways. State of Washington RCW 86.16 will need to be consulted in addition to this FWCC. The more restrictive provisions shall apply. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters that can carry debris, and increase erosion potential, the following provisions apply: (a) Encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development shall be prohibited unless certification by a registered professional engineer is provided demonstrating through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge. (b) Construction or reconstruction of residential structures is prohibited within designated floodways, except for (1) repairs, reconstruction, or improvements to a structure which do not increase the ground floor area; and (2) repairs, reconstruction or improvements to a structure, the cost of which does not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure either, (i) before the repair, or reconstruction is started, or (ii) if the structure has been damaged, and is being restored, before the damage occurred. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or to structures identified as historic places, may be excluded in the 50 percent. (c) If (a) above is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of FWCC 21-110, Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction. 21-116 Critical Facility. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (100-year floodplain). Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet above BFE or to the height of the 500- year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height utilized above. Floodproofing and sealing measures must be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible. 11 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 17,2006 ITEM CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL SUBJECT: RTID I ST2 COMMENTS POLICY QUESTION: WHAT POSITION DOES THE CITY COUNCIL WISH TO ADOPT ON THE RTID I ST2 BALLOT MEASURE? COMMITTEE: LAND USE I TRANSPORTATION MEETING DATE: October 2, 2006 CATEGORY: [2J Consent D City Council Business D Ordinance D Resolution D D Public Hearing Other ~!~~~~~~Q~!!!X.:~~!r_~~~JP~~g~~YY__mm_________.._________~~!~:_Pu~li:_~?~~____ Attachments: I. October 2, 2006 LUTC Memo 2. November 1, 2005 letter to Councilmember Shawn Bunney, RTID 3. January 31, 2006 letter to Councilmember Shawn Bunney, RTID 4. March 22, 2006 letter to John Ladenburg, Sound Transit 5. April 25, 2006 letter from John Ladenburg, Sound Transit 6. May 10, 2006 letter to John Ladenburg, Sound Transit 7. June 15, 2006 letter from John Ladenburg, Sound Transit 8. Draft letter from SCATBd to Sound Transit (approved August 15,2006) 9. September 26, 2006 "talking points" Options Considered: 1. Authorize staff to prepare a letter for submittal to Sound Transit and RTID consistent with past correspondence and attached memos for City Council consideration at its October 17th, 2006, meeting. 2. Do not direct staff to prepare the draft letter. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Option I. CITY MANAGER ApPROVAL: ~ DIRECTOR ApPROVAL: ~ Council thht. Committee Council COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Forward staff recommendation for Option I to the October 17, 2006 CitY Council Consent Agend Eric Faison, Member COUNCIL MOTION: "I move approval to authorize a letter to Sound Transit and RTID, consistent correspondence and the attached memos. " (BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY CLERKS OFFICE) COUNCIL ACTION: o APPROVED o DENIED COUNCIL BILL # 1 ST reading CITY OF FEDERAL WAY MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: October 2nd, 2006 Land Use and Transportation Committee Neal Beets, City Manager Cary Roe I Doug Levy ~ RTID / ST2 Comments BACKGROUND: Barring significant changes in plans, both Sound Transit (ST) and the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) will use the October-December time period to finalize project lists and financing plans for a combined ballot measure in Fall 2007. RTID's funding sources are 0.1 % sales tax and 0.8% motor vehicle excise tax. Sound Transit's funding sources for ST2 is an increase of up to 0.5% sales tax. The Sound Transit Board is considering three funding levels: . A 0.3% sales tax would extend light rail south to Kent-Des Moines Road, thus falling short of the City Council goal of serving Federal Way . A 0.4% sales tax would extend light rail south to the Federal Way Transit Center, meeting the minimum goal of serving Federal Way. . A 0.5% sales tax would extend light rail south to the Port of Tacoma, most closely attaining the goal of connecting Federal Way to Seattle and Tacoma. This next three months becomes an absolutely critical period not only for the RTID and for ST, but for the City as well. Decisions will be made that will impact transportation and transit investments in our region for the next two decades. . ..' ., . From a staff standpoint, we see a vital need for the City, from the elected-official level on down, to be active in both the Sound Transit and RTID processes. Doing so will enable us to push for investment strategies that include key Federal Way project priorities, and to work to ensure that any combined ballot measures deliver a fair share of benefits to our community, our residents, our businesses, and all those who want to efficiently move people and goods through the City. As we look to the RTID and ST efforts, we believe the best strategy is to key in on the most important investments to Federal Way: . The Triangle Interchange: This project is being carried on the RTID list and would receive $50 million in funding through the RTID's current "Blueprint for Progress" proposal. But we have to be vigilant, given that cost increases for the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the State Route 520 Bridge _ and expected sharp cost increases for all other RTID projects - will put pressure on how many "Blueprint for Progress" projects can be funded, and at what level. While the Triangle has been, is, and will be the top RTID prior!ty, the City also has a stake in supporting full funding for the Intersate 5/State Route 509 project as well. July 18, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee South 320th Street at 151 Avenue South Intersection Improvements Project - 30% Design Status Report Page 2 . Light-rail transit extensions to Federal Way: In draft plans for a Sound Transit "Phase 2" ballot measure, light-rail extensions to 320th Street/Federal Way Transit Center are incorporated into both the 'medium' and 'maximized rail' investment scenarios that are being taken to open houses. Again, in view of the fair-share issue - and with the knowledge that our community is an integral part of the larger region - the City needs to be vigilant in working the process and speaking to its priorities. With regard t~ light-rail, the Council also has made its feelings known regarding the most appropriate LRT alignment through Federal Way, favoring an Interstate 5-area extension. While we cannot predict the outcome of an RTID-ST2 ballot measure, it is clear that the stakes are huge and that the climate is an uncertain one. As noted above, sharp cost spikes for materials such as asphalt, steel, and concrete are driving project costs up accordingly, and RTID in particular will have to make difficult decisions about project lists. In short, we believe that our biggest enemy at this juncture is complacency, and suggest implementation of an action plan that includes the following: . Written Documentation of the City's priorities: The RTID has requested written comments on its "Blueprint for Progress" by Oct. 27, and ST continues to solicit comments aswell. We would propose to prepare a written comment letter for both RTID and ST purposes. Critical to ST is what funding level should be recommended. . Council role in verbally communicating City priorities: There will be a number of upcoming meetings of the RTID Executive Board, the ST Board, and joint meetings of the two boards, where time is allocated on the agenda for public comment. We recommend using these opportunities to communicate City priorities. Upcoming meetings include a joint meeting of RTID and the ST Board for 10 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 5 at Sound Transit (Union Station, Seattle), and a meeting of the RTID Executive Board for 9:30 a.m.. Friday, Oct. 13 at the King County Courthouse Council Chambers (516 Third St., Seattle). . Re-establish Action Group to fight for Triangle funding: Previously the City and Chamber, joined by State Senator Tracey Eide and State Rep. Skip Priest, as well as King County Council Member Pete Von Reichbauer, formed an action team to fight for Triangle funding. At that point, we did not have assurances regarding the Triangle's place on RTID lists. Given the uncertain climate referenced above, we will reconvene the group and we will specifically seek to add Weyerhaeuser, the Washington Trucking Association, the Port of Tacoma, and perhaps organized labor to the group. Weyerhaeuser's participation could be particularly important, given the fact that the company will be asked to be a major 'funder' of any roads-transit ballot campaign. Staff proposes to prepare written material and talking points, to make contacts regarding the action group, and to do any other staff work requested both by LUTC and the full Council on October 17th. cc: Project File Day File July 18, 2005 Land Use and Transportation Committee . South 320th Street at 1st Avenue South Intersection Improvements Project - 30% Design Status Report Page 2 .. Light-rail transit extensions to Federal Way: In draft plans for a Sound Transit""Phase 2" ballot measure, light-rail extensions to 320th StreeVf'ederal Way Transit Center are incorporated into both the 'medium' and ~maximized rail' investment scenarios that are being taken to open houses. Again, in view of the fair-share issue - and with the lmowledgethat our coinmunity is an integral part of the larger regio~ - the City needs to be vigilant in working the proCess and speaking to its priorities. With regard to light-rail, the Council also has made its feelings lmown . . reglU'ding the most appropriate LRT alignment through Federal.Way, favoririgan Interstate S-area: . extension; While we cannot predict the olltcome of an RTID-ST2 ballot measure, it is clear that the stahs are huge arid thatthe climate is an uncertain one. As noted aboVe, sharp cost spikes for materials such as asphalt; steel, and concrete are driving project costs up accordingly, and RTID in particular will have fo make' difficult decisions about project lis~s. .' " . In short, we believe that our biggest enemy at this junctUre is complacency, arid suggest' implem~tation . of an' action plan that includes the following: .' , . ... · WrittenDocuttt-entationoOhe City's priorities: The RTID has requested Writteri .b9mtneiits~n its "Blueprint for Progress" by Oct. 21, and STcontmuesto solicit comments as well. We would propose to prepare a written commenUetter for both RTID and ST purposes. Critical to ST is what funding level should be recommended... . . . ," '.. . · . Council.role in verbally ~om~unicating City. priorities: there will be: a n~ber()fupc~nllng . meetings of the RTID' Executive Board,. the. ST Board, ~djo~t meetings of the tWo boards, where time is allocated on the agenda for public comment. We recommend using these opportunities to communicate City priorities. Upcoming meetings inClude a joint me<:ting of RTID and the ST Board for 10 a.in;Thursday, Oct. 5 at Sound Transit (Union Station, Seattle), and a meeting of the RTID Executive Board for9:30'a.m., Friday,Oct. 13 .at the King County Courthouse Co1in:d.l Chambers (516 Third St:, Seattle). ..~. ~ ... '" I . . _..:. .>.1. . . .. . Re-est~bnsh Actlott.Group:to fight 'for Tna'ogle .fundtUg:' ~eViously'theCity: anClChan1bei\ '. .., ,'''.;' ..... ., '.,' . joined by -State Senator Tracey Eide'andState Rep. Skip Priest, as well as King County Council' MemberPeteVon Reichbauer, formed an action team to fight forTriangle funding. 'At that point, we did not have assurances regarding the'Triangle's place on RTID lists. Given theuiicertaio climatereferen~ed. above, we Will reconvene the group and we will specifically seek to add .' Weyerhaeuser,the Washington Trucking Association, the Port of Tacoma, and perluipsorgatrlZed labor to the group. Weyerhaeuser's participation could be particularly important, given the fact. . that the company will be asked to be a major'funder' of any roads-transit ballot campaign. Staff proposes to prepare Written inatenal and talking points, to make contacts regarding' the action group, and to do any other staff work requested both by LUTC and the full Council on October 17th~ cc:Project Fi.\e Day File ... CITY OF .' ...~ Federal Way CITY HALL' . : 33325 8th Avenue South. PO Box ~718 Federal Way, WA 980()3-9718 . (253).835-7000 . www.city0ffedet8Iway:Com November. I, ~()05 The Honorable ShaWn Bunney' Regional Transportation.lnvestJilenfDistrict (RTID) Executive Board Chainnan Pierce'CountyCounciJmember- 930''Tacoma Ave. S., Ro"qm, 1046 Tacoma,.'Wk98402-2IQO . RE: Concerns with no funding for Interstate 5, High~ay 18, Highway 161 "Triangle" Inter.change in October..24. work-in-progress draft of Chairman's Proposal . DearChainnanJlunney: I write this letter on behalf of the City of Federal Way, to e~press our concerns with the RTID Chairman's Proposal, a copy of which we re~eived on Tuesday. We are extremely disappointed to see that this 20~year regiqnal transportation proposal includes n.~."lndi~gforthe Trianglf? Intei-changethi'Qugh Federal Way- one- of the most congested. and unsafe' interchariges in the' .. StateofWashington~ . . . . '.' ." .It seems ilI~gical to have 2lIl RTID package go forward that does not complet~ the'funeJing f9r.the . 1-5/SR-l 8/S'R-l (i}. iriterchange' This 1-5 int~changeis rated as .thefiftb-most.congestedfreeway chokepoint in the state, and is the site of numerous "high accident locations." The interchange also is a major through-put connection for freight.traffic coming from and bound.tothe'Port of Tacoma. Further, there are cori.siderab~e returns oninve~tinent with.this project: ifthe'S'100 million in funding from the 2005 Transportation Partnership Act remains'inta~t, another $50 . mini9n win complete this interchange, giving RTID a'project that provides major value for a . relatively small inve~tment compared.to other mega-projects on. the list. , . Ad~itionaJly, .the Triangle~terchange is a very good fit fOT anyRTIDproposals based on the very "Guiding Principles" that you set forth iIi developing your 20~year proposal: . No.2 and No.3 - Build off tbe Nickel Package and take into account actions by this . year's L,egislature: The Triangle project fits both principles verywell,havingrecei:v.cd $2.96-million.through:the Nickel Package for environmental work,'and $100' million in . the 200STP A toward final pre-construction work and project cOQstructiori- The project also receive<} a $5.6 million earmark through the "SAFETEA-LU" measure recently' enacted by Congress: As we noted.,. it is estima~ed thatRTID can rouild out:ftindingJor. this project with a.$5G million investment. .. No.4 - Identify corridors and investments to maximize improved traffic flow: As we noted, the Triangle is a major 1-5 chokepoint, several hours per day on a seven-day-a- . . . week basis. Revamping this intercharl.ge m*es a significant improvement in :traffic flow -both on 1-5 and through parallel stat~routes and 10calcorridorsj~f:ederalWay. . . · No.. 6 -Enbance economic" prosperity and movement ()rfreigbt~ . As.we indic;ated, the Triangle plays a major role in moving freight to and from.the Port of Tacoma. For that. very reason~ fhe.Port'ofTacomah~written'letters of support forfu~ing this project. . · No.8-Integrate witb major safety projects: The Triangle Intercharige is a major safety concern to the Washington State Departm~t .0fTransportation (WSDOT). The interchange is the site' of five (5) WSDOT-designated High Accident ~tions (HALs). · No.9 -Identifywbere key rigbts~of-way are necessary and.cost-.effectiveness is enhanced it land is acquired at today~s prices: Again, the Triangle project meets this criterion. The.WSDOTis using..fed~I:~Qll.ars to help with:ri~t~f-way'a~quisition;.and near~y development projects will be diiviI:1g up land values. . . . Mr; Chainnan, ~lIong with putting our concerns in writing, vie would like to' set 'up a meeting where we can discuss these issues and'convey our thoughts face-fo-face. We will be wo~ing to schedule such' a meeting. It is' the same concern we relayed to you when an. initial Chainnan's Proposal was fashioned earlier thisyea,r.. . . . . . W elook forward to discussing these issues with you and thank' you in advance for allowing us to forward our concerns. . Sincerely, f~~ #f!I-. De~n McColgan Mayor c: .The Honorable Sen. Tracey Ejde.'30IhLegislati~e District The HonorabJe Rep.'Mark Miioscia, 30'" Legislative District The HonoOlb.le Rep. Skip Priest. 30'" legislative. District. :The Honorable ~eter Von'Reichbauer, MetropOlitan'Kil'ig County Council The Honorable Jul.ia J>>atterson, Metropolitan I<.ing County COuDcil Federal Way City Councilmembers' Doug MacDonald. Secretary. WSDOT RTID Executive Board Members & Ms. Kjris Lund, Executive Director PSRC/RTlDLeadershlp Group members . Mr. Tom Pierson. CEO. Federal Way Chamber ofCominerce ...... . CITY OF .. . p~ Federal. Way CllY HALL .' 33325 Sth Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box ~71S Federal w.ay, WA 98063-971S'. (253) 835-7000 . www.cityoffedetalway.com I anuary 31, ZOO6 The Honorable Shawn Bimney Pierce CountyCounciLMember &. .chair, RegioDalTransportation Investment District (RTID) Executive Board . -. . .930 racoma Av~~Sou~, Ro()m 1046 iacoma,WA 9~402:-21OQ' Dear Chainilan'Bunney: . As. you well know, wehav:e corresponded With yo,u previously expressing our concef1l over RTID.proj~t liststh~t:havenotin~I':lded..the'$5Qmiliion.inlunds:n~~ t<> ." complete criticalupgt8.des.:an<"rebuilding~fthe.Interstate 5, IiighWay18~'aridHighway' '161 ~'TriangJ.e" interChange. .. .' Accordingly, we believe it is' only fair that we respond with our thanks and appreciation for efforts by yo~~d other RTID ~embe~ toin,?l~this project and completion , fundin~ in the.reyis~d listpl"es~iite(i'.~o: the' SOliD;d: T~itBoard .last Thuis.day ,J~. Z6. We are pleasedt/) see that RTID places. a high yahie on the Tt:iangle proj~t -as well as. on completion orthe State Route 509 proj~t- in its vision of a 'roads' piece of.im integrated ro,adsltransit joinf ballot between RTID and ST~ We know that,. if both the Triangle and '509 are part of a joirit ballot measure, we' would be able to actively' tell our residents in fed~ral Way oCthe important projectS th,eywould. be receiving inretum for their investment. . Again, thank you. for your etIo'rts and those ofotheri 00. the R1JD Executiye.Boai'd ~d '. . RTID staff/conSultant team.' . Sincerely, cc: ~ncil ~" CarY ROe . . Kjris LLind, Executive Director, RTID ~ F~deral Way .CITY'HAlL , . 33325 8th Av~ue South Mailing' Addres.s: Po. BolC 9718 federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835~7000 www.cityoffederalway.com March 22, 2006 John ladeobijrg; Chair sOund Transit 401'Soul11 JaCkson . Seattle, WA .9.8l04 RI;: Commentsotl ST2 Dear Chairt..aden~g: . . Thank you for the oPP.OrtUniw:toprovideQ)ffim~ton.the pOtenti~"pr~jects.fOf sT2. .TheFec;ter.a1 W~y Qt'{. Q>unol enthusiastically' suppOrts .the. extension of fight :failti> .'Federa':Way 'and strongly encourages effortS: to connect ttufOty wiUl thlsiine ofservl!,:e totegiOnal destinations a.s p~rtof ST2. Due to the high 'n~ership antidpated with a light rail. extension and <;ompetitive' cristS' Per rider as cOmpar~ to commuter rail, this should be the highest priority for the Soutl1 Kiog and Pierce County s,:,b-areas. The 'Oty Council voted unanimously at our March 2l, 2006 .Oty COunal meeting to convey to you the aty'~ strong interest in.bdnging.light~i'to.o.14r ~mt:nunily, Furthertl1Orei. in anertort.to reach out.to.U'te . comrriUftit)' 'as a. whole an.d gamer 'additionalsUppaf4. over the corning Weeks. .the Counq' will activefy pursue .inpiit from' or<janizations' such' as' the: Fecteraf-Way Olamber Of Commerce on the best way to utili,ze. light rail ;n Federal Way. Once. the Q,luri~lhas .gained a comprehensive understanding of l11e . prefererices' of our citizens, business leaders, and community leaders we will.~ il1a' better positi~n to . provide. you with our recommendations .~o~:aI~9.nrnent We acl<nOwl~ge the fUnding constraintS in SOuth King County and understand our munterpartsin Pierce ' County. have sjmilar desires and constraints. To' that erld,.we s~pport light rail e~ension from eil11~ SeaTacor Tacoma to FederalW.ay~ .but wQuld'prefer,an extension from both directions. , . '.. Again, i:han~ you for considering Federal Wayfof .a'light rail.eld:ension, We are very exdted about the opp<>rtunity to examine'the alignment options. av~lable to us an~ look: torw~rd. to providing you with. out preference in tf:le near future. '. . [f you have any questions,.or .if you would like additional information, please don't hesitate ~ contact me at 253-83S-240L.' . . Sincerely, MP/01R:kk cc: fl</eral wav Oty Council ..6,ek Matheson. Interim Cow Attomev Cal\' M. ROi!. Public Works O"ectO( Tom Pie~. federal Wav Chdmbe( of Commerce .. . ..:\:;t2 comiil~.,~s 1,1l'OS.doc ....SOUNDTRANSIT RECEIVED ~'~::~'.;\~:.Sii(; l. .~...:<r.:. :t.... ::':'.:::.~t /.".-..;..\.;. ;~'>:~.' :. .... ~ ';,.1:; . ApriI-25~2()06 APR 2 6 lOOb i/'-:l:'~:rt;t ,.' . . .~"~...::' }~~. IW M%~~~~;~~fciJ~'::~~:~~1~r . :.>~:;,::,:',Y'i. '1; "/"'~ ~.:: The Honorable Michael Park Mayor City of Federal Way 33325 8tJt Avenue South P.O. Box 9718. . Federal W~y, W A 98()6~-9718 . Dear Mayor Park:. Thank you for your March 22, 2006, letter informing me of tbeCltyCouncil'g . support for extending light rail to federal Way during SOUnd~rBt$it 2 (STI), the next phase of regional t:nirisit improvemei1ts. As you may now be aware, I sent you a letter on MarCh 27. 2006, seeking yoUr review and comnienl-on the' scope definitions . of candidate S1'2 projeCts that affect your jurisdiction. Your recent letter helps accomplish that goaL However, as you mention in your correspondence; there is yet more work to be done .by. both your council and Sound Transit and Hook fOlWaid to . 'heanIlg,{romyou.turther. The currerttproject ~t exten~ liglitrall to:Federal Way (project number S2) deScribes alight rail extension from the K,ent-Des Moines Road area tQ the Tacoma Dome. We developed a representative alignment for the pUrposes of developing a cost esti~te; this a.i~ent .s generally along State Route 99 an~lis assumed to.be .. . in an aerial configuration along the entire lenmh-. Through the urban core of Federal Way, the ali8nment is assmned.to deviate from SR 99 and serve the recently ~mpl~d Federal W,.yTransit Center with a'rail station locatedthe~; Further south, the atigmrient again follQWS :Slt 99~and t4en travels a ~h()i.t..distai1ce west of the'bighwayto the South Fedeial viaypark & Ride area, where another station would be l~ted to serve yoUr city. . We teaUze.:that there are o~er opqonS for set'vif1g Federal Way With Ught rail, includirig fOllowing Interstate S for some portioi)s 01' the syStem, as well asrunnmg light rail at street s~ for portioJJ.S' I wan.t to re-emphasize that the alignment described in project S2 is rePresentative in nature, and does not indicate any decisions by SoUnd Transit as to the preliminary or mal design or location of such a future light rail system:. The representative alignment is intended to provide infomiatiqn ab()uf the gencmU bCnefi~, ifupactS and costs oftlus system at a . conceptua1leveI. Should this project be included ih whole or in part in the ST2 Plan, final design decisions would be made after the project receives voter approval for funding, and thro~gh a rigorous environmental review of alternatives and consultation' with you, your citizens and other jurisdictions along the route. Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. UnionStatiOll . 401 S. Jadcson St.; Seattle,WA 98104'-2826 .'Recepti~n:0(2il6). 398-5000 . fAX: (2Q6) 398-5499. 'wWw.SQundtransitorg "../J The Honorable.Michael Park . . . April 25, 200(j Page Two' That said, ~e look forward to hearing more from you, your council, 'and busin~s and community representatives as to their preferences and concerns about a light rail system that could serve FederalW ay. Using this input, we can refine our project descriptionS and cost ~mates and use them toward . development of a package of regional transit P1'Qj~ts for consideration by.t,he voters. . . pi~. keq>'Quf dhiefExecutlve Officer, Jo.ni Earl, andherstaffihformed abo~ .~e next steP~ you wish to ~ regardfugthis:imPortailt"propOsal for yow'city.. 'They will support your efforts ~y meeting with' YOu, bri~fingyour council,. a.nd meeting witlrbUSh,1ess and co~UiUty groups as n~saty. ..Y om co~~c.t at Sound Trarisit is Eric prlpp.s.., ~~. the:Sou~ .C?nidor proj~t'~ager ~d:works.iI.t ~e Office of Policy ;md Planning,. which is' leading the ST2 plalming work. He is ready and eager to assist you through this next stage of worIC. Eric Can be reac.he<;t at (206) 398~5020,. or by email at ohippse@soundtransit.org: .' . . . . lappreci~te the ~th~iasnUlu;;i the ieaders otFederal vi ayare brinpigtothe exp~ion .of o~ fegional"~t' system. We: intend to build on that sentiment'and hope to craft a plan by which virtWiUyevCryonein.FedCralWay . and in the Puget Sound region can r~ize the .benefits and give it their support. Good luck with your efforts and let me know how I can help. Sitice~ly; 00:' JoDi.Earl, Chief Executive Officer . . Paul Matsuoka; Chief Policy" & Planning .officer Eric Chipps, 'senior Planner Federal Way qity Co~~l . Derek Matheson, Jnteriin City AttOrney' Cary M. Roe, Public Works Director .Tom>P~ersotl~.F~ Way ChamJ?er ofCo~erce ~~ Federal Way CIlY'fW1. 33325 8th Avenue Sooth MaIling Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063.-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cllyoffedelalway.com " May 10,2006 '. John Ladenburg. Chair Sound Transit . . 401 S'JacksonStreet . Seattle, WA 98104 . Re: ..... C0t?7mehts on Light Rail.Scope Dear Chair Ladenburg.:' "Thi$letter. is in responsetoyglir.'cequestiilg add.itional infoiiliatioo' on the Scope of light rail. .' . impR>vements in Federal Way. :':Given the' emphasis. on region~l. trip.;ri1aklng, the Federal Way.. City Council supports Sound Transifs proposed station lo~tiQns. However, given the desire to. minimize impacts as described below, the City Co~ncil prefersJo:i.Jse an alignment along 1-5 as . much .as possible. . . The pity Council reached its decision,in consultationwlththefed~~IWay Chamber of C()inmer~,"Yith a special mee~ng thahvas attended bySOlm(f"Jran~it~taff..Concems 'eXPressed with the SR 99 elevated. alignment included imp~~ts toJ~u~iness,es during . . . ., consti1Jction that have already endured a significant impact: dluing.the City's projects to wi.den . SR 99, and visual and noise. imp~cts. The Council also considered an ~t-grade ~lignment on SR .99 and determined that this would not be consistent with the regional emphasis of Sound '. .Transi~'s m!ssi.on due t? lower operating $peeds, ~hd would g~nerate si~nificant cone:ems . regarding nght-of-way Impacts, as well as pedestrian and vehicular safety and operations. The City appreCiates the invoJvement of Sound Transitstaff:in presenting information to the . 'Chamber of Commerce, espeaally given the short notice. Jf y.o~.have any questions; please do O9t h~sltate to contact me at (25~.) 835-2401. . .rJjJL ~Michae1 Park . Mayor . . MP: RAP: mal cc: . l;etIeral Way City Council '.. vOerek Matheson, Interim City Manager Cary M. Roe, P.E., Public Works Director Tom Pierson, FW Chamber of Commerce Project File . '.' :. Day File . .T.~;J~~~~~~~g~;;%i5[~~~t~{[~;~~1~;'!:'; REOEIVEEl"...", ',.."...1, .t'.- . . ..~:::;>;;;IkSf.: "(:~~i{~~~~~]:;:. JUN 1 9 200(~~>"'" .;J/k" .. . !~~};., ...~~~~T;.i CITY OF FEDERAL ..!~., ';;:':' CITY MANAGER'S OF. T SOUNDTRANSIT .June 15,2006 The Honorable Michael Park City ofFedera1 Way City Hall' . -33325 8111 Avenue South F~1. Way, W A 98063-9718 Dear Mayor Park:. . . . . . . . ~. behalf of the Sound Trans~t ~Q.~ 1 wapt to thank you for your. May iO; 200~ letter responcfulg to my requeSt'tnat' you review'and 'conUitent on Sound Transit 2 (STZ) project scopes and Cost ~timates ~t cot4d. ~ffect YOUl' j~sdiction~ A1J you .know, Soun~ T~jtha~Jdentifieda set ofprojec~tlUit could be pint of oUl' next phaSe ofinvestm~tS,kno.Wn as '81'2. Wc'oolievethatitis importarit to establish a common understmding 'of the proJect Scope, and the cOst estimates that are based on that scope, before we tirullize a plan and take it to the voters. This should minimize the potential for confusion later, ifimd when voters approve funding for STI. In. yourletter,yo~ a;dvise<loflhe City's preferencethat.aiight rail extension to Federal Way be on 1-5 rather tQari. SR 99 due to cOllcerris about impacts to' businesses. Thank you for sharing YOUl' concern, and I appreciate YOUl' efforts to help. us address .such asignificlint and complex issue at thig~lystage of planning for sn projects. ThoughlrealizC thatJoni Ead.and her staffhave been consulting with you,..your council and yoUr staff, I want to again explam why the projects that extend light rail from Sea-Tac to Tacoma were scoped as an aerial alignment along SR 99. Please note that the . scope and costes~tes for this set of projects have been . updated and are nownUnibered S27, S28, S29/S30 and' 82. They ca,nbe viewed on our.STI website at ~:.soundtranSit.orglst2. . . A1J you know, major CIilPital projects such as transit raillines mUst go through an extensive environmental review process before a final design and cost 'estimate is developed. Extending ligh~ rail to Federal Way would require such review and would include a thorough evaluation of alignment alteniatives. Given that we are in a very early stage of planning, it is.more appropriate to develop a "representative" alignment to use as the basis for developing a cost estimate rather than developing multiple alignments, scopes and cost estimates. OUl' objective is to' develop a cost ~~te that is r.ob~t e~1.()ugh to encompass the range of alternative routes and help 'the SOlmd Transit Board Understand the scale of the investment and its potential benefitS and impacts without getting into details that would be more thoroughly examined at a future date. In addition,. we want to provide affected' coriununities with that same information so that they can provide the type of comments and suggestions ~t the City ofFedefaI Way has provided. We will be usiilg YOUl' comments in the next stage of w.ork on .the project. . (elltral Puget Sound Regional Trans!t Authority . Union Station . 40t $. JaCkSon St., Seattle, WA 98tQH826 . Reception: (206) 398-5000. FAX: (206).398-S~99 · wwW,soundtransit.org The Ho1io~le Mi(:hael Park June IS, 2006 Page TWo . . Specifically, the ST2 planning team is cU1Tently developing.a sCQpe and cost estimate for a light rail extension that would predomi~tely follow I11terstate' 5 while serving stationS at or near the freeway. 'fI.1is new information will aid in understanding the similarities and differences between the SR 99 andoJ-5 routes, includmg whether there are any significant cost differences. . ,.' . . . .' . . AJj Ittoted.in 'my: letter to you in March, Sound Transit~l.t becoordfuatingwith the Regional trmis~rtati9.n . . mvest:D:tCnt"Oistrict(RTIP} to present Ii joiritproposaffof"lrat1$itand road inveshnents in November 2007 . . The Sound TraitSltBoardplllQS to ideIitifya sc;t o.fpotentia,l df.a6: pl~ options f9r'public COtntD.entthis s~.We - will use pUblic .cortlinent .to Help us identify a prefCrred package of STI investments this fall. Throughout our . proceSs .we will continue to seek input from you and, other local jurisdiCtions in our distriQt. . . - .: ." . . . Ertc..GIu.pps, S~9rP~er'fQrST2 In the S~uth Corridor,. c!Ul answerany .q1,lcStlons'youmay 'have aboutJiroject . '. S2~. 'Hecanbereaehedat(206}~98-5020'~r.by.emailatchippse@sound~it:~. . .' . ,':'.' . .." . . -' .. ..... . On behalf of the Sound Transit Board and staff, tharik you again for your involvement and support. ...t.... obn 'W. Ladenburg Chair, Sound Transit Board c: , So~d.Trat)Sit Bt)ard Members . Ioni Earl~ ChlefExecUtlveOfficer . Paul Matsuoka, ChieCPolicy and.P~g Manager :ape ChippS, Smuor Planner ,. .' " . Marcia Walker, Board Adtninistiati94 . Patrice Hardy, Goveminent R.elati6ns8peeialist Derek MathesOl1t . Interim City MaJ;i,ag~ Cary M. Roc, Public Works Director Tom Piersol1t Federal Way Chamber of Commerce It The Honorable John Ladenburg Chair, Sound Transit Board 401 South Jackson Street Seattle, W A 98104 DRAFT Dear Chair Ladenburg: At the June, July and August meetings, the South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd) reviewed information provided by Sound Transit on possible scenarios for Sound Transit Phase 2 (ST2), and discussed the following policy questions that are illustrated by the various scenarios. 1. Does SCA TBd want to recommend scenarios that focus on capital more than operating? For example, extensions of light rail compared to new or expansion of existing regional e)(press bus routes? 2. What is SCATBd's preference for focusing on the regional spine (light rail) compared to dispersed investments (parking facilities)? 3. How much does SCA TBd want to recommend for ST2 investments versus planning for or securing right of way for ST3? 4. Does SCATBd want to rule out the lower tax levels? If so, would SCATBd recommend only .4 and .5, or also .3 scenarios? 5. Would SeA TBd want to recommend that ST identify revenues for a 25-year period, rather than a 20-year period? Does SCA TBd want to weigh in on the assumption that construction will occur simultaneously in the east, south and north corridors? Based on that discussion, the following are SCA TBd's preliminary recommendations for your consideration in developing more refined plan options for ST2. Emphasize capital investments: The ST2 plan should emphasize extensions ofthe light rail line and 'include other early investments that will improve the use of Phase 1 investments while the light rail is being extended. SCA TBd members agree that extending light rail as far south as possible is a high priority for ST2. In addition, SCA TBd feels it is imperative to show citizens early progress on ST2 projects. Because extension of the light rail spine will take longer to complete, SCATBd recommends providing complementary investments early in the Phase 2 implementation timeframe. This would includeprojects such as additional parking in the commuter rail corridor, and a direct access ramp between SR 167 and Smith Street. In developing ST2 plans, Sound Transit will need to find the optimal balance between extension of the spine, which will occur over the longer term, and continued improvements to existing service and dispersed investments, which could be implemented sooner. Support Urban Centers: Regionally-designated urban centers not served on this prioritized system should be supported with transit facilities that will increase the centers' readiness for future Sound Transit service and system connectivity." Dr /\ FT \;. -,I ~ 't. The Sound Transit Long-Range Plan, adopted by the ST Board in 2005, states, "Throughout the fle<.iAnftl"t1tation of the all-day, frequent, and fast high capacity transit system, Sotfndlpr~s~ prioritize its light rail investment funds for the completion of the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma Link light rail system and the HeT system directly connecting Bellevue with that north-south rail spine. Regionally-designated urban centers not served on this prioritized system should be supported with transit facilities that will increase the centers' readiness for future Sound Transit service and system connectivity." Pursuant to this policy, SCATBd supports that inclusion of the Burien Parking Garage/Transit Oriented Development project in the ST2 plan. This project will enhance connectivity and service for the West Seattle-Burien area of Southwest King County. Increasing parking availability for transit riders in this part of King County would improve the ability of local area residents to utilize transit and gain access to ST Express, light, rail and commuter rail, thus generating additional ridership for all Sound Transit service. Burien's current Park-and-Ride lot is consistently full, and parking will be limited at the ST South 154th Street station, such that the Burien Transit Center Parking Garage would assist both Sound Transit and Metro in addressing an ever-increasing demand for parking. Focus on hi2her levels of investment: The ST2 plan should focus on investments that can be achieved with a 0.4% or 0.5% sales tax increase, so that significant system improvements can be accomplished. At this early stage, it appears that the 0.4% or 0.5% sales tax increase levels will be needed in order to generate sufficient funds for the improvements that are needed. SCA TBd believes that the public will support higher levels of investment if it is convinced that the projects are needed and can be delivered. SCATBd encourages Pierce County's contributions to the extensions of light rail in south King County to increase the services to Pierce County residents. In addition, recognizing that ST2 will be coupled with RTID projects, both agencies will need to clarify the total cost to taxpayers so they understand what the package will buy and at what cost. SCA TBd looks forward to additional details about financial plans that will be available over the coming months. Consider a 25 year timeframe: A longer duration for the plan may result in a greater ability to make the needed investments. SCATBd understands that the current scenarios have been developed for a 20-year financing and implementation timeframe. SCA TBd suggests that Sound Transit and RTID consider a 25 year period for financing, which may improve bonding capabilities. However, this would need to be balanced with a concern about extending the implementation of projects until 2030. Minimize plannin2 or securin2 ri2ht of way for ST3: ST2 should be a large enough package to include the necessary improvements in this phase. 2 DRi~FT The Sound Transit Long-Range Plan, adopted by the ST Board in 2005, st~tes, "Throughout the ttredJlinft#lt1tation of the all-day, freque~t;and fast high capacity transit system, SotlndlQiilUil prioritize its light rail investment funds for the completion of the Everett-Seattle-Tacoma Link light rail system and the HCT system. directly connecting Bellevue with that north-south rail spine. Regionally-designated . urban centers not served on this prioritized system should be supported with transit facilities that will increase the centers' readiness for future Sound Transit service and system conriectivity." . Pursuant to this policy, SCATBd supports that inc1usionofthe Burien Parking . Garage!fransit Oriented Development project in theST2 plan. This project will enhance connectivity and service for the West Seattle-Burien area of Southwest King County. Increasing parking availability for transit riders in this part of King County would improve the abIlity of local area residents to utilize transit and gain acceSs to'ST Express, light, rail and cOminuter rail, thus generating additional ridership for all Sound Transit' service. Burien'scurrent Park":and-Ride lot is consistently full, and parking will be limited at the ST South .154th Street station, such that the BurienTransit Cent~~' Park;4tg . . Garage would assist both Sound. Transit "and Metro in addressing an ever':'incre~ing'... demand for 'parking~ . . .. Focus on hii!her levels of investment: The ST2plan should focus on. investments that can be achieved with a 0.4% or .0.5% sales tax increase, so that significant system improvem,e-nts can. be accomplished. At this early stage, it appears that the 0.4% or 0.5% sales tax increase levels will be needed in ordertogenerate sufficient funds for the improvements ihat are n~eded. .' SCA TBd believes tbatthe public will support higher levels of investment if it is convinced'that the projects are needed and can be delivered. SCA TBd encourages Pierce' County's contributions to the extensions of light rail in south King County to increase the services to Pierce County residents. In addition, recognizing that ST2 will beqoupled . with RTID projects, both agencies will need to clarify the total cost to taxpayers so they understand what the package will buy and at what cost. SCA TBd looks forward to . additional details about financial plaris that will be available over the coming months.. .' Consider a 25 year timeframe: A longer duration for the plan may result in a greater ability to make the needed investments. SCATBd understands that the current scenarios h~ve been developed for a 20-year financing and implementation timeframe. SCATBd suggests that Sound Transit and R TID consider a 25 year period. for financing, which may improve bonding capabilities. However, this would need to be balanced with a concern about extending the implementation of projects until 2030. Minimize nlalinini!or securini! rii!ht ofwav for ST3: STt should be a large enough package to include the necessary improvements in this phase. 2 T1A~1a DRAFT While 8CATBd recognizes that not an candidate projects are likely to be included in 8T2, it is supporting the higher levels of taxes at this time because it believes that the voters will support a package that will deliver projects of regional benefit. Because no one can be certain if or when 8T3 will happen, it would be very confusing and presumptuous to voters to publicly referto 8T3 until we can.have a finn delivery schedule for Phase Land Phase II improvements. . . - Coordinate sequencine of investments: The sequencing of Sound Transit and .RTID . investments should be coordinated to.provide the greatest benefit and minimize' impacts. . ~. ,. .~'.. 8CATBd believeSihe Board should explore with ih~ RTID Boatd the opportunjties of sequencing improvements so that early results are visible to the public, and ..' improvements can be distributed geographically'and modally to minimize impacts and . ensure continued mobility throughout the constructio~ period. The following examples are provided: . . . -Accelerate RTID and 8T improvements hi the 8R167, 1- 405 and 8R509 C~rrid9rs \ so that the maximum corridor capacity in both roads and tratisitcanbe' delivered to the public prior to the closure of the Viaduct. Withany'pz:otractedclosure of the Viaduct; I.:. . 5 alone cannot handle the significant traffic volumes' that would nonnally deiour to it. Therefore, the two Boards should seek to ex,pedite improvements iIi other Corridors in advance of the Viaduct closure to provide commuters and freight areliable detour . 4uringthe.tin1ewhen~e Viaduct is closed. Itririgb,t be useful to~ndtict'some regional modeling to determine the best alternatives for maintaining mobility durhig' . the closure of the Viaduct. - IfRTID investments in the 8R 520 corridor are a high priority for early implementation, RTID and 8T might consider focusing 8T2 early investments in the . .south corridor. This would distribute the impacts of construction throughout the' . region, minimizing adverse effects in one' area. In addition, "improvements such as '. parking in the commuter tail coiTidor would maximize use of Phase 1 investments and. . . encouragecoInmuters to shift from.SaVs to transit. This could also improve'll1obility for freight during this timefr~e. ';'I!;. \' ." ;"'1 . ',' . Once Sound Transit has finalized plans for8T2, SCATBd recommends that ST2 plans clearly articulate how the proposed regional investments would benefit the region and citizens of all subareas so that these issues do not become obStacles to Sound Transit's success in the next phase. In addition, 8CA TBd members have indicated the need to clarify for the public the distinctions betweeIiMetro Transit, Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and explain how the investments of each are complementary. This is important now in order to lay the groundwork for a . successful vote in the future. We want to remind you that these are our preliminary conitnents on 8T2, and they are predicated on assumption that these investments will be balanced with RTID investments throughout the region. When more information is available on potential RTID projects, we mayprovide additional comments for your use in refining 8T2 plans. 3 T~A~a DR AFT' In closing, SCA TBd appreciates your efforts to obtain our input and incorporate our lo'cal concerns into a regional plan. As other issues arise, we look forward to continuing to contribute toa regional plan that best serves al" interests. Sincerely, Councilmember p.am Carter Chair Mayor John Wise . Vice Chair South County Area Transportation Board . CC: S4awn Bunney, Chair, RTID ( 4 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT TO: Councilmember Jeanne Burbid'ge . FROM: N~al Beets, Derek Matheson, Cary Roe, Rick Perez, Doug Levy -9/26/06 RE: Background/talking points for Sound TransitIRTID Open House Sept. 27 @ King County Aquatics Center RESPONSE NEEDED: Call or e-mail if questions . . -~-------------------------------------------------------~---~----------------~-----------------------------' . . . . Councll Member B~rbidge: OriWedi1.esdaynight, Sound Tr~it (ST) and the Regional Transportatioo'1nvestment District (R'PD) willhold the latestiIi a series of Open Houses to layout information regarding the st Phase II scenarios and~e RTID's "Blueprint-for Progress"package of investments. The event will be in the Banquet Room. of the Aquatic Center? 6.50 SW Campus Drive.. . . '.... '. . '. . . . '" . The open Rouse will include presen,tatlonS by RTID and ST board members (including King Couraty CouncilMember Ju/iaPatterson and possibly either Council Member Vo1i Reichbauer and Council Member .Constantine), but will not include any public testimony., " Instead,this is an opportunity to m~re inrorInally and . conversationally un~erscore the .City's'positionsanc;l issues with respect to RTIDandST2. We plan to go before the LUSC OIi October 2 with recommendations for a more detailed .action plan, but in the meantilne,-wanted to provide you. vvith background regarding the 'City's ST2 and RTll . priorities. Following area seri.es of background points you should feel free to use and to: tailor to your conversations Wednesday night: .. . Overall J>>oints.. . " ~. .,' ..' '" .. . ...~. . ...~. ''':~' ....... . . '. . .' . . · . Federal Way strongly supports continued investment in transportation and transit infrastructure, both in terms of improving congested state highway corridors and in providing high-capacity transit alternatives to the public. . The City has strived to be a regiona:! player on these issues, but also wants to. ensure our growing community is treated fairly as joint ballot propositions are ironed out for Sound Transit Phase II and the RTID. . . ST Phase II · Federal Way believes that any Phase II ballot package should contain a Light Rail Transit extension to our City- specifically, extending LRT from the current SeaTac Airport terminus at least to the Federal Way Transit Center at 317'h Street. · Many of the most capital- and operating-intensive Sound Transit Phase 1 investments in South King County were devoted to commuter rail trains and commuter rail service running through the Green River Valley. We believe it is . critical that Phase II focus on light-rail transit extensions to the south and also believe it is important to connect the starter-light rail '-system in Tacoma to Federal Way at some future point. · The City has worked with our Federal Way Chamber, Sound Transit staff, arid citizens at large, .and strongly believes that a light-rail alignment running south . should utilize the Interstate 5 corridor. We have previously communicated this strong community preference to the ST Board. A previously-considered alignment along State Route 99 would unduly impact businesses that have been. affected by recent SR-99wideningprojects,couldcausevehi~iar and ped~strian safety problems, and would have visual and noise impacts as well. . RTID . '. eTheCity appreciates the~'Blueprint forPt~~ess" inclusion of the InterState'S,.. Highway' 18, Highway 161 'Triangle Interchange' in its listing of King County, Investments. Completion of the Triangle Interchange -.the state's fifth most congested interchange - is Federal Way's highest RTID priority. . . . . . '. The City also supports the full funding of the State Route 509 project atidv.vatits . .to ensure ihat as'RTID deals with project cost increases due to rising concrete'and asphalt prices, that the 509 project continue to feature "collector/distnbutor" l~es along 1-5 doWn to 320tb Street. '. '.. . . '. ." . . . .. In terms .of the Triangle, its overall cost has increased, as has been the case with . '. other project~.Becatise the Triangle can be completed for a relatively modest. amount offunditJ.g~ webelieve'it makes setlse for theRTID to increase itS.. investment in the Triangle to ensure it is;~lly funded upon a successful vote. '. . (NOTE: Overfill cost figures and project components are still under discUSsion, but it appears total cost will now be in the ra.nge 0[$240 million; WSDOTand the. City of Federal' Way have about $110 million in hand). i ;. ,. ~ ;:;-;. ,... .. . . ~~ . . . ~ South County Area Transportation Board MS: KSC-TR-0814 20 1 South Jac\cs:j)n Street Seattle. WA 98104-3856 Phone:, (206) 263-4710 Fax: (206) 684-2 II I . August 22, 2006 . The Honorable John Ladenburg Chair,. Sound Transit" Board 401 South Jackson Stre'et Seattle, W A 98104 Dear Chair Ladenburg: At the June, July and August meetings, the South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd) reviewed inform~tion provided by Sound Transit on possible scenarios for Soun~ Transit Phase 2 (ST2), .and discussed the following policy questions that are illustiatedby the various scenarios. . . . . . { '. . . . ..' - . L '.' Does SCATBdwant to recommend'.scenarios that focus on capital.more than operating? For example, extensions of light rail compared. to new or expansion of existing regional express bus routes? . .2. What is SCA TBd' s preference for focusing on the regional spine (light rail) compared to dispersed investments (parking facilities)? ". .... 3. How much cioes SCATBd wani to rec6mtnend for ST2 irivestnientsyersus planning for or securing nghtofway for ST3? '.. 4." Does SCA TBd want to rule out the lower tax. levels? If so, would SCATB4 recommend only .4 and .5, or also.3 scenarios? 5. Would SCATBd want to recommend that ST identify revenues for a 25-year period, . rather than a 20-year period? Does SCATBd want to weigh in on the assumption that . construction will occur simultaneo'-1Sly in the east, south and north corridors? Based.on tha:t discuSsion, the folloWing are SCATBd'& preliminary recommendations for your conSideration in developing more refined plan options for ST2. . Emphasize capital investments: The ST2 plan should emphasize extensions of the light rail line and include 'otherearly investments that will improve the use of 'Phase l' investments wh~e the light rail is being extended. seA TBd members agree that extending light rail as far south as possible is a high priority for ST2. fu addition, SeA TBd reels it is imperative to show citizens early progressQR ST2 projects. Because extension of the light rail spine will take longer to complete, SCATBd recommends providing complementary investments early in the Phase i implementation timeframe. This would include piojectssuch as additional parking in the commuter rail corridor, and a direct access ramp betweenSR 167 and Smith Street. fudeveloping 8T2 plans, Sound Transit will need to find the optimal balance between extension of the spine, which will occur. over the longer term, and continued improvements to existing service and dispersed investments, which could be implemented sooner. Algona. Auburn. Black' Diamond . Burien . Covington'. Des Moines. Enumclaw . Federal Way. Kent. King County. Millon Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Normandy Park. Pacific. Renton. ScaTac. TU,kwila. Pierce Transit. Port ofSeatlle . Sound Transit The Honorable John Ladenburg August 22, 2006 . Page 2 Support Urban Centers: Re'gionalIy-designated urban centers Dot served on this prioritized system should be supported with transit facilities that will increase the centers' readiness fo~ future Sound Transit service and system connectivity. 'The Sound Transit Long-Range Phm, adopted by the ST Board in 2Q05, states, "Throughout the phased implementation ofth~ all-day, frequent, and fast high capa~itytransit system, Sound Transit will prioritize its light rail investrrient funds for the completion ofthe Everett-S~ttle- Tacoma Link light rail system and the HCT system directly connecting Bellevue with that"north- south rail spine. . Regionally-designated urban centers not served on thi$ prioritized system should be supported with transit facilities that will increase the centers' readiness for future, S01,lhd Transit service and systemconnectivity.'~ ' . .. . . . Pursuant to this policy, SCATBd supports that inclusion of the. Burien Parking GarageJTransit Oriented Development project in the ST2 plan~ This project will enhance connectivity and . service for the W~st~eattIe-Burieri area of Southwest King County. Increasingparking . . availability for tran,SifridetSin this part of King c;ounty would improve the ability ofIocal area residents to utilize tninsit arid gain access to ST Express, light rail and commuter rail, thus generating adclitionalridership for all Sound Transit service. Bucien's current Park~and-Ride lot is consistently full, and parking will be limited at the ST South I 54th Street station~ such that the Burien Transit Center Parking Garage would assist both Sound Transit and Metro in addressing ~ ever-incre~ing demand for parking. " . . . Focus onhil!her levels ofiitvesbnent: The ST2 plan should focus oil investments that can be acbieved with 'a 0.4% or 0.5% sales tax increase, so that significant system improveme~ts can be accomp.lished. Anhis early stage, it appears that the 0.4% or 0.5% sales tax increase levels will be needed in order to generate suffici€mt funds for the improvements that are needed. SCA TBd ~elieves .that the public will support higher levels of investment ifit is convinced that the projects are needed and can be delivered; SCA TBd encourages Pierce County's contributions to the extensions of light rail in south King County to increase the services to Pierce County residents. In:'addition, recognizing that ST2 will be coupled. with RTID proj~cts, both agencies will need to clarify the total cost to taxpayers so they understand what the package will buy and at what cost. SCATBd looks forward to additional details about financial plans that will be available oyer the coming months.' . Consider a 25 year timeframe: A longer dnration for the plan may result in a greater ability to make the n~eded investments. SCATBd,understands that the current scenarios have been developed for a 20-year financing and implementation time frame; SCA TBd suggests that Sound Transit and R TID consider a 25 year period for financing, which may improve bonding capabilities. However, this would need to be balanced with a concern about extending the implementation of projects until 2030. The Honorable John Ladenburg August 22, 2006 Page 3 'Minimizeplannine or'secilrine rieht of way for. ST3: ST2 should be a . large. enough. package to include the necessary improveDlents in this pbase. While SCATBd recognizes that not all candidate projects are likely to be included in ST2, it is supporting the higher levels of taxes at this' time because it believes that the voters will support a package that will deliver projects of region ill benefit. Because no one can be certain ifor when ST3 will happen, it would be very confusing and presumptuous to voters to publicly refer to ST3 until we can have a firm delivery schedule for Phase l and.Phase.II improvements. . . Coordinate seQueneine ofinvestments: The sequencing. ofSou~d Transitaild RTID investments should be coordinated to provid'e the greatest benefit ~nd' minimize impacts. SCAT~d believes the Board should explorewith the R.TID Board the opportunitie~ of sequencing impr~>vementlisC)that early resultsareyisible to.the public, and improvements can be . distributed geograpJiically al1d Illodally to m.inimize imp3cts'.andensure continued m()~lity. throughout the construction period. The following examples are provided: · Accele~te RTID and ST improvements in the SR 167, 1- 405 and SR 509 Corridors so that the maximum corridor capacity in both roads and transit can be delivered to the public prior to the closure of the Viaduct. With any protracted closure of the Viaduct, 1-5 alonec~t handle . the significant trafflc volumes that would nomially detour to it. Therefore, the two Boards . . should seek to expedite improvements in other Corridors in advance of the Viaduct closure to .' provide commuters and freight a reliable detour during the time when the Viaduct is closed, It might be useful to conduct some regional modeling to determine the best alternatives for maintaining. mobility during the closure ofthe Viaduct. . · IfRTID investments in the SR 520 corridor are a high priority for early implementation, RTIO and STmight consider focusing ST2early investments in the South corridorr This would distribute theiinpacts of construction throughout the region, rniniinizing adverse .effects in one area. In.additi.on,. improvements such as parking in 'the commuter tail corridor would : maximize use of Phase I investments and encourage commuters to shift from Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV)to transit.. This could also improve mobility for freight during this timeframe. Once Sound Transit has finalized plans for ST2, SCA TBd recommends that ST2 plans clearly articulate how the proposed regional investments would benefit the tegion and citizens of all subareas so that thes~ issues do not become obstacles to Sound Transit's succ.ess tn the next phase. In addition, SeA TBd members have indicated the need to clarify for the public the distinctions between Metro Transit, Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and explain how theinvestments of each are complementary. This is important now in order to lay the groundwork for a successful vote in the future. . We want to remind'you.that these are our pteliminarycomments on.ST2, and they are predicated on assumption that these investments will be balanced with RTlD investments throughout the region. When more information is available on potential RTID projects, we may' provide additional comments for your use in refining ST2 plans. The Honorable John Ladenburg August 22, 2006 Page 4 . . In closing, SCATBd appreciates yow- efforts t(j'obtain.our input and incorporate our local . concerns into a regional plan. As other issues arise, we look fO'rward to continuing to 'Contribute to a regional plan that best serves all interests. Sincerely, ~.~ 9'h~ . John Wise . . . Mayor, City of Enumclaw Vice Chair South County Area Transportation Board PamCarler . Councilmember, City of Tukwila . Chair cc: The Honorable Shawn:Bunriey~ ChaitlRTID